Let us look at the second approach in which we estimate the wing loading from specified constraints first and then use that number to back calculate the required t by w from other constraints. For this there are 3 or 4 constraints which depend only on wing loading. I remember them as the 3 inks and the instantaneous turn ceiling, stalling and climbing. So stalling speed constraint is directly affected by V stall. So the W by S value directly is a value of the V stall that is specified because W by S is equal to half rho V square C L max where V is V stall and C L is C L max. So from there one can easily get the value. The urban requirements for operational safety are specified in some cases especially in FR-23. So for instance for FR-25 if we look at military and civil aircraft the V takeoff has to be 1.1 times V stall and the V climb has to be 1.2 times V stall or more. These are as specified. The approach speed has to be at least 20% higher than V stall and the thrust on velocity has to be at least 10% higher than V stall both for military aircraft and in the case of civil aircraft the margins are slightly higher 30% for approach speed and 15% for thrust on speed respectively. So the regulations are also sometimes very explicit regarding the stalling speed. For example if the aircraft is to be designed for FR-23 then if a single engine aircraft is used then V stall has to be less than 61 knots. So once you know the value of C L max then you can easily get value of the upper limit on the W by S which can correspond to that particular V stall. As you can see in this equation if the value of C L max is known and assuming that the density is density at C level or the altitude at which the velocity is given the highest value of permitted V stall will directly give you the highest value of the wing loading. Landing distance constraint. This is how we define the landing distance. The obstacle height is considered to be 50 feet as against the obstacle height of 35 feet for takeoff. So the aircraft is supposed to be above the runway when it reaches the obstacle height and then it is supposed to approach the runway at a particular approach angle. Usually this angle is 3 degrees but it can vary slightly depending on the setting of the instruments installed by the airport authority at various airports. Once it touches down it is supposed to decelerate and stop. So here there are interesting differences. So this distance which is from touch down to stop this distance is called as the landing ground roll or ground roll at landing ground roll. But from the point where the obstacle height is reached to the point where you stop that distance is called as the landing distance or LD, landing distance. So landing distance is going to be the landing roll plus the approach distance. Though this will be the approach distance this will be the landing distance and the total of these. Now the FAR field length, the FAR landing field length includes a factor of 0.667 which is a dividing factor. So the FAR landing field length will be the landing distance divided by 0.667. So that is because they want to specify a margin in the, they want to specify some margin to take care of the pilot technique to take care of the weather conditions etc. So this is how we define the landing distance. This angle is the approach angle. So the aircraft is expected to approach at an angle specified by each airport. This angle is approximately 3 degrees but it can vary slightly. The obstacle height in the case of landing distance calculation is specified as 50 feet in contrast with the obstacle height of 35 feet specified for takeoff. So when the aircraft is above the obstacle height on the runway and approaches touches down and then comes to a stop. This distance from the starting point where the obstacle height is reached to the stop point is called as the landing distance or LD. So LD will include the approach distance which is from here to here and the landing roll which is here from here to here. Now the distance after touchdown to the point where you stop is called as the landing run or landing roll. So landing distance is equal to the approach distance plus the landing roll. And FAR regulations specify a safety factor above this as the landing field length. So the landing field length or FAR landing field length will be equal to the landing distance which is from the obstacle height to the stop point divided by 0.667. This margin of 0.667 in the denominator increases the landing distance and this extra length takes care of differences in pilot approaching or flaring techniques, weather conditions, runway conditions etc. So let us see. Ramer has given a generic formula for estimating the landing distance in feet in terms of the wing loading in pounds per square feet, sigma density ratio, CL max and SA is the approach distance. So this distance approach distance which is called as SA is a function of the obstacle height and the angle by simple trigonometry. So if you have 3 degree glide slope, this distance SA can be approximately 1000 feet which is the case for most transport aircraft. If you have a general aviation aircraft that comes in with a power off approach, you can allow a larger angle of theta and therefore this larger angle theta would lead to a shorter distance. And if you have a stall aircraft which comes at a much larger glide slope say a 7 degree glide slope, then you know you can have further reduction in the approach distance. So depending on the condition, depending on the type of the aircraft, the approach distance varies slightly. So you can estimate the landing distance using this particular formula, approach distance using the angle and then you can see that the constraint on landing field length will put an upper limit on wing loading. So the constraint on landing and the constraint on stalling both of them put the upper limit and then we pick up whichever is more critical from that. Let us now look at the third category of constraints which affect directly both W by S and T by W. So the constraint from climb requirements is one such example. The rate of climb of an aircraft is nothing but dh by dt, the vertical velocity and the climb gradient as defined is the excess thrust upon weight or the specific excess thrust T minus d upon W. So from here you can easily show that d by W will be equal to T by W minus g and then this T is equal to d and d will be essentially so d will be equal to T and that will be equal to half rho v square S cd and cd is equivalent to cd0 and kcl square. So from there you can derive this expression. So in short what you get is a quadratic in W by S because W by S appears in the denominator as well as in the numerator. So if you do simple geometrical, simple algebraic calculations it can be shown that the wing loading would be obtained by this expression and with this you get a condition. This particular quantity cannot be more than this quantity. So from there you can get a condition and the condition is that you know T by W has to be always more than g plus this particular quantity and this can easily give you, you can easily, the actual value of W as will come from here but a quick estimate on the lower limit of thrust to weight ratio can be given by this expression. So if the gradient is specified let us say 2 percent or 4 percent, if cd0 is known, if the aspect ratio is known if E can be estimated then some minimum value of T by W will automatically be estimated using this particular observation. Takeoff field length, now in takeoff field length we have a similar thing like we saw in the landing field length. So you start from where you are addressed and when you proceed to a place where you have lift off in case all engines are working and there is no incident that particular distance on the ground from start to the place where you leave the ground is the takeoff ground roll and then the aircraft starts climbing and when it starts climbing at some distance on the ground it will clear the obstacle height. This obstacle height is 35 feet for civil aircraft and 50 feet for military aircraft. So the total distance from the on the ground from where you start to where you can achieve the obstacle height clearance that will be the takeoff and there is a concept called as a takeoff balance field length in which the total takeoff distance with one engine not one engine becoming in operational at a particular speed called a V1. Even when this happens and the pilot continues with only other engines working the distance that you cover on the ground is same as the distance that you cover if you come to a stop if that is the case then that distance on the ground is called as the takeoff balance field length. So whether you are specified the takeoff ground run roll or the takeoff distance or the takeoff balance field length you can use simple formulae to calculate the constraint values. So takeoff ground roll is basically from V equal to 0 to V equal to V lift off. So using V square minus U square is equal to 2AS the S will be coming as VLO square by 2A where A is the acceleration. The lift off velocity is basically the velocity at which you achieve lift equal to weight with CL at CL lift off which is slightly lower than CL max. So by putting the value of CL lift off 2W by rho s under root will give you VLO and hence the simple force is equal to mass into acceleration formula tells you that the force that is acting is the thrust force and the mass is W by G and A is the acceleration. So from here you can get T by W is equal to A upon G. So we have this expression A upon G for A upon G we have a expression for V0. So in this expression we can say Togr is equal to VLO square will become 2W by rho s CL lift off and divide by 2A would become 2 times T by W by G. So with this you can get an expression. So what will happen is the W by s will be in the numerator and T by W will be in the denominator and if you simplify this then you can easily show that takeoff ground run is basically K to W by s by sigma CL takeoff deliver W. So what we have done here is we have removed rho and rho not and replace it with sigma and we have taken the constant 1 by G rho not and put it as the K. So you can see that W by s and T by W. So you can say that takeoff ground run is equal to some constant A times W by s upon T by W T by W where this A will be this whole constant K by sigma CL lift off. So we can define something called as a takeoff parameter which is the value of this Togr upon K this Togr upon K. So if you take this K on the denominator you bring the K here. So you will have takeoff parameter Togr over K and this parameter TOP. So W by s will be the TOP into sigma CL lift off T by W. So this is a simple expression you get. Now this expression correlates wing loading with thrust to weight ratio. This is for jet engine aircraft and a similar expression will be obtained for the turbo prop or piston prop engine aircraft. So using this expression we can get an estimate for the takeoff parameter and through that a link between W by s and T by W. So this graph given by is a very interesting graph because in one graph he has given us either depending on which requirement is specified. So for instance if you have been given the balance field length and you have been told that this is for an aircraft with some n number of jet engines where minimum would be 2 because you cannot have less than 2 engines in a passenger aircraft. So depending on for which kind of aircraft the BFL or balance field length is specified what you can do suppose we are given that the balance field length is approximately 9000 feet for an aircraft with 4 engines.  So then what you get is that 250 is equal to W by s divided by sigma cl takeoff T by W. Sigma and cl takeoff are known numbers so you get a direct link between W by s and T by W. Similarly if you are given the condition that for an aircraft which is powered by a propeller the takeoff ground roll is 2000 feet.  This is the line for a propeller given an aircraft and this is for ground roll you get the takeoff parameter is around 300 or if you have given the similar requirement for jet engine aircraft either the distance over 50 feet or distance on the ground roll that means either the takeoff distance or takeoff roll. You can use the corresponding line and get the estimation of takeoff parameter and the same graph is working for both the piston prop and turbo prop engine aircraft. So with this one graph you can get the takeoff parameter and you can use that to draw the lines. So a constraint diagram essentially is a diagram in which on the y axis we have something like the design thrust to weight ratio. So this is the TSL by WTO and on the x axis you have the wing loading the design wing loading that is wing loading of the aircraft when it is at takeoff divide by the wing area. So here once again I would like to reiterate that the numerical values that you will get for various segments of the mission or for various constraints are actually going to be applicable for the wing loading and thrust loading at that particular point. But you have to bring it down or you have to scale it up or scale it down to the values at the pre takeoff conditions because this graph is going to be only one for all the constraints. So this could be a line specified from say the stalling consideration which is an upper limit so you cannot have any loading more than this. And you know this could be a line which is specified from some other constraint and there is another line. So the area that is feasible is going to be only above these lines and one has to always put some limit on the T by W it cannot be unlimited on the top. So there will be some constraint on the top which will say that T by W cannot be more than a particular number. So you end up with the solution space and now you have a choice to pick up any point in this space and that would be a feasible point. But when you are going to pick up any point in this feasible space it is important that you pick up that point which gives you the highest wing loading and lowest thrust to weight ratio. So which would be either this point or this point or this point. So some people would pick up this point citing that thrust to weight ratio is the lowest but this is another good candidate to be picked up because with a slight increase in thrust to weight ratio we are getting a phenomenal increase in the W by S value. We would like W by S to be as high as possible because that gives you a smaller wing and we would like T by W to be as low as possible because that gives you the smallest engine and the least fuel consumption. So between any point in this design space the corner points are optimal. So we would choose this point as our design point because this will represent as I said the best condition of highest possible wing loading and the lowest possible W by S correspondingly. Also notice that we are not picking up this point we are leaving a small margin and that margin is meant for allowing the growth because as we mentioned in the beginning the requirements are going to always creep and also the aircraft is going to pick up excess weight as its life progresses. So designing the aircraft for the absolute optimum at this point it may be disastrous because very soon the aircraft may actually go out of the feasible space. So therefore we always give some margin so a little bit of margin on W by S and a little bit of margin so a little bit excess T by W a little bit lower W by S is always given and hence the design point is taken to be slightly lower along this direction from the absolute intersection point. Thanks for your attention we will now move to the next section.


We know that McElroy's form is unmatched right now. He's got, I think, six straight top five finishes, hasn't finished outside of the top five since September, so the current form, unreal. But he's also got a good track record at this course because this will be Rory's sixth time at this event. He has finished worse than 11th just once. That was back in 2016, and that really bad finish was 27th. Since then, Rory has been fourth, first, and sixth. That win came in 2018 when he shot a 64, just a couple of strokes off the course record. So he's white hot, he kills his course, the stats are elite. Any reasons for trepidation for you with Rory McElroy? So first, any concerns about Rory? No. Just, I mean, no. He's been so good for so long. He's been so consistent. He scores fantasy points. He is always in contention for a win. Whether he converts on that win is another conversation, but really no issues with Rory. He really stands out, and I'm very much okay fading the most expensive, most popular, the favorite golfer of the week very often. With Rory, it's been so hard because he does everything. He just is always in the mix. So no, no real issues with Rory. Let's stick with Rory for here for a second. How heavy can you see yourself being in tournaments? Because my guess is he'll be 45% in most large field tournaments. Yeah, I'd be overweight on that. Yeah, I would too. He's gonna be on the majority of my lineups.  But you throw that into a smaller field.


Hello and welcome. My name is Shannon Kemp and I'm the executive editor of Data Diversity. We would like to thank you for joining this month's Summit of Monthly Data Diversity Webinar Series, CDO Vision. This series is designed to give you around education on data strategy topics in addition to our annual face-to-face CDO Vision event. We're already well underway for planning next year's event to be held in Atlanta, Georgia. In fact, we've got a call for presentations out right now, if anyone, that's extended through tomorrow. This month in the webinar series, John Lyle and Kelly O'Neill will discuss data governance and EIM, taking the scary stuff out of your programs. Just a couple of points to get us started. Due to the large number of people that attend these sessions, you will be muted during the webinar. For questions, we'll be collecting them by the Q&A in the bottom right-hand corner of your screen. Or if you'd like to tweet, we encourage you to share how it's a question by Twitter using hashtag CDO Vision. As always, we'll send a follow-up email within two business days containing links to the slides. The recording of this session and additional information requested throughout the webinar. Now, let me introduce our speakers for today. Well-known industry analyst John Lyle is a business technology thought leader and recognized authority in all aspects of enterprise information management. With 30 years experience in planning, project management, improving IT organizations, and successful implementation of information systems. He is the president and chief delivery officer at Perth San Francisco Partners. As well as Kelly O'Neill, Kelly is the founder and CEO of Perth San Francisco Partners. Having worked with the software and system providers key to the formulation of enterprise information management, Kelly has played important roles in many of the groundbreaking initiatives that confirm the value of EIM to the enterprise. Recognizing an met need for clear guidance and advice on intricacies of implementing EIM solutions, she founded Perth San Francisco Partners in early 2007. And with that, I will turn it over to John and Kelly to get today's webinar started. Hello and welcome. Thank you very much. Thank you very much, Shannon and John here and Kelly over there. And we're going to have a little fun today with some serious topics because sometimes you have to have fun with this stuff. So we're going to kind of follow the October theme here. And while we're here, and the reason, well, while not while we're here, but why are we here? And we're going to talk about some of those things that motivate people to do things that aren't quite beneficial to EIM programs, data governance programs, analytics, MDM, data quality, whatever, all of those. We all, probably all of us listening probably have some sense of where things with messages can't get across, why there's hesitancy, why there's delays, and there's a lot of time. And Kelly, you can echo a lot of our questions after a session at a conference are based on, how do I get someone to listen? They won't do this, they won't do that. And we're going to kind of dive into that in a life-hearted way today, but hopefully with some good serious advice for those of you that are brave enough to stay with us during this almost terrifying webinar and learn some coping skills. Most of this is induced by fear. Two basic human emotions, if you talk to a psychiatrist and psychologist, and that is love and fear. And fear does motivate us, even though we don't quite know it is fear. And we're going to use that theme here today. And Kelly and I are going to go back and forth and tag team on things. We have a list of scary things, and it's not the spiders and the pumpkins and the hands and all of that, but it's just some topics. I'm not going to read them all. They're there for you to look at when you found those or whatever. But it goes across a bunch of scenarios, a bunch of things people say, and we're going to look at what those fears that come in that topic are, and then we're going to look at what some of the responses you could have. Along the way, we're going to see a lot of Halloween scary things. And for absolutely no prize whatsoever other than our acknowledging you during the Q&A session, if you can guess the media or source of the picture we're putting up there, then you might be able to embrace 2.4 seconds of fame here on this webinar. So pay close attention and have your fingers ready to ask us questions and submit some things. So the first one here is failure is not an option. In fact, for most of us we have to acknowledge it is inevitable. Kelly, these things don't go perfectly smooth right off the gate, do they? Certainly not. And I think that this idea of being prepared to fail and it be okay is, like you said, it's inevitable and should be planned for. That's right. So when the poor soul here in the picture did pick out the brain from a Mr. A, B, and normal, there was certain chastising going on, but he didn't get fired because as far as I would know, he was in the rest of the movie. Some things you might hear on this is I need to focus on my area. This is distracting. I don't have time. It's never worked before. One thing I heard very recently which I really enjoyed was our data. It's like the weather around here. We get the first number and we ignore it because we know it's going to change tomorrow. Those are signs of people not being particularly enthused or engaged, but to Kelly's point is there should be no penalties. Tell people either the people you're working with, your stakeholders, employees, whatever. You're using predictive models, you're using analytics. You know what? The first ones are going to require adjusting. You're using data quality program. Those first profiles are going to show ugly stuff and you might realize that the profiles are maybe overstating data quality problems or something like that. You have to be aware or ask for a little bit of leeway when these first two things happen. For example, if you're rolling out a policy and the policy doesn't quite sit well with the organization, then nobody should feel like they're going to get fired over that. Just make some adjustments. If you're going to do data standards and they're a bit too harsh, which they tend to be initially, you should have the leeway to adjust those. You don't want people to say that it's not going to work. It's going to fail, so we're just not going to engage. We're not going to participate. Anything to add to that one, Kelly? I think that this is one of the topics that we've touched on in a variety of different ways throughout the year. The idea is that with a new initiative comes change. With change comes trying and sometimes failing. This thought process of an initial launch that is really enthusiastic, lots of dedication, lots of resources, executive sponsorship, et cetera. And then as the work starts to happen, things might fail and things might go wrong. And so then as people start to get discouraged, they fall into what we call the trough of disillusionment. And that trough of disillusionment many times is where programs get abandoned, as opposed to understanding that that trough inevitably occurs in any sort of change cycle. And the idea is to pick up on those learnings from the failures to move out of the trough of disillusionment so that you ultimately come out on the other side with a stronger program, stronger success, better understanding of your data, et cetera. So this is, I'm glad that this is the first one, because to me that's a really good and important thing is understanding that failure will occur and it's actually an opportunity to learn in a positive thing. Absolutely. And by the way, the winner of Absolutely Nothing for the first panel was Todd, who successfully identified this as a scene from Young Frankenstein or Frankenstein, because that's how it's really pronounced. The answer has already come in from the second slide. Oh my gosh. Now we know how to get them to pay attention, Kelly. Okay. Award here. All right. Crazy scenarios. There's a spirit where we hear, boy, we see this a lot. Things headed in different directions. Did we miss one? I think we missed one. Did we miss one? Can you go back one? Yeah. Did we miss one? There we are. This is another one of my favorites. There is a ghost. There is a ghost here in my presentation because let's get this slide. So we have a poltergeist. Okay. Consequences of mistakes. So not only do you have people thinking you're going to fail and you have to allow for that, it's your own personal fears. You've never done this before.  There's too many moving parts. We have this roadmap from this consultancy that brought us this with 10 million things to do. We can never get caught up in all of that. Here's some things we tell folks. Neither has a lot of other people. You're not alone with this. These things can be overwhelming. Data governance especially, there is a tendency for folks to realize this was a lot more work than I thought it was going to be. And that is a great maturing moment right there. The other thing, a lot of people forget this. Kelly, I don't know why. We took over 30 years plus for some of these systems to get to this point with data. And you're not going to fix it in one or two. We've seen some CDOs in the last few years move on from their jobs because they didn't work miracles in the 18 months they were given to work miracles. And that's frankly unfair to the chief data officer. And then lastly, prioritization is a core business function. You're supposed to prioritize things. Do what helps the business earlier.  We're going to talk more about slices in a little bit. But do what's important first, right, Kelly? Absolutely. I think everyone prioritizes in their job. I haven't talked to anybody who's not feeling like they're overworked or too busy. That's the nature of the world we live in now. So regardless of whether it's EIM or any other aspect of the business, prioritization is a requirement. Absolutely. And the winner of absolutely nothing on this slide is Wayne, who has once again young Frankenstein and Gene Wilder, the late grade Gene Wilder as featured on here. And he's saying at this point in time it's alive, right? So now let's go to this other slide, which someone has already got the correct answer for. Who doesn't have, Kelly, who doesn't have a whole bunch of stuff going on that seem to be disparate areas in the EIM world, but nobody's talking to each other, right? That's right. Yeah. So this is manifested by, you know, there's the MDM program over there, and then the analytics program, and you've got a consulting firm X and IT working here and consulting firm Y and the business area working over here, and they've never talked to each other. You've got IT doing something for a business unit, and the business isn't paying attention, because they don't want to talk to IT. They, because they don't like them. Or you have the executive vice president getting everything they want, the squeaky wheel has been greased, and they have their consultants in there, and it's a darling effort, and there's been no balance or business alignment done, but it's out there banging away anyway. And the scary part is, and we're talking about scary things today, is all three of these can be happening at the same time, right? That's the real scary part. Kelly, I'm up about, maybe I can count maybe on two hands, but I'm somewhere between five and 10 big organizations in the last four years, I've talked to, that are doing exactly this. Three things headed in different directions, and it's all the same discipline. And I think the irony is that many times they know that they're headed in different directions, and it's difficult to break down those walls in between groups that have accountability for a program and what is an enterprise accountability. And if someone's given the requirement to execute a program many times, especially in the form of master data management, people associate it really tightly with a project, then they go off because they've got a time commitment, a budget commitment, et cetera, and their incentive and potentially a bonus is based on the successful delivery, as opposed to an integrated delivery approach based on the fact that the data is being used also in the analytics program, also in the data governance and data quality program. So I think that organizations actually set up these silos and these walls sometimes purposefully, which is scary. It's scary, and we're talking about scary things. The other scary thing is I have had conversations and interviews with EVPs and VPs, and I said, yes, I know this is going on over there, but what can I do about it? I've told them we really should do something more integrated, and they go, no, or some of the other excuses we're going to see here in a little while. That's where we come up with our remedy, which is, and this is a real simple one step. What we've talked about this during the year is technical debt and data debt. We don't need to go into it now and listen to our metrics presentation we did a few months ago or just sent us an email, whatever. You can measure the amount of technical and data debt you are accruing by doing this. It is not that hard to measure it nowadays, and if you show that number to somebody and they do ignore it, then the illness is on them because you show them a pretty scary, scary number, and we're talking about scary stuff today. The winner is Maxine on that slide, who nailed this one within a nanosecond of the slide coming up, so there we go. That's pretty good. And of course, that's McCauley where the heck is he now? Culkin as the actor in that role. Moving on, let's see if the ghost doesn't get us, and we can go from six to seven. Yes, we can. There we go. Again, different directions. You want to go an easier way, but you're going to create long-term havoc, but something is politically expedient to do it that way, so we will get, again, we're going to coordinate different data governance efforts. Or our MDM project is dependent on data governance, and we're going to do the data governance, so it'll be standalone. Or if someone says, you know, why rent to a conference and data lakes are great because the data volumes remove the need for data quality or data governance, that means they were just letting someone spelling a product. And so they make a pronouncement and go down the wrong direction at will. So this is similar to the prior slide, but they're mentioning all three together, and again, it's the same solution, add up the technical depth. Anything to add to that, Kelly? Kind of a similar thing, the last one. That's another idea. I just think this idea, and whether it is owned by governance or maybe it's owned by the EIM program, but the idea of adding up the technical depth and the data depth, I think, is going to flow throughout all of these scary statements, and nobody in the organization has that on their title, but it might be something to consider as owners of these programs to keep your own little cheat sheet of what you think the implications are going to be of some of these decisions, because it really can add up quite significantly over time and without recognition. So it's a great concept. Absolutely, and the other remedy, because everyone's wondering, gee, where's our scary picture? The other piece of advice is don't hide behind the chainsaws. Now let's see how fast it takes for someone to get this one right while I move ahead. This was one of my favorite things I saw on television last year. And we got an answer, and it is incorrect. So we're going to let that one percolate a while. Everyone take a good look at that picture, and we will move on. But one last piece of advice, when there's lots of nasty things going on, don't hide behind the chainsaws. See, that's important. That's valuable advice today, right, Kelly? I mean, where else are you going to hear that, to not hide behind the chainsaws in a data management forum here? Okay. Us versus them. And when I was looking, you know, for the pictures here, I wanted to get, you know, what is weird, and nothing defines weirds for, there we go, the Adam's family. And that's Gail and Sue. Got those literally simultaneously here. And someone, Maxine, just got the last one, it is from a GEICO commercial that aired last year. IT has a poor reputation. Data management has a poor reputation. Or worse, other strategic benedicts can do that, but they're weird and I don't want to do what they're doing. So you're like that weird neighbor, the Adam's family, and you can't either afraid to go outside or afraid to be seen in public. Now, the remedies here are, call a truce, all right? First of all, IT is not out there deliberately to mess with business people, nor is the opposite true. Things have evolved to get where they are. At some point you have to say, look, let's move forward together. Everyone needs to do some sort of data management in this world. There is no such thing as doing business without data management now. There's no such thing as being a regulated business without having data governance now. You know, embrace that. There's no longer an option. Someone has to deal with that. You know, the Adam's family had some neighbors that didn't like them. You know what, they moved in, they bought the house, and they decorated it kind of weird. But you know what, you're stuck with it. You've got to move on. You've got to live with it, right? Absolutely, absolutely. And the blending across all of these different organizational boundaries, it's no longer in us versus them in any stretch. I think people are starting to see that. I think that's the good news. That is the good news. That is the good news. And several people, again, like I said, Sue and Gail simultaneously. I guess the Adam's family there, of course, that's the TV version that was on when I was a little shaver.  Unfortunately, I can't do the music through this facility or we would be stinging it together. We're going to move our picture ahead a little bit here, the cartoons of the 80s. And we're talking about fear. Rupro, it's too severe. We just can't take this risk. We can't mitigate the risk. It's too scary. You know, data governance does equal change. So does predictive analytics. So is MDM. So is all of this. We also hear it's too busy to get it. We don't have time to absorb it, things like that. A couple of ways to get around this one. And I know you've got thoughts on this one, Kelly, because we've had some interesting clients in the last two or three years of various degrees of resistance that have been exhibited. Yet the perception of change and impact independently assessed. Okay.  They'll say this isn't a big deal. This is a seed change, but this is how you need to deal with it. Urging folks that this is a long-term proposition. You hear people complain that we're always thinking tactically. We're always thinking tactically. Always well-hanging. Well, guess what? This stuff is long-term. You finally got what you asked for.  You might get it. A lot of folks we work with are actually getting the onus of starting up a long-term seed change of a business program. And it's kind of scary. It never did it before. There are remedies, like just do core data elements first, do core metrics first, go a domain at a time. We've talked about all these rollout options before. There's all kind of ways to lessen the impact and not make it severe. But, you know, again, it's a source of fear, but there are ways around it. The fact that the fears themselves, those statements are unfounded. In fact, it does equal a change, but, you know, nothing worth doing right is going to be no change, right? Anything to add to that, Kelly, before I move on? Well, I think in our day and age, the impact of doing nothing is more severe than the impact of getting started. And so if you're thinking about the assessing an impact, that would be a perspective that I think would be extraordinarily meaningful.  It doesn't need to be a big program. The idea is that you start by doing something that's small, meaningful, and impactful, and grow from there. So I think sometimes, and, you know, I feel like sometimes we're guilty of creating this impression at the conferences and all of that, that it is, you know, that there's a lot to it. It's a big program.  But the implementation can be bit by bit. And over time, it grows. It's, you know, it's planting one flower in the field. And after a while, you've got a field of a thousand different flowers. So that is the way of making the impact, as opposed to waiting and seeing what the impact is if you do nothing. Yep, yep. One other bit of a remedy before we move on here and don't forget the Scooby Snacks. Right? This one was really easy. A lot of correct answers. This was like, so we're going to make this one a little bit harder. Name the character on the far left of the picture. All right. And also name the personality or actor who provided the voice of that character. And we'll see how, what kind of trivia knowledge we have out there in the area of cartoons. There's some rapid Googling happening right now. Bang, yes. There's people that, yeah. So it's, there we go. We had three people, Noelle and Todd and Gideon. I'll guess that that shaggy is the character and Casey Kasem, the greatest jockey in the American top 40, was the voice of shaggy. Oh, very, very good. Oh, another problem. This is such a smart group here. Well, they're already snapping in names to the next one and I haven't even answered the question. Good. But I got a twist for you folks that are typing furiously right now. Just wait till the end of this slide. All right. Another monolithic strategy. Boy, have we heard that. Oh, this is just like dot, dot, dot. Insert your expired program here, right? All right. There's something else that we see here when people say we're not going to do a big bang. We're not going to get into that. We're going to be incremental because we're not going to do it like that other thing we did. That was a big bang. And then we start to look at road maps and how things are rolling out and do assessment of current programs. And what we find inevitably is without conscious effort, people are sneaking towards a big bang. We just recently, not where I'm sitting now, but with another client recently, looked at everything. I said, do you realize you've crafted a big bang here for yourselves? Oh, no, it's incremental. We incremental are doing four different work tracks and they all get implemented on the same day. No, that's a big bang, okay? And a lot of people will think it has to be centralized and people don't consider, even with all the literature that's out there, that federation is really, really important. So the remedy here, you know what, we've learned a lot in the last five to 10 years about these types of projects. These things are becoming more and more successful and you're going to see stuff from us coming up next year that we're getting ready for of success stories and the ads, the more and more analytics success stories, the governance success stories, they are adding up like crazy right now. So no, folks, this stuff can work and you need to convey that to people. You need to create value, though. You need to show value. It's not just putting in the tool. Putting in the tool and getting the tool it up is not success. You need to show business value. And the last thing is a lot of us have strategies out there and they go, why don't we implement our roadmap that the consulting firm did? Well, because you don't know how to execute and no one bothered to learn how to execute on a roadmap. And it's a useless vehicle unless someone has told you how to take action on it. So that is the other remedy. Before we wrap up here, Kelly, anything to add on this? Yeah, I think just a couple of things. I think one is we've learned a ton as an industry. I think the other thing is if you hear a comparison, it's just like this other failed program, that's a learning opportunity as well. Why did it fail? What were the challenges? How can we prevent it from happening again? What can we learn from it? Again, failure is going to occur. So how can we learn from that failure rather than repeating it? So I think that that's one thing. And I think the other thing is in terms of tying it to a strategy, it can't be an isolated strategy. It needs to be tied back to the core strategy of the business. So if there's not a clear link between the data strategy or the information strategy and the business strategy, then people will start to lose interest over time. They won't have the stamina to make it through the trough of disillusionment. And they won't necessarily see that the resources that are being requested are meaningful and will have an impact on the way that they're taking their business anyway. So for example, moving from a B2B business to a B2C business, a lot of companies that have traditionally sold through distributorships are trying to create a relationship with the customer directly. It's happening in every industry. We've got a client who's looking at that right now. And that is a corporate strategy. And that has a huge information and data impact. Therefore, everything that should be done should tie back to the execution of that corporate strategy. And thus, your information strategy is your corporate strategy and vice versa. Oh, I guess that's another remedy here, that if you are in a program that's languishing now as governance analytics or whatever and you can't get the engagement and all that and you have a nice roadmap, try to say we are doing these for trying to do these types of data governance activities or MDM activities or data quality, whatever. And what business strategy, what bottom line balance sheet and income statement results might we be helping with our activity? If you can't answer that, you haven't done alignment as alignment should be viewed. If we just recently looked at another roadmap done by a different firm and we were just asked to do a review and it was a fine, fine document. It was hefty and had lots of great pictures in it and roadmap and it was very detailed and it was actually pretty good quality work except it was missing one thing and that was all this activity that's being done. What's it for? And I suggest ask whoever did this for you what is the intent behind it and they went, well, you're going to use this and do your business things. Well, why isn't that in there? Why don't you have content to show that to people? I said, well, you know, the organization is based on these two principles where we're wonderful with our customer and we're super efficient, most competitive price type stuff. We go, that's awesome, but if you are that, what do you want to, what's it look like next year? What does being customer intimate look like next year? What's the goal? What's the target that you're trying to hit? How does it tie that together? So they had a pretty decent strategy, they had a pretty decent roadmap, no way that's going to stick, no way that's going to stick. You've got to be careful who you ask for help from. Now, this particular character on this slide, everyone we've had, let's see, we have Maxine, Michelin and Wayne have correctly identified Michael Keaton and the movie Beetlejuice, but here is our little twist. I don't say Beetlejuice three times or you are on your own, right, if you remember the movie, but notice how I spelled that. This is pronounced Beetlejuice by those that are in the hobby, but it also represents something else. What does that represent? And we'll see if anyone is, and then what is the correct pronunciation for sure? Oh, there we go. Todd is on fire. So is Jill. I'm waiting for the pronunciation. We'll keep going here and see if anyone can phonetically spell it and go from there. We're going to have to wait, open it up for Q&A because everybody else is on mute. I thought about asking to unmute everybody today, but I would have been a bit chaotic. This next one is kind of, it's scary because people act like this. We're having fun today, but this is kind of scary. All right, we got the answer correct. The last one, the word I put up there is a binary star system, which we call Beetlejuice in the astronomy hobby world, but the correct pronunciation is Betelgas. But when I hear Beetlejuice, you think of, if you have a telescope, you think of the star formation. All right, so this thing here, hiding the truth versus being honest. Has anyone out there in a listener land done a data quality work or looked at some accuracy of some data and said, boy, this is really awful? And then heard, well, we can't tell anyone it's that awful. We'll get blamed for doing it. That's not really the honest approach, right? So people polish their results or someone's resistance. We're supposed to, you know, put using that access database. We now have a really, really good source of analytics here. You don't need to do access anymore. And that person says, well, I really like this. I'm comfortable with it. It more or less is what you've got. So I really am just going to go ahead and use it. And someone says, well, leave that person alone because he's worked here for 30 years or something. That's not honest. That's not honoring the work that's been done. People say do change management later. Don't honor the organization impact. That's a real common tactic and that's not an honest approach either. You're saying that people won't be affected or they will just romp into the new world without any help. You know, essentially any time you hide the truth or hide the difficulty or anything that you're doing, you're organization and disturbances. So what's happened with fear here? Again, we're talking about scary stuff. The fear here is that you're going to say something and get blamed or get in trouble or get censured in some way. And that's not a healthy environment. To get away from that, communicate until they're sick of hearing about it. I tell this to people all the time. Kelly tells us to people all the time. We look at communication plans we do for people and they're not executing them.  Now that's a bit colorful, maybe an exaggeration, but that surely gets the point across, that that is how much they had to communicate and then the light bulb went on. It's not easy. It requires some conscious effort but the payoffs are huge by being honest, admitting to the amount of work that has to be done so then you can do it incrementally and then communicate about it. What's different? What's new? How are we doing this? Over-communicate. Over-communicate. Over-communicate. So there we're going out. Kelly, we're going to weigh in on that one a little bit here. We just have a few slides left actually so we've got plenty of time for Q&A here today. Yeah, absolutely. I think there's a couple of things. This slide to me is really what calls out a lot of organizational fear and its fear of exposing the fact that people spend a lot of time fixing the data and remediating the data and weekends and nights and they don't want to admit to their management that they are spending all of this time because management doesn't know and if they found out they would be appalled. We've gone into many organizations where if you ask an EVP or a senior person, tell us how data quality negatively impacts your business. They'll say, well, we have no data quality problems. Our data quality is fine. And the more you drill into that and the more you speak with the people who actually work with the data, we ask the same question, tell me how data quality negatively impacts your business and the people who work with the data start to fidget and look sideways and look up and see if their neighbor's going to speak first, et cetera, et cetera. And I think the reality is is nobody wants to admit how much time is spent fixing data because management thinks that the data is fine. I can't remember which of the webinars that we've talked about, spoke about this topic, but they think you're already doing it. They think that the data is fine already. They think that it's governed. They think it's high quality. And the fear is people admitting that in fact we aren't there yet and there's some very viable reasons that we aren't there yet. So that's one thing I wanted to add is that this fear factor is real. And for the senior people that are listening in on the webinar, it's pervasive across all industries. So it's important to recognize that you need to let your people admit that there's poor data quality issues and give them the space to fix it and the opportunity to fix it. So that's one of my ramps on this slide. I have another ramp. Do I have time for another ramp? Yeah, you've got a minute for another ramp. Okay, so I'm going through the watching people respond on the chat and everything.  And I think a lot of you on the line can probably appreciate what Jill is saying. And I heard from someone that you have to say something 28 times for people to remember it. And sometimes I feel like because people's work, lives and personal lives for that matter are so busy and so dense and they're doing so many things that it's probably more than 28 times. And so it's important to communicate not just repetitively but in a variety of different ways so that they can see things visually. They can hear things. They can talk to their friends about it. They can engage. And there's this way to get a point across without having to repeat the same words but you're repeating the same concepts and continuing to communicate so that people do truly buy into and can repeat back and internalize the content and the information that they're receiving. Absolutely. Got a lot of correct answers to this one right away, young Frankenstein. So I'm going to just up this a notch here. This is a scene where the actor, playing young Frankensteins, I would like that actor's name. I would also like the other actor in this scene who is a very well-known actor that begged Mal Brooks to have a part in this movie and got it. And I would like to know the name of that actor who was also in the scene who actually lit the man's thumb on fire. So some things are obvious. Be honest. Dude, your thumb's on fire. Just point it out. No one's going to be upset. Oh, there we go. We got Peter Boyle there and Gene Hackman. Very, very good. This is a sharp group here. All right. Losing the big picture. This is a... We hear this manifested and we already got the character. But okay, what's the show? What's the TV show this is from, too? And we already got the... And the Addams family's already come in. Boy, they're quick. So we hear low-hanging fruit, a proof of concept of data governance, really, things like that. Losing sight of the big picture, wanting to do little bits because the longer... And the fear here is that when someone in management says, I want a proof of concept, I want low-hanging fruit first, what they're really saying, and this is the absolute truth is, they don't understand your target vision. And actually, this is good feedback for you to actually go back and communicate some more because the light bulb hasn't gone on. So they want to see a proof of concept. They don't know what your vision is. And don't take that personally, whatever method you used to present the vision, you didn't accomplish your mission.  The other thing is there's a real difference between doing something that's tactical because it can be non-aligned and non-strategic and remember what Kelly said about alignment, that is so, so really, really important. And if you do something one-off, just to keep someone attention, great. You've got their attention, but inevitably subconsciously or consciously, they remember that what you did is not tied to that business strategy and it really didn't move the organization farther down the road towards that strategy because you didn't connect it. So in the long run, low-hanging fruit to me, and I will just claim personal with this, I don't want Kelly to be at trouble, is bogus. It is an excuse to not execute. All right? There are intervals and increments which are short-term deliverables. Low-hanging fruit does not fit that category unless it is strategically aligned to the long-term vision. If you're just throwing something on a wall and look like you're busy, you're doing everyone a disservice. This is the other slide where people aren't being honest. You really have to think hard to get it connected to the strategy. This is an enterprise issue. It's a long-term consideration. You just have to find the right way to present it.  Anyway, Kelly, I know this is something I am on the soapbox about. I don't see I have anything to add to this here in the next few minutes. No, no, no, no. You can stay on your soapbox. Oh, well, thank you very much. Thank you very much. Well, let's go on. I think this is our last one, and then we're going to go into the Q&A here. Keeping management engaged, because everyone's afraid. Wow. Bang. Gideon. Got it again. The shining. All right. Who's the actor? Which is easy. You've got to be boom, boom. Maxine comes through again on that one. Jack Nicholson. Gears. Johnny. Fear. In effect, the sponsor. The sponsor, you get a sponsor, and they're really cool, and they're really hip, and they're really on board.  And then you get distractions and bad status reports and ineffective issue resolution. And at that point, your sponsor has gone over the way of the shining, and has been possessed by the dark side. I should put a Darth Vader picture there, too, because they've gone over to the dark side. All right. Anyway, remedy here. Hey, leadership. Walk the talk. That's all you have to do. All right. Present evidence all the time that you're supporting this. That's how we know you're engaged. We actually do a formal sponsor evaluation. We have a little sponsorship engagement scorecard. We do. I'm sure that there's other similar vehicles out there, but we actually will sit down with the sponsor and through an interview we can find out if they're really on board or not, and then recommend possibly rotate another sponsor in there, which, by the way, is our other remedy. A lot of people say, I can do this, but I can't do it forever. I don't want to do this forever. Rotate your council chairs. Rotate your sponsors. Rotate your champions. Let people take turns doing this. That spreads the message. That spreads the wealth. Anything else on that one, Kelly? Yeah, I think it's really important to consider the with them. So just because somebody is a senior executive or they're a leader within the organization, there needs to be a clear what's in it for me. And so when identifying a sponsor, when working with a sponsor, or anyone else within the leadership group, it's important to consider why they should care about information, why they should care about data, how it ties back to their specific line of business, how it ties back to their future role in the company. So if they are on a promotion track, there might be an opportunity to give them a differentiator and to help them with the next phase in their career. So the with them for the leadership group is extraordinarily important to keep them engaged and to make sure that there is that level of personal contact with those leaders. One of the things that is common and that we do and I'm sure a lot of you have already done is to do some sort of influence analysis around your leaders to understand who do they go to for advice? Who do they go to for help? And so making sure that you are engaged and working with those individuals that your sponsor or your leaders listen to for advice will help to have other people within your organization communicating similar messages to what you're trying to communicate and their hearing from a messenger that they trust so that there's a higher likelihood that they will agree, absorb and action the messaging based on the advice coming from that trusted individual. Okay. And on our last one here and then Shannon, I'm going to actually turn control back over to you. You can take control back. I'll talk to this one and Kelly is going to moderate the Q&A because I have to leave this spot where I'm sitting right now. And if we don't have a scary cartoon, we're ending up on kind of a nice note here. People say this stuff isn't important. And Kelly, I'm going to let you run with this one and I will be listening in and I will do that color commentary on this as well as the Q&A. So turn that one back over to you, Kelly. Sure. And so a couple of things. And I think that this is a nice way to kind of wrap everything up in the sense that the fear and the concern is that it's pie in the sky. We're not quite sure why we're doing it. We were told that we needed to do it at a conference. There's not a clear view of why this is important and also what the outcome will potentially be. Another issue that comes up in terms of it not being important is the expectation that the data is already within a state of being usable, understood, consumable. And so therefore trying to go through lots of additional effort is too expensive and irrelevant. Just give me the data and I'll figure out what to do with the data myself. Thinking that anything around information management is tied to IT is another big concern. And that is one of the things that reduces, in many people's view, the importance of information and data. So what are some of the things that we want to do about it? So the planning and the visioning components of this, so that it isn't pie in the sky, that it is truly aligned to expectations. And it's a very clear message around what is the vision, what is the picture of the future that you're going to have, what is the purpose that you have in executing this program, what is the plan in which you are going to deliver this program and who participates. So that sort of five-step process that we talk about is a way of creating a communication to make it real and to tie the execution back to the purpose and the vision. And there is work associated with developing it, validating it, getting your leaders involved with doing the work and communicating it as well. Another remedy, ensuring that this is identified as a budgeted and prioritized effort. Thinking that this is something that can be done as a Skunk's work project is a short-term viewpoint because at some point there needs to be greater investment in the way that data and information is managed, governed and shared, just like there's additional investment anytime there's a new view of the importance within the organization. There will be additional investment in the consumption of the data, whether it's through an analytics project, whether it is looking at a big data infrastructure, etc. So therefore the analogous investment needs to be made in the data and information that feeds into those efforts as well. And then I think the idea that talk about the funding in the very beginning and start thinking about how that funding is tied back to the value and the strategy should indicate why the funding is actually a good investment, should articulate the cost analysis, as well as the benefit analysis. I'm very hesitant to say ROI, just because it's very hard to look at a true return on investment, not the risk of incarceration, but the return on investment from a short-term perspective. So those are some thoughts in terms of trying to elevate the importance of information management and of data within the organization. And of course to make sure that it is viewed as an asset, just like any other asset within the company. And I think that that's the most important thing as we wrap up here, is to think about the fact of communicating around how it is important and the fact that it is an asset just like any other. And with that, I think we're going to go to the Q&A, because we've got about 10 minutes left. So... Perfect. Thank you, Kelly. And thank you, John, for this fantastic presentation, for this very scary presentation. Just a reminder next in the series is Real World Data Strategy Success Stories. That is happening on November 3rd. And just a reminder, I will be sending a follow-up email within two business days with links to the slides, links to the recording, and anything else requested throughout. You know, Kelly, backing up, too, when you guys are talking about communication and quality, can you give examples of how you communicate in this scenario and any tricks for ensuring your communications are read? So a couple of things on that. One of the things that I always challenge people to think about is how to communicate outside of email, because everybody is inundated with email. People prioritize what they read, and that because you can easily get de-prioritized, that is a risk associated with using email as a communications vehicle. So when we think about all of the other communication options, one thing would be to get your communications group, if you are, sorry, at a large company that has a marketing communications group, an internal marketing communications group, leverage them as much as possible. So that's one thing, to start embedding it into the communications within the company. The other thing is I would think about it as who you need to communicate with and targeting your communications to those audiences specifically. And participating face-to-face as much as possible or in some sort of conversational manner. So that could be participating in departmental meetings or quarterly meetings that those organizations have. It could be doing lunch and learns. It could be doing a road show. It could be bringing to your different field offices something that would be compelling to them to help communicate why information is important to those different field offices. Anything that can tie into communication vehicles that are already occurring or a communication approach that already occurs within the organization. Anything that you could do around video. Anything that you could do in which your peers participate in video. I know that Jill, who we talked about earlier, did this fantastic video a few years ago that was focused on why data governance is important. And it essentially went viral within the organization because people wanted to see how their peers were participating in this video. Whether it was for amusement purposes or whether it was to be impressed with the group, the idea is it was visual. It was involving their peers. And people really wanted to see it. And by nature of wanting to see it, they heard the message. So I know that's a long answer, but communication is so important and it's really important to be creative around the communication process. Sure. No, that's great. And continuing on from that, what is a good way to tie in an analyzed bottom line impact of poor data quality and DG efforts? So the easiest way to tie poor data quality and therefore the requirement for data governance is around productivity and usage of the data. So the way that people go through the process of identifying what data they need, accessing the data, or getting access to the data, having the data shared with them, and then the way that they use the data, that sort of productivity impact and the assessment and analysis of that process is always the first place that we look for any sort of quantitative impact. So if it takes seven days to create a strategic report, how can you reduce the seven days to something like two based on making sure that the data is more available or more understood, more fit for purpose, is of higher quality, potentially more complete, et cetera. So that productivity and usage of the data is the first place that we look for anything that's quantitatively tied to the improvement of data quality because it's the most direct way of tying it. Another place to look that is along the same lines but slightly different is the amount of effort associated with the data piece in any sort of new big strategic project. So whether you are doing a deployment of a new capability, whether you are upgrading an application from a prior version to a more current version, there is a data piece of that that always occurs. So what is the cost associated with that data migration? What is the cost associated with ensuring that the data is structured and mapped in an appropriate way for the new application that you are implementing? That data piece of a project is, well, not easy, but can be quantified and the ability to reduce the amount of time, effort and therefore cost in the project as it pertains to that data piece is another place to find hard dollars. Now the negative of that is that you are always looking in the rear view mirror, but if you are able to say and you can demonstrate trending over time where you have reduced that data component of project initiation, that is something where you can deliver clear value to the organization. All right. We just have just a couple of minutes left, but I think we've got time for another question. And this is one that we hear quite often. Our current issue is associated with a group we roll up into our quote-unquote ineffective sponsor. We sit in IT which has caused major issues with funding the build out of our IG DG capability. Any thoughts on how to address this? So the challenge of having an ineffective sponsor not getting the credit that you need being exacerbated by sitting in IT, I think the first thing that I would say is to look at how you can have an impact. What is that impact? And how can you start to quantify the impact? And if you can't quantify it, where can you find those stories and those anecdotes that will be relevant to the rest of the organization? And so that is one way of doing more or less a grassroots effort where you are looking at how you can improve operational processes, improve the consumption of data or the usage of data by improving data quality, data understanding, et cetera. So that would be one thing. The other thing I would look at is how does your corporate strategy impact the view of data? So I would go back to what your, well, 2017 goals now as we're looking into 2017 and what are the implications of not having good data to the execution of your corporate objectives? Now, going back to the slide, that might be too high in the sky. So how can you get down to your divisional objectives, your departmental objectives and tie data specifically to it? So for example, if you are trying to acquire a new customer base, maybe you are shifting from a business customer to a consumer customer, what is the data requirement to, A, identify that new market, B, understand how to go after that new market, identify whether you already have customers within that market, et cetera, et cetera. So by tying the actual data and information management pieces into the written approved and distributed strategy is the kind of top-down way to go and then the bottom-up way to go in terms of those specific anecdotes, stories and potentially quantitative benefits. So those would be the two tactics I would take. And of course, that's a big question. And so more than happy to take an e-mail or a phone call and talk about that further. Well, we are right at the top of the hour. Oh, John, you're breaking up. I'm sorry, just the third one is tell that person that no matter how hard they work, they're not going to succeed. That might open their mind to another sponsor. Sure. And again, we are right at the top of the hour. I just want to thank Stone and Kelly for another, again, fantastic presentation. And thanks to all of our attendees for being so engaged in everything we do. I'll get the remaining questions over to John and Kelly for you. And just a reminder, I will send a follow-up e-mail for this webinar by End of Day Monday with links to the slides and links to the recording. I hope everyone has a great day. Thank you. Thanks, everyone. Boo. Bye-bye.


You gave a really interesting farewell speech in the House that I want to play a little bit of because it lays out some of what you were alluding to earlier about your view of the current state of our government. And I also think it raises what I consider to be one of the most important political issues of our time. So let's roll that excerpt from your 2022 farewell address to Congress. I rise today for the last time as a member of the 117th Congress. I do not seek to dwell on the circumstances of my departure, although it does bring to mind a few lines from Yates' second coming.  Perhaps it takes a cataclysm like World War I to capture the naked and malevolent cynicism of our politics. Yates also well captured the harrowing consequence of elite ineptitude that precipitated the slaughter of tens of millions. As fall apart, the center cannot hold, mere anarchy is loosed upon the world. I read and reread those words while flying out of Hamid Karzai International Airport last August during the shameful end to 20 years of America's war in Afghanistan. What I saw on the ground during that waking nightmare exemplified some of the best of the American men and women in uniform, but it also reflected the haplessness and incompetency of American policymaking. The failure of our war in Afghanistan, a failure abetted by decades of Congress' lax oversight of the President and his Department of Defense. To solve this, I pushed for Congress to take back its war powers, to take back that constitutional responsibility, but even when it comes to Congress asserting its own prerogative, this body has shown itself unwilling to do its job. The current budget negotiations taking place on the other side of the rotunda also show a Congress unwilling to confront the very basic task of passing a budget on time. The last time we had a budget passed before the fiscal year started, I was in second grade. When Congress is incapable of solving problems of its own making, how can the American people have any faith that we can tackle the problems arising from the broader world? What hope do we have of out-competing China, of winning this coming century, if we can't even get out of a mess of our own making? We need the best to regain their convictions. To set an example of what clear-eyed leadership looks like both at home and abroad, we need to hold the worst to account and reprise the moral resolve that has led us through dark times in this country many, many times before. Too many have sacrificed too much for us to squander the opportunity before us, the opportunity to rise to the challenge of this moment, to set aside petty squabbles, the opportunity to build on the promise of limited government, economic freedom, and individual liberty, the promise that underpins the American dream. How do you feel rewatching it? Do you feel like it all rings totally true today? Do you wish you'd hit any different points? Those were the moments where I was still aggressively campaigning and petitioning and spending a lot of time on the Senate side to get the Afghan Adjustment Act passed to try to get that into the NDAA or into that omnibus that was being worked on. And, you know, because that was a deeply personal kind of issue. And it was something that we were so close to being able to get. Ironically enough, and it got zero attention is that Afghan Adjustment Act, which would offer some stability and kind of certainty for the folks that had supported US forces in Afghanistan that we had evacuated, some of whom were still in the process of kind of evacuating and resettling to give them, you know, some permanence as opposed to the kind of temporary status many of them are on. And it's an unholy mess of a kind of bureaucratic conundrum they're in. And so that that was, I would say, my kind of main focus. You know, I don't know. And I hadn't even kind of thought about it.  You know, I think if you don't have, you know, again, a good balance of power between the executive and the legislative branch, I think. Well, if I can just kind of step back, there's a lot of folks who think our chaos in our system right now is is a product of political chaos that because of how chaotic our politics are, you know, our government can't function. And that's what I thought going in today. I'm a big believer it gets the causality backwards that the more our government screws up, that the more, you know, the American people feel the consequences of neft policymaking, the more they reach for, you know, replacements for alternatives, you know, for explanations for why that individual when they got into office couldn't do the things they promised to be able to do. So, you know, you this guy didn't get the job done. So we're going to vote him out and send in somebody who's even more emphatic that they'll do it. And so much of the challenge, though, is the power has been stripped from many of those offices in Congress, you know, either Congress has let the executive take it, has given it to the executive or the executive is just, you know, taking that over. And so the basic kind of mechanical function of our government is broken. And that's where then, you know, you have that promotion of extreme, you know, in ever more chaotic politics, if there were fewer things the government was screwing up, you know, there'd always be people who were dissatisfied, but, you know, it would find less purchase. You wouldn't be fertilizing the same ground, you know, that those kind of seeds of mistrust, you know, can be planted in. And so I'm I think it's a it's a complicated thing. So you start talking about legislative supremacy and notions of subsidiarity and, you know, generic generic concepts. They're it's challenging to get that done, not impossible, but challenging to get it done in Washington, because so many there's every legislator will look at a policy and want need to see a very concrete upside because the downside is always theoretically exponential. You know, if it's not broke, don't fix it. Or if it is broke, you try not to fix it because no matter what you do, if you are fingerprints on it, you know, you you might be held to blame even if your efforts were all well and good and pure of heart. And that's when I, you know, it's easy to throw up your hands at that challenge. But to me, the art of government is trying to say, OK, politics is the art of the possible, you know, how do you find ways in which you can make, you know, a concrete lasting effort. It's a lot easier to do that if you're getting at some of the structure's underpending responses to issues than if you're just getting distracted by the issues at hand. You need to deal with and react to those issues.  How do you get to that vision from where we are? You know, what is that pathway? Could you talk about that the structural issue as it pertains to foreign policy and the balance of powers? Because I know it's something you have been very focused on. That the something you raised there is an attempt to make Congress exercise its war powers and sort of rebalance between legislative and executive branches, which I think is extremely important when we're talking about the federal government. What are you hoping to accomplish on that front if you make it back to DC? Yeah, I think you need I approach a lot of these with sort of a policy agnostic, but, you know, process obsessive mindset. You know, if you think about war powers, I think oftentimes it's, you know, within the context of why we need to end this war. And that's why we need to repeal it. I mentioned the example of the war on terror, you know, 2001 thereafter, you know, had that authorization for use of military force that was passed shortly after 9 11, had that had a sunset every two years or four years or six years. Probably six is too high, but, you know, two years, three years, five years, something within that band, it's not necessarily saying that nothing would happen after that five year period. You know, it's saying that there would have to be far more frequent engagement by the Department of Defense, you know, by the, you know, national security community with Congress and Congress would because they have to cast a vote, you know, senators and representatives would have to be casting an affirmative vote either in favor of continuing or in opposition to continuing military efforts. They would be asking better questions. They would feel more of a sense of ownership. They would have to articulate and defend. They would, but in the process of asking those more difficult questions, the Department of Defense would also have to sharpen its pencils. Our policymakers on the national security side would have to more firmly articulate and align their efforts with what they were saying. Right. This notion that if we're just going to be hands off, everything will be fine. I think is, is become so detrimental and so ruinous because you have sort of a defense policy establishment that essentially looks at Congress as a body to avoid. I mean, there were a couple of times where I would be getting a classified briefing and I would say, oh my God, thank God we're finally getting, you know, a briefing on issue X.  And so we're telling you how big of a problem is going on in this region, not because you should be aware, not because it should be informing, you know, how you're approaching something, but because we're going to have to ask you for something. And so if the executive had to ask Congress for more, the amount of transparency would be higher, the feeling of responsibility among members would be higher. And, you know, I think it, things would just function better, again, with that lead to less or more. I think there's there's arguments to be made in kind of either direction. But if we look at the strikes that, you know, the president has just conducted recently against the Houthis, against Iranian back groups in Iraq and Syria, you know, both are picking from a variety of different, you know, authorizations coming from the Constitution, whether it's Article 2, kind of defense powers of the president in a self-defense capacity or, you know, Article 1 authorities from authorizations through use of military force that were passed in 2001 or 2002. Again, it just is doing an end run. It is failing to engage. And I think it allows the American people to check out because their representatives are checked out. And that type of lack of transparency, of lack of attention, of lack of concern, I think ultimately only dooms those projects to failure, because then when people start to do pay attention after something that happens, you know, they catch themselves up on 20 years and in the span of a two minute TikTok video. And that's probably not going to be conveying an accurate view.  Like what is it that this sort of, I don't know, half hazard or just like rubber stamping type approach, why is that particularly insulting and damaging to the people who serve in the military? It just shows a disregard. I think, you know, by way of background, I was in Iraq as a soldier doing intelligence operations in, you know, 2020, sorry, 2010 and 2011. And then I was in Afghanistan as an NGO conflict analyst for the humanitarian aid community. So, you know, no uniform, no weapons, neutral living on the economy from 2013 to 2015. And, you know, I think in both of those conflicts we found ourselves with allies of convenience that just looked at the US as an entity to exploit. We didn't necessarily have any specific strategy or objective or goal we were going towards. Or if we did, it would change frequently enough that, you know, what we were doing was never aligned towards any specific intent, you know, that notion of a self-licking ice cream cone.  American service members are dying. You know, again, I don't reflexively say, oh, you got to bring everyone home or there's no scenario in which we should be in some of those areas. But our policy makers sure as hell need to articulate why those risks are being undertaken to what end. You know, what are those terms and how often would those be reevaluated? Because I think the majority of the war on terror or at least our kind of post-911 moment has been, you know, this linear sense of engagement where it's like, okay, we're either gonna maybe some sanctions, then we're gonna have some airstrikes, maybe a special forces raid, maybe in the Marines that go in to be, you know, temporary, or maybe we're gonna hold and build with kind of large conventional forces. And it's like, okay, well, to what end? What's our goal? Yeah. And have our helped achieve whatever that goal is, but you can't even measure if they've been effective if you don't have a consistent goal or you keep changing it. And again, lives hang in the balance. Civilian lives are lost, military service members lives are lost, and the taxpayer is footing the bill for all of that. Hey, thanks for watching that clip from our new show Just Asking Questions. You can watch another clip here or the full episode here. New episodes drop every week, so subscribe to Reason TV's YouTube channel to get notified when that happens, or to the Just Asking Questions podcast on Apple, Spotify, or any other podcatcher. See you next week.


Thank you very much. I'm grateful of all of you that you have made it convenient for us, for me to meet all of you here this afternoon. And I'm grateful to my very, very dear comrades, Sitaramya Churi, who was relentlessly fought the battle for my survival and my treatment and my coming to Delhi and providing my opportunity to meet friends like you here. And then I must be grateful to the honorable Supreme Court and the team of the liars who have permitted me to be here, to enjoy moments of freedom here in the capital of my country, the country of all of us, many of us. See, I must tell you, I must take this opportunity. I am really very disturbed. We have seen difficult times in Kashmir. We have seen Kashmir remaining disturbed for a longer period since 90 itself. There has been destruction, deaths, and all that. We have been witnessing.  I was not so disturbed as I am feeling today. The reason is that I see with my own eyes a strong feeling emerging within me. Could it ever have been possible to see such a horrible time? I'm posing this question to myself. When I see myself, that the very foundations of the unity of the people of Jammu and Kashmir with the Union of India are getting assaulted by those who are mandated to protect those very foundations of the constitution. It's a big surprise for me. Rather, I feel shocked about it. We were not having much expectations from today's regime. But nevertheless, I, as a citizen, was never thinking of that they will be so much desperate that with one go, you will say goodbye to those constitutional provisions which were negotiated by the leaders of Jammu and Kashmir with the founders of the constitution of India here in Delhi, which was result of a long and protracted struggle in Kashmir as well. When the raiders came, people resisted. When Maharaja Hari Singh was himself vacillating whether to join Indian Union or not. But the people of Kashmir, despite all odds, decided not to accept the dictates from the other side, but to join secular India. They were not forced. They were not compelled. Rather, it was out of the sense, out of those values which were, which was out of those commonalities which were between the two moments of Kashmiri people who fought against autocracy and the rest in the country who fought against the British rule. Today, those bonds which were created by the very hard work of the people of Kashmir and the rest of the country, the leadership here, those have been assaulted. I am worried about that far. No consultation, no discussion, no debate. That's why, as a citizen just, a concerned citizen, I want to talk to through you the citizens of my country, whichever part they are, whichever politics they belong to, including those who are followers, who are followers of today's party, which is an authority in Delhi. I want to appeal to all of them as citizens. Please listen to us. You have listened one version. Please listen to the version of the people of Kashmir as well. We don't want to be, we don't want to be killed. We don't want to be died, seen to be destroyed. We are now Farouk Abdullah and all others who are not terrorists now. Tariqami has not turned to be an alien element for my country. I am not a foreigner. Now, I have paid price for that, and I am proud of that. Not at all. That was my duty. I did that. But today, this is my question. Take us along. We don't ask for anything. An average Kashmiri doesn't ask for anything. The stars don't ask for anything. We don't ask for heavens. We just want to give us the chance to march with you. In 2016, when we were in mass unrest in Kashmir, the opposition parties, in which all the political parties were opposed, we met with Prime Minister Modi. I said that the situation is very bad. We have to take care of it. And our soldier is not responsible for this. Because this is not his duty. He didn't do anything wrong. Don't put this burden on his shoulders, Prime Minister. This situation is bad. This is our duty, which is in this room. We are all politicians. This is a political pain. Because of these political mistakes, we have to get rid of this situation in your leadership, in this room. And how? I said, accept Kashmiris. Accept Kashmiris. And what do we have to do to accept them? I said, talk to them. I won't take much of your time. My leader, General Secretary, will explain all other issues. My point is now, you see, as we are living in this world, and you are settled, our ears hear that we are normalcy. We are in Delhi. And you are settled in a city.  Where will the business reach? What will happen to the children? What will happen to the hospitals? And what will happen to the media? And still, we are told that today, the shops are not open, schools are not open. In every institution, there is a national health insurance scheme. How many people have benefited from this? Nothing. And then they say that everything is fine in the evening. Tell me, what is this mantra? No mantra. And then one thing is said, that no one is dead. They are slowly dying. They are dying. And because of this, I appeal to the people of the entire country, I don't know if I can appeal to the government, whether my voice will reach them or not. But I appeal to the poor people, I appeal to you. We also want to live. A Kashmiri speaker is speaking here, an Indian speaker is speaking here, we also want to get a chance to stay alive. This is a request, send this message, if you can.


Okay. Cool. All right. Welcome to the JCASC office hours, January 29. On the call, we have myself, Tim, and John. This hasn't been a lot going on the last two weeks. Directly related to the JCASC project itself, there's been a couple of changes related to going on and core and in the bomb, but no direct news and no new releases. I think there's a few minor pending changes to be released. Just, okay, the only change is fixing a typo in the POM file, basically. So no rush to release that. So yeah, not too much. In regards to related development, we have some system read related work, which is to help give a, it's got two main purposes. One to give a read-only view of Jenkins. If you're going full configuration as code, no one changes anything through the UI. This allows users to see the configuration and export it, but not to modify it. And the other side of it is to empower users to basically be able to see how the instances are set up and allow them to contribute easier. If you take CO.genius.io, it's very hard to contribute to. People don't know what plugins are installed. Updating a plugin is very difficult. People don't know how it's configured. And I think a lot of it is done quite manually. So that's a very good example of where it will be useful. There's been a JEP. That's not actually the right one, so that's limited admin. There's a separate JEP for system read. It's JEP 224. If anyone wants to take a look at that and send any feedback to the mailing list. So there's a proof of concept implementation of it on Jenkins.com. There's a pull request on configuration as code showing how the UI would look to someone's system read. It changes it a bit to hide some content in fields that aren't relevant because they can't change them. But it's pretty much the same. We've had some work recently done on initialization milestones, which is to help fix issues with configuration as code modifying the Jenkins configuration while jobs are loading concurrently. Francisco has seen the pull request. There's been a fair bit of comments and feedback going on there. I think it's mostly waiting for a downstream pull request in JCAST and possibly and I think he's going to send an email to the mailing list just to get some wider feedback on it. But that should mean that we can remove the hack that we have for Jenkins 2.204 plus where you may have to add a delay so that Jenkins doesn't fail to start up. This should remove basically the sleep and allow us to use a direct milestone. So that's all on that. The previous release of JCAST introduced the JCAST test harness which introduced a bit of fallout and updating it in the bomb as everyone using the bomb had to be updated because the previous test harness no longer existed and how the bomb works is it runs all the tests with all the compatible versions of plugins together and when you pull the new JCAST version the other plugins were trying to get the new JCAST version with the new test harness. Sorry not with the old test harness and that didn't work. So basically we had to go through every plugin and update them and release them. We've completed that side of it. Now there's just one plugin outstanding that has test failures due to the credentials plugin had to be I think yeah the SSH credentials plugin needed to be bumped as part of this and it's part of bumping that that caused a conflict in the CloudBees folder plugin. So we just have one outstanding request to merge and hopefully Francisco will be able to take care of this and then once that's released hopefully we can finally update it in the bomb version. It's been a two and a bit weak effort slowly poking away at plugins and nudging maintainers and getting them released but that's almost complete now. Snake YAML API plugin I haven't had a chance to look at. We're focusing on the bomber shoes. JCAST Dev Project we're still waiting for the blog post to be delivered. I think that's sitting with Oleg wants to take another look as far as I know and it needs the file to and it needs the blog post to be updated to the release date when it's released. So it needs a copy editor or coordination between Slater and a copy editor to do it. I've approved it three weeks ago so let me assign this to Oleg. Possibly it'd be good to have the new release out anyway. So there's a few failed releases because they're releasing from CI and the CI wasn't quite set up right but that should have been fixed now and Slater didn't have said that he'll get it released out today which would be good. Plug and compatibility highlights. I'm not aware of any. Just leave that empty. If there's anyone that anyone wants to highlight they can add them in later and I think we've been through all the hot topics. There's one new issue that's been getting a little bit of attention in regards to current Jenkins users with more information. I don't think it'll be too hard if anyone wants to contribute to it. Is there a good first issue? Yeah a good first issue. I think it should be straightforward. I've just been trying to guide. I don't think it would I could do it quite easily but I think someone else should be able to contribute it easily enough and there was also someone in Gita asking about being able to generate or set the API tokens through this. Not really that they need to set them through it. It's more that they want stable API tokens when they rebuild. So that's another potentially another issue to create and we've got the FOSDEM conference coming up this weekend if anyone is going to be there. Friday is a Thursday there is some training on Jenkins run by Cloudbees. I think it's 25 euros for this one on Jenkins pipeline and one on Jenkins X. Friday is Jenkins contributor day and then there'll be a Jenkins stand at the conference Saturday and Sunday and there's this TI CD dev room on Sunday run by Olivia the infrastructure project lead. So if anyone is going to be in Brussels it's a free conference. Feel free to come along. Anything from you John? Cool. I guess we'll end it there. I'll upload the I'll send the recording to Oleg to upload to the YouTube channel. Yeah, cool. Thanks.