The next item of business is a statement by Michael Matheson on a strategic transport projects review 2. The cabinet secretary will take questions at the end of his statement and so there should be no interventions or interruptions. I call on Michael Matheson, cabinet secretary, up to 10 minutes, please. Thank you, Presiding Officer. I'm very pleased today to provide an update on the second strategic transport projects review. The final report was published on 8 December last year. That marked the culmination of over three years' work by Transport Scotland and their consultants. I want to express my gratitude to stakeholders across the country, particularly those at local and regional authorities for their input to this process since the outset. Also to the public and indeed our young people of Scotland who provided an excellent range of entries for the school's competition. It was also a great pleasure to meet and discuss the review with some of the pupils from Musable Grammar and also from Stony Hill Primary School here in Parment last month. The final publication of SEPR 2 represents a key milestone for transport planning in Scotland. In it we set out a 20-year framework for capital investment to drive the change that we need to reach our ambitious and essential net zero goals. The era where catering for unconstrained growth in private car use is now well and truly over. The majority of the recommendations directly contribute towards achieving a reduction in both emissions and dependency on the private car. While we won't be able to deliver them all immediately or all at once, I am pleased to say that we are already making progress on 38 of the 45 recommendations. Collaboration, stakeholder engagement and public consultation have all been fundamental and at the very heart of this three-year process. Right from the very outset in gathering problems and opportunities to the detailed appraisal undertaken as part of the later stages of this work. Following publication of the draft report, which I announced to this chamber a year ago, there was a statutory public consultation. 45 recommendations had been informed and tested throughout several previous rounds of engagement. As such, we were confident that the final consultation would be around refinement and affirmation of those, rather than suggestions for wholesale change. Of course, I was encouraged that this was the outcome. The consultation included 30 information sessions and attracted 424 responses. That invaluable feedback was considered in detail and fed directly into the production of the suite of final reports. I will now touch upon what STP R2 recommends. There are four key areas of investment that will help us to make truly transformational change to how we travel in Scotland. Those are decarbonisation of public transport, improving active travel infrastructure, improving improved connectivity in rural and island communities and mass transit in our biggest city regions. In the first of those key areas, we are pressing on with our plans to decarbonise Scotland's rail network and building on the £62 million that was already awarded to bus operators last February for zero-emission buses. We are already supporting implementation of the vision for EV charging with the £60 million public electric vehicle infrastructure fund that will draw in commercial investment so that the future charging network works for everyone. Providing greater opportunity for people to walk, wheel and cycle is our second key area. We want to work with local authorities to deliver ambitious active travel infrastructure projects. Our investment in this mode has risen significantly in recent years, from £40 million in 2017-18 to a record £150 million for 2022-23. Thirdly, there is a focus on improved connectivity in our rural and island communities. As well as significant investment in poor infrastructure and strategic road connections, our commitment to our islands includes investment in new vessels for Arn, Eila and the Sky Triangle. Furthermore, the review recommends the further investigation of potential fixed-linked connections at the sound of Harris and Barra and between Mawl and the Scottish mainland. Our fourth key area is centred on delivering transformational change in public transport infrastructure. At its core, we plan to transform public transport across the Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow city regions by introducing a new mass transit system in each. That will offer a real alternative to the private car. Elsewhere, we will invest in rail, particularly between our major cities, and offer buses. Far greater priority are many routes in urban centres across Scotland. I know that there will be some who will be disappointed by the lack of inclusion in the recommendations of their favoured local rail or road projects, such as extension of the border railway or construction of a rail line north of Aberdeen to Fraserborough and Peterhead. However, it is also important to stress that there remains a route to consider projects that are not included in the 45 recommendations. On the basis of those, I am demonstrating a robust business case and subject to appropriate funding being available. Although I have been at pains to note that none of the recommendations involve increasing capacity for more cars on our roads, feedback from stakeholders has stressed the importance of a reliable and resilient strategic road network. Recommendations for strategic roads focus on safety, climate change adaptation and resilience. For safety improvements, there will be a primary but not exclusive focus on rural sections, with exact locations to be determined by further on-going work. Some recommendations include essential maintenance and upgrades, not least for the south-west, where measures have been identified to address long-standing calls for targeted improvements on the A75 and A77, topics that have often been discussed in this chamber. The recommendations that I have described represent an ambitious plan for investment for the next 20 years. However, clearly, 20 years is a long time, and it is therefore important to remain agile in order to address needs that may arise or become more prominent. We had intended to publish a delivery plan alongside STPR2 to set out how and when each of the recommendations are envisaged to be delivered. However, due to the fiscal and budgetary uncertainty over the past few months, that has not been either practical or possible. The fact that we are constrained by reliance on the UK Government for Capital Grant allocation, as well as its limited capital borrowing powers, has added to the uncertainty here. All of that has resulted in a decision to take more time to create a fully informed and accurate delivery plan. It will continue to be developed over the coming months, informed by the draft budget for the coming financial year, with intention to publish in the spring. I am very proud of the vast amount of work that is going into STPR2 and of the direction in which it is taking us as a nation. That is reflected in the supportive and positive comments that we have received from a number of stakeholders, including STP, such strands and ScotRail. We know that change will not be easy for people to make, but it is why this review focuses on creating the infrastructure connectivity and on delivering the transport note modes that will help people to change how, why and when they travel. Transforming Scotland's transport requires a cohesive national effort and a repositioning of the type of transport investment that the Government makes. By doing so, we can really deliver significant and lasting benefits for the people and businesses in Scotland, creating a Scotland that is less polluted, less congested and is healthier. Thank you. The cabinet secretary will now take questions on the issues raised in his statement. I intend to allow around 20 minutes for questions, after which we will move on to the next item of business. It would be helpful if those members who wish to ask a question were to press the request to speak buttons now, and I call Graeme Simpson. Thank you. I thank the cabinet secretary for advanced sight of his statement, which should have been delivered when STPR2 was released at the end of last year. The document did not set the heather alight then, and his statement certainly will not have done that today. We have no idea when key routes vital to the economy and to road safety, like the A96, A75 and A77, will be upgraded. That is what people want to know. The cabinet secretary mentioned the Glasgow metro system. That may extend to where I live in East Kilbride. I do not think that there is a cat and health chance of it ever happening, but if my natural cynicism is misplaced and I am wrong, then what is the timescale? The cabinet secretary mentions further investigation of potential fixed link connections at various islands. If locals want that, is he today committing to such links? Finally, on rural transport, rural residents tell me that bus operators are shifting their older diesel buses from city routes to rural routes. What reassurance can the cabinet secretary give that electrification of buses will extend to all areas? Let me try to deal with a couple of those issues. As the member will recognise, he made reference to four areas of the trunk road network, the A96, the A75 and the A77. He may not be aware, but I would have thought that, as the transport spokesperson for the Conservative party, it is that the A9 and A96 are not within scope of SDPR2 because it is part of the previous SDPR2 process, but I am sure that having pointed that out to the member, he will recognise— Members, we need to listen to the cabinet secretary. We are already carrying out the review of the A96, but I am sure that the member will eventually get a grip off as briefing these matters. In relation to the Glasgow metro in the timescale, it will come as a matter of surprise to the member that the leadership team, who have already been brought together to look at developing the plan for the Glasgow metro, is already taking that work forward. Further work will be set out over the course of creating the business case for the metro over the course of this year. If the member is sceptical to be taken forward, it may come as a surprise to him that some of that work has already been undertaken by the leadership group, which has been chaired by Transport Scotland. In relation to the island fixed links, we have set out within SDPR2, which I am sure that the member has taken the time to read. It says that we will take forward further investigations in looking at the fixed links options within the islands that have been referred to and to consider that against alternative options such as the existing ferry links and the benefits that it would have to public transport and the cost to the taxpayer. On his final point in relation to older buses, I recognise the point that the member is making, because much of the electrification that we have saw in relation to the bus network has largely happened within our large urban areas as it stands alone in Aberdeenshire. There has been an expansion of, if I recall correctly, the stagecoach network into some of the rural areas. I expect that, as we see further roll-out and support of the decarbonisation of the bus network, there will be more of that to move out into our more rural areas as well. However, it will be critical that we have the right grid infrastructure to support what will be the necessary electrification to support greater use of electric buses within our rural areas, including within the member's region. I thank the cabinet secretary for the advance sight of his statement. The track record of this Government and cabinet secretary on transport projects is one of over-promising and under-deliverance. It seems that with STPR2, he may surpass himself by under-promising and under-delivering. Like new ferries and new trains, we have a strategy that is usually and there is still no sign of a delivery plan or budget. However, what communities already know is that there will be no dueling of the A9 by 2025 as promised in the last review and probably no dueling of the A96. In this review, none of the modest projects planned for the A75 or A77 will happen in this Parliament. A rail link to Glasgow airport has never been so far away. The cabinet secretary knows full well that the route that he claims outwith STPR2 for Borda's rail and North East rail has no meaningful budget. Given this Government's record on delivering transport projects over budget and over time, why should any community believe the cabinet secretary when he does eventually get round to telling us when the projects on STPR2 will be delivered? What will he do this time to avoid the failures of the past? Member made reference in particular to the Glasgow airport rail link. I do not know if the member is aware, but the Glasgow metro scheme involves connection out to the airport, which is part of the recommendations in the STPR2. I want to reassure the member that the work that has been undertaken had been her intention to publish the delivery plan alongside the STPR2. However, the budget uncertainty that was created by the UK Government in the autumn of last year has delayed that whole process, which has meant that we have had to delay the way in which we can take forward the delivery plan at work. However, I want to reassure the member that, as we undertake that work over the course of the next couple of months, sitting alongside our own budget process, it will do so in a way that helps to give as much indication as to the timeframe that is going to be undertaken in taking forward the various projects that are set out within the STPR2 plan for the next 20 years. The STPR2 makes commitment to improve journey time specifically on the Glasgow Carlyle rail line, and the cabinet secretary rightly mentions the A75 and A77 arterial routes that are needing improvement based on safety and efficiency. Can the cabinet secretary please comment further on the process for which Glasgow Carlyle line will be improved? When will we see shovels on the ground to take those recommendations for the A75 and A77 forward? First of all, I recognise the member's long-standing interest in upgrades in the south-west of Scotland, including on the A75 and A77. As is set out within the STPR2, there is a recommendation 40, which is about improving access to Stranran. The port of Cairn Rhine, which is part of the rail investment programmes that we are looking to take forward, is part of what will be in the delivery plan that has set out will be taken forward over the course of the next couple of months. Within that, it will also provide details on the work that we then intend to take forward with the A75 and A77 as part of our wider capital spending programme within the delivery plan for STPR2. 2017 report said that, unless a roundabout was built at the Tullabarness, there would be no safe gaps to join the road to the A90 by 2023. Since then, the Government spent just £67,000 on safety measures at the Tull, and this week saw yet another accident at this notorious junction. In April 2019, the then transport minister said that upgrading the A90 between Ellen and Peterhead would be part of the STPR2. Last June, the current transport minister said that safety work at the Tull can now be undertaken as part of the wider STPR2. Yet the Tullabarness is absent from STPR2. Will the cabinet secretary commit to doing what is needed, or does STPR2 mark the end for road safety at the Tullabarness? My thoughts are with anyone who has been involved in a road traffic accident at this particular junction. I am aware of the long-standing concerns and issues that have been raised around this particular junction, and that there have been some additional safety measures introduced, including the vehicle activation signs, which have been introduced to that. However, the provision in relation to improvements on key parts of our trunk road network are covered by recommendation 30 in STPR2, which is about focusing on the trunk road and motorway safety provision, which could include areas right across the network, including within the A90 itself. There is provision in STPR2 for specific areas. The way in which that will be taken forward is against all the other areas across the trunk road network that require improvements, particularly where there is the need for safety improvements to evaluate which of those should act to be progressed and within which time frame. I want to reassure the member that where there are requirements to improve safety on the trunk road network, STPR2 and recommendation 30 makes provision for that to be able to take place. I call Alasdair Allan to be followed by a new baby. The cabinet secretary mentioned the commitment to examine the case for fixed links on the sound of Barra and the sound of Harris. Aside from the obvious benefits, there is another incentive given the maritime and coastguard agencies reclassification of those waters and the potential implications for the type of replacement vessels that are eventually required. Is the cabinet secretary able to give an update on that aspect of the issue? I am, of course, aware of the need to consider how we can carry out replacements for the vessels on the western hills and, for that reason, STPR2 has made this recommendation to undertake further work in developing a business case to better understand what will be the benefits, the costs and also the challenges associated with providing fixed links across the sound of Harris and the sound of Barra. In part, the reasons that the member made reference to and part of that process will look at evaluating the cost benefits of a fixed link against continuing with the existing ferry network and how that would impact on the public purse. Of course, it will be very important as we consider this process that we engage with local community to allow them to express their views and the impact that it would have on their respective areas. As I mentioned earlier on in terms of the timescale for taking that forward, that is exactly what will be set out within the delivery plan in the coming months so that both the member and his constituents have a clear understanding as to the process that will be taken forward in considering these potential fixed links. In a recent article in The Herald, the leader of Glasgow City Council, has called for bold leadership and detailed progress on a Clyde metro project. She will not find that in the statement today or in the review documents, despite its fine words and laudable aims. Instead, there is a vague recommendation to continue to work with regional partners. This feels like history repeating itself from a Government that has overpromised and undelivered for the west of Scotland. Given that the SNP has scrapped three proposals to link Glasgow Airport with the city centre via Paisley over the last 16 years and seem incapable of delivering such a link, why should anyone believe that this Government is serious about a Clyde metro project? I thought that it was a very good article by Susan Aitken. I think that she highlighted the very considerable work that Glasgow City Council has taken forward with some of their regional partners in the connectivity commission and the very ambitious proposals that they have set out on that. That demonstrates great leadership from Glasgow City Council and Susan Aitken in particular. I thought that that article reflected their great ambitions and I am sure that the member will agree with me on that. What I can say to the member is that that key recommendation, one of the key recommendations that came from the connectivity commission, is directly within STP R2. That is for the Clyde metro, which is a hugely ambitious programme and which is a multi-billion-pound investment programme to help to improve connectivity right across the Glasgow city region, which will help not only to improve connectivity between towns but also within key areas where transport connectivity at the present moment is very poor, particularly in some of our lower-income communities, where the plan is to look at how we can connect them much more effectively through the Glasgow metro proposals. That is why it is one of the key recommendations in here. Given that the proposal around a city metro is a hugely ambitious programme, I am sure that we recognise the fact that it is in STP R2 to demonstrate how ambitious STP R2 is. One of the objectives of STP R2 is improving safety and resilience. I take on board the comments that the cabinet secretary has made about the A96 dualling being a commitment of the previous strategic transport projects review, but it is the biggest transport concern of my constituents in Aberdeenshire East, thousands of whom have expressed safety concerns in the A96 review consultation. There has already been a great deal of scoping and planning work undertaken in the last parliament, so my constituents will be expecting me to ask. Once the review is complete, is there scope for the project to be reactivated and the dualling completed? Again, I fully recognise Julian Martin's long-standing interest in representing her constituents on issues relating to the A96 as well. The member will be aware that the public consultation and the initial preso work reports on the A96 corridor review were published at the end of December last year. We are now pushing forward with the next phase, which is further detailed work to inform the remaining stages of the review. Those include what will be a robust appraisal of the 16 retained options, including a climate compatibility assessment, with outcomes expected to be announced in the first half of this year, which will then be for final public consultation before a final outcome is decided. I can assure the member that the transport minister will ensure that there is an opportunity for MSPs who represent the areas that are affected by the A96 to have an opportunity to feed into that particular process. I call Beatrice Wishart to be followed by Willie Coffey. Thank you, Presiding Officer, and for dispensation to leave early today. I thank the Cabinet Secretary for Advanced Sight of the Statement. Last week fair, I received good news of a successful bid for UK levelling up funding to replace its ageing lifeline ferry to mainland Shetland. STPR2 does not look at internal ferry services, which, despite what the Cabinet Secretary says about focusing on improved connectivity in rural and island communities, are rapidly ageing and some need imminent replacement in the northern isles. I also note the positive responses in the STPR2 consultation to fixed links for Shetland. Will the cabinet secretary therefore ensure that the Scottish Government now works with local authorities and interested groups to progress feasibility studies into such projects for Shetland and pursue local solutions with fellow island groups? I am sure that the member will recognise that there is a significant amount of investment that goes into helping to support our island authorities in delivering the local ferry network. I think that in the region of £130 million over the course of the past five years alone to help to support and sustain the local ferry network, they are not within scope of STPR2 because they are local services in the same way that they are for any other local authority in terms of local transport provision. We continue to look at how we can work with local authorities, including Shetland Council, on helping to support them and work with them on how we can improve connectivity and resilience in the transport sector in our island communities. We will look to how we can continue to invest in our northern isles services as we look to make sure that those who live in our northern isles, such as Shetland, have resilient ferry services. I cannot say that I am impressed with the description of the Glasgow-Curlyo line in STPR2 and which runs through my constituency as a diversionary route. It is key to the people of Ayrshire and beyond that the same level of investment is afforded to this line so that more communities along that line can benefit from the economic and social advantages that rail travel brings and which are currently being enjoyed elsewhere in Scotland, such as electrification schemes and the reopening of former local stations. Could you give us some positive news perhaps for local people that this line will be electrified in the near, short, medium or long term? He will be aware of the work that is on going just now between Glasgow Central and Barhead electrification programme, which is presently being taken forward and is due to be completed, if I recall correctly, by the end of this year. Then what we will be looking to do in the next control period is further electrification of the network, including potentially down to the member's constituency. As the member will be aware, we have given a commitment to decarbonise our rail network by 2035, which will involve looking at decarbonising electrification routes across the network. However, what I would say to the member is that any electrification programme has also got to be tempered by the fact that there are some new technologies potentially coming to the market, which could also see the potential for hydrogen fuel cell-powered trains also operating on our network, which might be in some other parts of our existing rail network. However, I assure the member that the route to the member's constituency would be part of our wider programme of work over the course of the next 10 years to decarbonise Scotland's rail network. I call Finlay Carson, to be followed by Mark Ruskell. Thank you, Presiding Officer. The Cabinet Secretary really has a nerve standing up here regurgitating the same old lines, the same empty rhetoric that we heard when he visited four years ago.  Before the cabinet secretary reminds us, we are all aware that infrastructure is devolved. We also know that the UK Government has provided £5 million for the A75 on the table to support a business plan, which would rightly see the two Governments working together on a route that is of huge importance to the whole of the UK. Will the cabinet secretary put his constitutional grievance to one side if people have done that, because no one in Galloway cares where the money comes from? When will the residents of Crockett Ford and Spring Home be able to sleep safely in their beds? When will they get the bypass? If the cabinet secretary is honest and serious about delivering, tell us today and tell us now when it is going to happen. I recognise the member's long-standing interest in this issue on behalf of his constituents. He has often made the case very forcefully for investment in the south-west of Scotland. However, I am not entirely sure whether that £5 million figure is entirely correct from the engagement that we have been having with the UK Government. It turns out that that so-called £5 million turns out to be £2 million—potentially £2 million—and it is dependent on what it is to be used for in terms of some feasibility work. The member said that it is important that we are accurate and honest about this matter, but I am sorry, but it appears that the member's figure I am afraid is not correct. Could you hear the cabinet secretary, please? It is not correct, which is why I am correcting him on that particular issue from the engagement that my colleague Jenny Gilruth has had with the UK Government on that issue, and we are seeking further clarity on that. There is a very clear commitment to seeing upgrades in both the A75 and the A77. The details on taking forward the various recommendations that are set out in the delivery plan will be brought forward in the coming months. Sadly, it is delayed because of the challenges that we have had with the UK Government over the autumn period, which has had a direct impact on the—well, look, it is just a fact. There is no point, there is no point. Excuse me, could we have less cut-out sedentary chitchat? We need to hear the speaker who has it. It is just a fact that the budget process was delayed by the UK Government, which has had a direct impact on our own budgetary preparation process, which then had an impact on what we have been able to take forward—or delivery plan. Had that not happened, I would have been in a position where I would be able to publish the delivery plan alongside STPR2. However, I hope that the member will take the reassurance that I have given him about our commitment to take that work forward over the course of the next couple of months, so that he can see the detail on what the time frame is. I can squeeze in the last two questions that I had previously asked to speak if there are brief questions and answers to match. Mark Ruskell, do you follow by Evelyn Tweed? Can I welcome STPR and the vision behind it? Can I just speak up for Scotland's strategic road network? One of the biggest and most costly impacts on our road network, of course, comes from lorries. There are massive climate emissions that come from lorries as well. Can I ask the cabinet secretary how STPR can support a modal shift from road freight to rail freight? There is an important issue around helping to increase and expand rail freight. One of our recommendations within STPR2 is to look at increasing movements of freight on our rail network. We have provided some £25 million, which is specific ring-fence funding for rail freight for the period up to 2024, which is part of the grant scheme that we are providing. We are seeing the benefits of that being delivered right now with the Highland Spring new rail freight facility at Blackford, which is removing at least 10 million lorry miles from Scotland's roads in the first 10 years. Of course, we want to see more of that, and that is why the recommendation within STPR2 is to look at how we can increase the level of rail freight in the Scottish network. To ask the cabinet secretary whether improvements to the reliability of rural roads, such as the B829, will be considered as part of STPR2 to improve accessibility and encourage economic growth within those communities? If I am correct, I believe that that road is a road to Stonachlachar from Aberfoyle within the member's constituency, which I am very familiar with over many years. It is a road where there have been challenges for flooding, over an extended period of time. However, it is a local road, which is the responsibility of the local authority. Therefore, any plans to take forward upgrading work to that particular road would be a matter for the local authority. That concludes the minister's statement. I apologise to those members who additionally had asked to put a question, but we have run out of time. There will be a very short pause before we move on to the next item of business.


Okay. Hello everyone. Nicholas Carr from CSIRO here up in Brisbane. Hello. Hello. Now the first speaker is Sophie Darnell and Sophie was a student of mine until recently. And she comes from the University of Southern Queensland in Toowoomba and has previously worked at Virgin Australia and other places in large operational IT environments. And undertaking this project with us recently, she's been looking at doing things a little bit differently with vocabularies and so on. So she was working with us as a student from about mid-year, June-July until about now. And now she's taken on additional work through some of our projects actually on doing vocabularies, and projects for some CSIRO contracts. But here's Sophie and you can see her title there. And I'll leave it up to her to introduce the specifics of her project. Over to you Sophie. Alright, so everyone can see my screen, my title. Yep, awesome. It's my first involvement with this group other than accessing some of your resources and information you've got online as I started to work on the project that I'm going to be discussing. It was really interesting for me as I've had previously fairly limited experience working with this type of formal vocabulary framework. It did also highlight some of the issues with accessing and developing those existing vocabularies without pre-existing knowledge of the tools and the technical background as well though. So my project was to adapt the existing free text keywords tagged against CSIRO's data access portal, DAP entries, and develop a controlled vocabulary in a SCOS format that could be used to prompt for suggested keywords when future uploads are made to try and introduce a bit of control and uniformity. The template I was using prioritised the SCOS tags for prep label, preferred label, alternative label, definition, source and broader concepts linked to a top concept. I'm not sure how familiar everyone is with the different SCOS tags, but it's something that is fairly null and void for the purposes of this. I intended to expand on these concepts as a simple table and use the Excel to the linked data registry tool developed within CSIRO to develop a SCOS structure for the vocabulary. Sophie, just one second. We can actually see as far as I can tell your non-presentation screen. So we're seeing the one that's got your notes and song rather than just the slides. I can't see either. For those who can't see either, there must be a way in Zoom to click viewing the screen rather than viewing a list of people. What I can see is, yeah, you're there. That's the way. Okay. I'm still seeing it. Okay. Do you want me to give you a minute? No joy. You put it? Okay. Just continue. That's fine. My main aims were to identify solutions for addressing syntactical errors, as well as those that might attempt to address the lack of uniformity in the approach to the syntax that had previously been established using the free text approach. I was also interested in any existing synonyms or relationships that I could identify that might allow light concepts to be linked. As much as possible, I'd hope to identify existing vocabularies that included some of the tags for the SCOS framework and that were accessible in a way that could readily be utilized to fill out missing information in the DAP keyword vocabulary. Keywords were extracted with field of research and business unit filters in order to provide a broad idea of the term context and use with a very broad range of scientific disciplines being used as well as potential intended uses of the keywords chosen. The ability to gain a better sense of context became really important in identifying sources for concepts. My initial priority was to understand how words would be used in the DAP and what issues might arise. I established a general approach to clean up the existing list with regards to spelling errors and plurals versus singulars. I developed a rough overview of what contributed to both the overall list and a selected section that I took out. A simple visual review identified issues with spelling syntax as well as varied approaches to the level of specificity and usefulness. I'd hope to identify common keywords for different business units as a way of targeting more used and, in theory, more useful terms. Unfortunately, all the 3,000 or so terms that were identified as unique owned the 1,300 occurred only once in the DAP and about 649 of the terms were only used twice. The majority of keywords in use were tagged only once or twice and could therefore only really be considered low frequency. This made it difficult for me to identify a clear section of the keywords in current use that were, in theory, correct syntactically and considered as helpful tags by multiple uploaders. Of those keywords that were used with a high frequency, the same sets of keywords appeared to have been applied to every instance of regularly repeated types of datasets with limited variability and keyword selection appearing to be part of a set standard for that type of dataset upload rather than being a regular selection by users of a common term by what you might be able to consider their own choice. This meant that frequency was not likely to provide a simple low tech approach to filtering for more valuable keywords. Some terms such as Pulsar are in fact used too regularly to make them a helpful way of searching DAP results. Using this term in the DAP portal actually returned about 1,400 results but without any other filtering or knowledge of the datasets returned and how else they might be tagged, it doesn't allow you to search for all that term in a particularly helpful sense. It was decided that the final vocabulary should use the simplest singular version of each keyword. As part of my initial investigation into available tools, I'd hoped to use the natural language toolkit in Python to tokenise, lemmatise and check terms with syntax. I couldn't identify an approach similar to lemmatisation that would work better for phrases and while in some cases, lemmatisation of each keyword as separated tokens wasn't technically correct, I still thought that a script to tokenise and lemmatise each keyword would ensure they're at least formatted similarly to each other. This didn't work due to limitations with the natural language toolkit's inability to work with non-common and scientific terms as well as being fairly clumsy due to me trying to adapt with limited Python skills and applying general spell checking tools to the DAP keywords wasn't helpful at all. It corrected incorrectly more than it actually found requiring spell checking. We attempted to find an alternate method of identifying plurals and correcting them to a singular form. I found approximately 670 of the keywords ended with an S. However, keywords ending with an S in a scientific domain meant that this was just a lot of them were species names. Similarly, I'd hoped it would be useful to identify synonyms and therefore reduce the total number of concepts. But again, I found that the NLTK tools were too general. My knowledge was a bit too limited to adapt them or to identify any more complex tools. The link between a term such as ocean in the natural language toolkit to those of water, lake, sea or beach appeared to be quite high using the synonyms tool. But none of those terms could be considered a synonym for the purposes of a vocabulary such as this. And as well, for some less common terms such as macro algae, the tool didn't know how to identify those with life terms at all. There do appear to be numerous general purpose tools available to a beginner such as myself, but there is a significant gap between the possible applications of the readily discoverable or open tools and those that require specialised knowledge or a part of a paid service. The terms that were readily discoverable using the natural language toolkit were not specific or varied enough for the types of scientific terms in use in the DAP entries. I realised that more automated tools might not provide me with the solution at hopeful. So I identified a smaller section of the total keywords in use to focus on by selecting the business units that had the largest total list of keywords, which was the marine and atmospheric research group. At this point, I moved from prioritising tools to address syntax and focused on finding pre-existing vocabularies in similar domains to the terms in use in the DAP in order to marry terms between them. To assist in the identification of how these were being used and what might be appropriate sources for the terms, I established top concepts under which each term could be grouped using some of the regularly occurring keyword areas I was encountering and on the advice of the team members I was with, namely, Mick. While my identification of these terms was partially limited to my interpretation of the intended context of fairly specialised concepts, I felt that as any vocabularies such as this would require a reasonable amount of user input to adapt and grow, it will certainly room for a few areas in my judgement to be corrected later. I made one of those assumptions as an example by choosing to use any plant or animal name such as prawn or banana as a reference to the species rather than a reference to a product or a process. The business unit and field of research information provided a first basis for user-created keywords context, but I found that the more context I could give to the terms in use, the more readily I could identify the most appropriate sources to define them. Separating keywords into the most reasonable top concepts helped me to identify some of the easier groups of terms that could be identified within existing vocabularies, particularly those with a logical structure pre-existing for the broader relationships. It also helped me to start thinking logically about the most appropriate of those relationships and the structure that I wanted to link these keywords to. Geographic location as well as species names within the scientific domain top concept became my two easiest keywords to structure in that way. It also highlighted the need to include some broader terms to ensure that a logical structure was maintained for future use without a better way to feel any gaps created as more keywords were added. Some species names might be readily linkable through the standard taxonomic structure, but to ensure a certain uniformity for all species keywords, I found myself filling in gaps between broader concepts where the genus or family were not otherwise used, but the species and the kingdom had been included otherwise. There were also multiple instances of phrases such as mooring data where mooring also existed as a separate term and due to the nature of the DAF, every entry could be considered data of some type. So with keywords phrases ending in things like data and research, we could make the assumption that these can reasonably be treated as synonymous with whatever preceding keyword they accompany. However, making a decision on some of these similar terms as someone who is not a subject matter expert in that field creates the possibility of a number of flawed assumptions. Keyword phrases relating to DNA and sequencing might be one instance of this. They seem to repeat themselves in certain DAF entries, but it's important to differentiate between a term such as DNA sequence and the concept of a DNA sequencer. So I can identify clearly that those key words relate to separate concepts, but without a clear existing vocabulary source or a direct understanding of the intention of the original uploader when tagging a phrase, it becomes a bit of a greater challenge and increases the likelihood of me making incorrect choices. As the number of assumptions I was making increased due to gaps in the tools and an inability to access large existing vocabularies, it became increasingly likely that my assumptions were overlooking an integral difference in the intended context. As I tried to differentiate related but not synonymous concepts, it also became more difficult to find those existing vocabularies or sources that went to the correct level of detail for the scientific domain. Science and domain specific glossaries and vocabularies do exist in many large organisations. So locating applicable ones from an appropriate source and comparing them to the keywords in use in theory provides some measure of surety the term has value in that field. Using the research data Australia linked data API, I thought I could extract appropriate scores of vocabularies to not only identify the concepts in the intended format but minimise the total number of terms for which a more manual identification process will be required. My first comparison for the smallest set of terms I had taken from the Marine and Atmosphere business unit immediately matched 74 of my 235 subsection of terms to the Global Change Master Directory which was one vocabulary I found which was fairly helpful. However, despite this initial promise I was unable to find similarly large proportions of the terms within existing vocabularies and was really able to find sources that could be extracted simply in a format that someone with my technical skills could manipulate for comparison and extraction of the key fields required to adapt the keywords to a scores format. Unfortunately, as well as some of the existing vocabularies I did manage to access were designed for even more specific scientific applications or fields. The definitions for the concept as described within them was too limiting and didn't make sense for entries in the DAP. One example of this was field survey where in many of the vocabularies I accessed definitions of the concept very specifically outlined in relation to one stream of science. I could find entries for geological field survey, vegetation field surveys or marketing or economic field surveys came up quite regularly but I struggled to find a clear definition that was directed at a more general concept not targeted to a single application or scientific domain. Strangely enough this meant in a lot of cases I found myself using Wikipedia to provide the best general definition for sources. However, as a source for our controls goes vocabulary I'd been hoping to find ones that were a little more permanent and a lot more reliable. There were still some of those more reliable sources available but of those I identified, the majority only assisted with such a small fragment of the overall collection of terms that I was trying to address that accessing or adapting tools to draw from them was impractical. In order to continue addressing the structure of the DAP keyword vocabulary and provide some output for my efforts the sources used were essentially collected manually. A lot of the assumptions I made were limited as I wasn't working directly with DAP users and couldn't readily gain greater insight into their intended use of terms. In some cases there were clearly internal rules or lists being applied to datasets uploaded by different business units and partnering with those users would have helped me to identify where other vocabularies were already in use that might have allowed me to piggyback a bit off those. There were also some vocabularies and tools that were obviously created with the intention of being used and shared for other projects. So establishing where relationships for a collaboration exist would have been another opportunity had I had a bit more time to develop this project. While there are a lot of tools available their functionality for someone without a high level of technical skill or the ability to access paid resources still makes their accessibility a bit of an issue for a project on this scale. Without a single unified tool to extract user-created keywords and form neat and tidy controlled vocabulary an interim step might be to improve the value of those keywords being added by the users. Creating options for entering keywords into fields for the top concepts. Identified or assigning some clear rules to how keywords should be used when uploading datasets to provide a more consistent user approach to keyword selection in the future and provide a greater context for any future transformations of the keyword pool into a controlled vocabulary. I did end up with a smaller version of the keyword vocabulary intended but I feel that the approach that I took maybe could have used a greater level of technical skill to automate a lot more of the processes and I think that partnering with other organisations or business groups would have also helped me to identify valuable vocabularies that were already in use a bit more quickly. So that's it from me. Thank you very much Sophie.


So I'd love to start today's conversation with your earliest memory of a negotiation and what drew you to really researching and understanding negotiation at a high level. I teach game theory, I teach strategy, and I've been applying it to cases of corporate strategy. And I'd written a book called Co-Opetition, which is about creating and capturing value. And that same activity is what negotiation is about. That we work together to make a big pie and we have conflict over how to split it up. And so I'm a little bit of a Johnny One note in the sense of that's the theme and where else can I apply it? I like it. And I'd love to start there with this concept of a pie in general. So what is the pie that we're splitting? It's something that actually people have a hard time with.  So how could that be? Well, we're not trained. And so let me give the example that I use in the book of negotiating over pizza. You know, New Haven, famous for its clam pizza, sallies and peppers. Some people say they're harder to get into than Yale. At least they have long lines. So we'll take a case where there's Alice and Bob. And if you want, it can be Alice Cooper and Bob Marley, since you're the musicians out there. They could get a nine slice pizza if they reach an agreement. And if they can't, Alice will get two slices and Bob will get one. And so the question is how do they divide up the nine? And there's two answers that people give in the world. One is four and a half, four and a half, just divide the whole thing in two. And the other is they say, well, Alice is going to get twice as much as Bob if there's no agreement. So Alice should get six and Bob should get three, a two to one ratio. And I think both of those answers are wrong. Because what is this negotiation really over? They can get two plus one slices with no deal or three slices. With a deal, they can get nine. The reason they have the negotiation is to go from three to nine to get those extra six slices. Alice can't get them without Bob. Bob can't get them without Alice. So you divide them up three and three, which means Alice gets her two plus three or five and Bob gets his one plus three or four. And that's it. It sounds so simple, but why do we get so hung up on the fairness side of things? We get hung up because it turns out the Alice's of this world try and argue that what's fair is proportional division. And that therefore they should be getting six. And the Bob's of this world say, no, what's fair is we take the nine and divide it in two. Four and a half, four and a half. And so each side comes up with a notion of fairness that's based on where they're sitting. And both of them are arbitrary and misguided. And then we have the clash because I'm fair. I'm being fair. No, you're not.  Right. Then we end up with three slices. Yeah. Not pleasant, especially if you love pizza. So you also talk about two big myths to start the book. And I think we've had discussions around these myths on our show, but I'd love to set them up for the audience as we start to get into the tactics and the strategy. So what are these big myths that we need to understand in negotiations? One is that your power in negotiation is related to your baton or your fallback, what you get if there's no deal. And we just saw that actually from the case with Alice and Bob, which is Bob has a disadvantage of having a worse fallback, one slice. But does that mean he has less power?  You should be happy with anything you get. The point of the negotiation is to beat your fallback. And Alice can't beat her fallback without Bob's help. And therefore Alice needs Bob just as much as Bob needs Alice. And there's no sense in which Alice or Bob is weaker or stronger in the negotiation when you correctly understand the negotiation is over those six slices. So people with weak fallbacks get doubly penalized. They get the worst fallback and then they also accept less than half the pie. And that's a real problem in my view. When we think about that fallback, many of us get so hung up on this idea of, well, that's just good enough. Like the fallback, I should be able to take it. Why can't I just walk away with that? You could, but I think you would be misguided. You would be being treated unfairly. And in fact, we know from a lot of experimental work that people will walk away from deals where they have real money. They'll leave money on the table if they're being treated, if they think they're being treated unfairly. And so if you can come up with a way of helping somebody understand that what they've been offered is a fair deal, they're going to take it. But there's this really strong cognitive distortion around the fear of loss. So when we focus on growing the pie, there's always this nagging feeling, like I'm going to lose something here. So how do we overcome that? Why am I losing something? The bigger the pie is, I'm getting half. I'm not losing anything if I'm being treated fairly and treating the other side fairly. I'm not buying. What I'll lose is if I get no deal. That's a big loss. People talk about zero-sum negotiations. I get more, you get less. Actually, that's wrong because it's possible in negotiation we get no deal, so we both lose. So reaching a deal is a positive sum activity. It's always about getting everyone focused on the win-win. And if everyone comes to the table going, that's what we want. Creatively, we should be able to come to an agreement where we both feel happy with that. However, when you're dealing with people who may be in a cutthroat business deal or you're not dealing with rational actors and they're coming in saying, I need to get one over on this guy or I cannot take the loss here, now we're not dealing with people who are willing and wanting to discuss the win-win. It's how do I get mine? And I don't care about how this other person feels after this deal. There is no relationship. It is focused on me getting mine. Okay. So first off, people will have said about me that I am the Mr. Spock, the bringing the logic into negotiation. One of the things that I advise is you fight fire with water, not with fire. One way to bring emotions down is to bring the logic up. But I also want to tell you that this approach that I'm describing works with people who don't care about fairness. And the example I'll give you is a friend of mine made a rookie error. He went and he filed for a trademark on his own without using a lawyer. Right. And what he didn't realize is that as soon as you file trademarks, they become public. They have to be, right? Because otherwise, how could somebody else protest your filing? And so then he went to buy the website associated with the trademark. He discovered that some troll who I'll call Edward, because that's the guy's name, had bought the URL and Edward writes to him and says, hey, I'll sell this thing back to you for 2,500 bucks.  He valued this URL at a lot of money. But he also realizes a company or organization called ICANN, which is a domain registry and will resolve disputes. And for 1,300 bucks, they would figure out what's going on and what Edward had done is called registration bad faith. So Edward would lose, right? And in fact, if you go on the website, you can discover he's been in many of these cases and has lost every one of them. So my friend writes back to Edward and says, look, you know, 2,500 bucks, uh-uh, I'd rather pay ICANN 1,300. I'd save money and you'd get nothing. And so Edward comes back and says, okay, 1,100. And my friend says, well, you know, I don't think that's fair, because look, if I pay you 1,100, yeah, it's better than 1,300 ICANN, but you're up 1,100. You have no other use for this name. I'm only up 200. I'm saving 200 compared to ICANN. It'd be like my offering you 200. So I'd be up 1,100 and you're only up 200. I wouldn't expect you to take that. You should expect me to accept your 1,100. Why are we having this negotiation? What's the pie here? Because I'm going to get the URL no matter what. If you sell it to me, I get it. If we go to ICANN, I get it. So the only reason we're having this negotiation, the pie here is to save the $1,300 fee from ICANN.  You can't save it without me. Let's split it 650, 650. Edward comes back and says, look, all right, 900, which is basically halfway between 650 and 1,100. He's trying to do the old split the difference game. Right. So Edward's done every trick in the book, sort of like anchoring high, then trying to get almost all of the pie, then moving halfway, splitting the difference. My friend has given a principled approach. And so now what's the last thing that happens? My friend doesn't answer this email. In a week later, Edward says, okay, 650, 650, and they're done.  Doesn't care about fairness. But he realizes my friend does. And so if he wants to get a deal, he has to accept the fair deal. And essentially, if you think about the other approach, it's arbitrary. Nothing sticks, 2,500, 1,100, 900. It's like, yeah, you're Gumby out there, man. And so principles beat arbitrary. And that's why you can even use the pie when you're going against somebody who doesn't care about fairness at all. It's such a great example. And I know one of the other common things we hear is whenever you enter a negotiation, be prepared to walk away from the table. Be in a position where you could walk away. And you give a great example of company you started and negotiating with Coca-Cola, which is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, which I'm thinking you don't want to be walking away from that table with Coca-Cola. Yeah, well, look, I never want to walk away. I want to create a big pie and split it. And so how are we going to make that happen? Let's just agree to that upfront. So we had a wonderful opportunity to negotiate with Coca-Cola. The challenge we had is that we weren't ready to be sold to Coke. We were too small. We were 20 million in sales. And if you're at that size, you can get lost in their system. Coke is awesome at bringing companies from 100 million to a billion. They're also able to bring companies from 50 million down to zero. And so we agreed that they would buy us in three years and that they would help us during that time with production, with distribution, with purchasing. But there was a problem. How much were they going to pay in three years? And they said, quite reasonably, we don't want to pay more for all the stuff we're doing to help you. I think, yeah, yeah, that kind of makes sense. Yeah, hard to argue with that. But my response is, actually, we can't achieve this without you, but you can't achieve things without us. So what we should do is say, you should pay full price on sales up to X. And to the extent that sales are higher than X, we couldn't have done it without you. You couldn't have done it without us. You pay half price. We'll split that. And we agreed on that principle in the first hour.  But essentially, our conversation was now focused on how do we get sales above X? How do we make this pie big? And I knew we were going to have agreement because we were focused on the right things. So no threats, no ultimatums, none of this sort of 2,500, 1,100, 900 BS, right? Right. So when you're preparing for a negotiation, how are you determining the ingredients of the pie? How are you baking the pie? I'm thinking about why it is that these two parties should be doing a deal together. What's the unique value they create? So, look, I mean, between the two of you, right? What can Johnny do without AJ? What could AJ do without Johnny? It's the value the two of you create that double charm. That is sort of one plus one is six. And that extra four is that pie the two of you create. And all you have to be doing is looking for that value. Most people are going to agree, yeah, let's make a bigger pie and split it. Yeah. And so now I have to hold it aside to it. I have to hold myself to it. But now that we've agreed it, let's talk about what the pie is. And it wasn't like Edward was out there sort of immediately seeing the pie. But he knows what's really going on here. Ultimately, the seller of the house understands that there's a $40,000 commission that can be saved. So I would say that once you make it explicit to the other party what the pie is, it's kind of hard to deny. Now there are cases where the numbers aren't as clear and we need to really think through the other person's side and the costs that aren't necessarily on the spreadsheet. Well, actually, look, you can go back to the Coca-Cola case. It wasn't as if we knew what our sales would be absent a deal because we're never going to run that experiment. We're going to do the deal. So yeah, we have to make some estimates. And that's hard work. I agree. And we're going to probably get it wrong. But okay, that's our goal here. That is we're both saying, what's the market price? We're not exactly sure. What do we achieve with no deal? How much can AJ and Johnny do on their own if they don't come together? Right. And a lot of that is having some empathy here, thinking through the other person's perspective. I love that. I talk about the need to be allocentric rather than egocentric, to be curious. So what is it? The Doseki's guy is the most interesting person in the world. You want to be the most interested person in the world. You want to understand the other side's perspective. And you also have to have them understand your perspective. Right. So let's walk through understanding their perspective. Because some people with a lack of experience in negotiating, me not knowing the real estate market and all the costs associated with it, how do we get to that place of understanding through empathy the other person's side? You have to ask questions. You have to ask, what is your objective here? Why are you trying to do this? One of the cases I use involves a couple selling a gas station. And somebody says, well, why are you selling? And people are afraid to answer that question. Now, we know they're selling because there's a for sale sign above the station. And let's talk about a good reason and a bad reason to sell the station. A bad reason is there's a leak in the gas tanks, and the station is about to be declared a superfund site.  So people don't say that. They say I'm about to retire to basically tell a white lie, as opposed to they think that's a frivolous reason. So therefore they keep it hidden. My goal in negotiation is to give the other side what they want. Why? Not because I'm nice, but because if they get what they want, I can get what I want, which is in this case, the station. Now, they may be asking for a lot of money. So I'm not necessarily going to give them the money, but what is it going to take to get them on the boat? And now it's time to be curious. Well, interesting. A boat, that sounds great. Are you going to do that for the rest of your life? No, no, two years. Two years is good. Okay, good. And what are you going to do when you come back? Well, it's kind of a challenge because we won't have a job. So we had to put aside $75,000 as a reserve fund. Oh, you don't have a job.  Would you like a job when you come back? And by the way, how are you going to fund your down payment for an apartment or else when you come back? Because all your money is going to be tied up in the boat. Yeah, that's an issue. We don't want to have to do a fire sale of the boat. Oh, would it help you if I gave you a loan against the boat when you come back? Maybe six months to give you more time to sell the boat. So let me understand what your problems are so I can help solve them. Yeah, and I think part of it is being patient as well. I feel many of us, when we get in a negotiation, we feel like time is speeding up and we create this artificial pressure to get it done and we move faster than our logic can catch up with and it's hard for us to get all that information. Yeah. So how do we tap into that curiosity and slow it down when our natural instinct is to speed it up to get the deal to get what we want? You know, actually, I'm going to have to a little disagree with you on this. I think our natural approach to life is to be empathetic. My students at Yale, they're smart, they're empathetic until they start negotiating. And then they act unnaturally. They start acting like jerks. And so actually all you have to be is your natural self. You talk about how it is that you do dating, right? And the same things that make you a successful person in life will actually allow you to be a successful person in a negotiation. Why do we turn into jerks? What is that phenomenon that's going on there? I think it's because people are scared. Stakes can be high. They don't have the idea of the pie. They're afraid they're going to end up with crumbs.  And people typically start with price. Okay, that's not good. Better is to talk about what your interests are rather than your positions. Even better is to start with, let's talk about how we're going to negotiate. I know for some people the idea of coming in to discuss this, to find out what the pie is, and to have these exploratory chats, so the conversation can be much better, get so hung up on, well, if I'm giving them all this information, that's information that they're going to use against me. Yeah, so that's the Miranda right. You're coming back to me on that, right? So let's talk about, let's go back a little bit to that negotiation over the URL, the domain name.  I gave Edward my number. I told him it would cost $1,300 if we don't reach an agreement. Does that mean I was going to pay $1,200? Or even $11? So people think I gave away the information, so now I'm in a weak position. I told him I bat now. But the answer is I'm not going to take a 9010 or a 1090 division of the pie. And so, yeah, I put the cards out there, but I'm also going to insist on a fair deal. And once I've got that principle, now I'm not so exposed anymore. So it's true that if I put my cards on the table and haven't stood up for what's fair, then, yeah, I'm in big trouble. I got that. I found that fascinating in the book, because as I'm thinking about it and going through it, and you were discussing what the batting was, and that $1,300 going to ICANN, it's like, oh, that was the fixed number, then, of course, that I merely had stuck in my head. And I was quite surprised. You're going to stick me with $1,299 if you're on the other side? Well, it was the number that I instantly became transfixed on because that was the power position that the way you presented it. And of course, it's easy to see.  And then, of course, as it was playing out, I was just utterly fascinated by, oh, what you shared, not only did it have my attention on that number, it put his attention on that number. So it's almost sort of like a sleight of hand there of, well, this is the information I'm giving you. It doesn't mean that I'm playing with this number. It just means that this number is involved. It's what the pie is here. Let's understand what it is we're negotiating over. I'm not trying to hide it because when we understand the pie correctly, then we're going to reach a deal. The confusion is when you think you're negotiating over $4,000 and I know it's only $1,300. That's the problem. So I think people are way too unwilling to share information because they're worried about being taken advantage of, which is why if you agree up front, we're going to split the pie, now you're protected. In many of these classic negotiation situations that I was talking about, buying a house, renting, buying a car, there's often one party who is more seasoned sitting at the other side of the table who has done more of these negotiations, who has done more of these deals. So naturally, you then start to feel like, if I give too much information to someone who's more experienced than me, then they are going to use it against me. Yeah, so actually here's another example of something how to protect yourself. I may not know what the pie is today, but if we can see what the pie is tomorrow and you can agree to split it with me, now I'm okay. So I've got the art dealer who comes in to buy my grandfather's painting that I inherit. I don't know what it's worth and the person offers me $1,000. And the thing is, I could say $2,000, but maybe it's really not worth that much and so I'll lose the $1,000. I could go to pay and get an appraised that's going to cost $1,000 and I don't want to spend $1,000 to get $1,000. That doesn't make any sense. So the dealer knows where it's worth, I don't. It looks like I'm in trouble. I could say the dealer, here's the thing, I'll sell it to you for $1,000, but if you resell it for above $10, I want half of everything above $10. So I don't know, if it's worth $100,000, I'm going to be much happier having said that. If it's worth $8,000, God bless him, okay, you can make some profit. Now, if he says no to that deal, what have I learned? There's a pretty good chance this thing is worth more than $10,000. Right. Yeah. In which case, now maybe I should go get it appraised. So the $10,000 is a way for you to seek more information from someone who is more seasoned. Yeah. So I'm saying, look, I'm prepared to split the pie with you. Are you willing to do it with me? And essentially, if this is a $100,000 pie, yeah, I really do need to get $50,000. Right. If it's a $4,000 pie, okay, you pay me one and you have to do some work to make this happen, I got it. That's fine. Right. And so there's a lot of times when I don't know the pie today, but there's an ability to figure it out in the future. Right. And so I'll ask the bird to split it with me as it materializes. That makes a lot of sense. And it allows you, again, to be negotiating in good faith. Right. And make sure the other side is also negotiating good faith. Exactly. Because now you're getting them to share information that if you hadn't said that, they probably would have held from you. There's an information imbalance. One, you can have practice. We talk about case studies in there.   It made everybody uncomfortable. When my students are done doing these cases, they say, you know, it's kind of funny. It didn't feel like a negotiation. What went wrong? And the answer is nothing went wrong. That's what it's supposed to be. It's supposed to be like problem solving as opposed to all conflict. Why would you imagine you know how to do this well if you've never been trained in it? There are situations, of course, where you are the art dealer, where you have done all the research, you understand all of it, and you're struggling now to get them to see the pie because they don't have that information. So how do you lay out the case for the pie when you have the information and they don't? Yeah, well, again, if I'm the art dealer, I say to the person, look, you're worried that I'm taking advantage of you.  I'm paying you 1,000, but I have to advertise it. I have to store it. I have to restore it. So, look, I'm hoping to sell it for eight and my profit in this will be a couple thousand. But you know what? Don't worry. If I sell it for anything above 10, I'm happy to split those, the excess above 10 with you. And so now the other person doesn't have to fear they're being taken advantage of. I was helping the city of New Haven negotiate with a large investment bank who was going to be investing in our airport. I didn't know what I was doing. I don't know about how airport economics works. So I turn to them and say, you know what? I need to see your spreadsheet. I need to see how much money you're making, how you're modeling this. It's like, well, that's our spreadsheet. I said, yeah, but you know, I have to recommend this to the mayor. And essentially I want to see what the pie is and I want you to make money because I want you to come here. I want this to be attractive to you. But it's going to be embarrassing if you make a 200% rate of return. And so essentially let me go through it. And then we talked about the numbers. They defended it. We talked about why they had these various assumptions. And it was like, yeah, okay, you're making 16%. I got it. That's good. We get an airport that works. We're happy on both sides. So ask the other side for the information or share the information with them. It's not a problem. And that's a one great way of building trust. Right. That's what I was getting at is this transparency piece. So whether they have all the information and you don't or you have all the information and they don't, the best thing to do which is sort of again counterintuitive to what many of us default to which is hold our cards close to the vest like we play poker. You don't want to show anyone anything. Actually, it helps to show exactly how large the pie is. It helps to do that once you've got an agreement that you're going to split the pie. Right. And so that's why you first have to have the principle established and then it's okay to open up the kimono some. Right. But if you're going in just showing the numbers without that agreement, then you're putting yourself at a disadvantage. Absolutely, because now they can say, well, okay, yeah, I'll give you, you know, I'll push you up against that 1300. And we have no sense in which we're going to try and split the pie. Now we've talked about some of the myths and misconceptions that a lot of us have around negotiating, but you've taught a lot of students this exact framework. So what are some of the biggest misconceptions that students have coming into your course? Or what are some pieces of advice that you wish people would not follow when it comes to negotiating? Yeah. So one of the big myths that we've already actually seen is that you should start off and try and anchor the other side with a really high number. And you can see what happened with Edward in the domain name. He tried to soften me up with the 2500. Did that help him or not? What does he have to do after 2500? And I say, hey, ICANN is 13. He says, okay, 11. So now he's made this gigantic movement and he shows me that he's like spaghetti. He has no backbone. Nothing he says sticks. Or you go and say, that's my last offer, making the ultimatum. It's like, really? I'm at 650, you're at 900. If we walk away, you're losing 900. I'm only losing 400. So you have a lot more to lose than I do. I propose something fair. You've got a lot at risk. I don't believe you.  And by the way, if you go and you make an offer on a house and it's unreasonably low, what does the seller think? Like what? You don't know what the market is? You're trying to take advantage of me? And so you say, okay, yeah. Take that $800,000 house. Like, yeah, I'll give you $400,000 for it. It's like, okay, are you listening? Do you know what this market is? Fine. I'll give you. Sorry. I tried to low ball you. I realized it doesn't work. How about $700,000? It's like, well, wait a second. What kind of person are you that just offered me four and now you're willing to go to seven?  So one thing I'm really against is making unreasonable offers at the start. You lose trust.  And you force yourself to make giant movements. Yeah. Well, even in the web address, with him going to 11, it's like, well, now I just want to pay the 13 because I just to stick it to you.  So I'd rather you get zero. Let's talk about salary negotiation because that is a situation that is stressful for a lot of people in our audience, especially with the I do it wrong and now I lose the opportunity entirely, right? Almost like the Coca Cola. And it's worse than that in some ways because oftentimes when you're applying or getting a new job, the salary negotiation is really the first time they're getting a sense of who you are as a person.  This is your chance to actually demonstrate that you are a person who's out there trying to make the pie bigger. And you want them to want to hire you more as a result of this negotiation rather than less. Yeah. So I'm not a giant fan of word games, but here's one or two examples. Imagine there's salary, there's bonus, and there's equity. Okay, of course I'd like more of all three, but I could ask the other side, help me understand where you are least flexible. Now if I say where you most flexible, they're probably not going to want to answer that question. Right? It's sort of, it's a scary question for them to answer. But if I say where you least flexible, everybody wants to tell you that. Yeah. Yeah, look, I have no room to deal with salary. That's fixed, it's come from high up, whatever. Okay, so now you know what I do? I don't ask them about salary. Nope. Yeah. Right? And I say, well, okay, let's talk about bonus. Let's talk about equity. And then they can't say, that's right. I said, well, I know you're least flexible on this thing. So. Right. But you got some room to move. So you got some room, as opposed to, well, where are you least flexible? Everywhere. You know, it's probably not the answer you want to hear. Yeah, it's probably not the answer you will hear. Okay. So I want to allow them to tell me information in a way that's not threatening to them. And also I want to respect it. Yeah. Because in fact, just like I want to give the other side what they want, I don't want to take from the other side what they don't want to give me. Right. Because that makes them not want to do the deal. Or even waste time on stuff that they can't move on. Absolutely. It's a useless negotiation. Another version of this is to say, help me understand why those wonderfully talented people you've hired in the past haven't worked out. Because I assume whenever you hire somebody, you're expecting it's going to be great. And I'm expecting it's going to be great. So I, you know, can we just talk for a moment about what led to the failures? And the reason why that's so valuable is they'll then tell you things which you can either say, you know, they'll say, what we really care is about team players that you may be a superstar on your own. But if you're not part of the team, that doesn't work here. And I realize, oh my God, I am kind of the lone wolf person. Maybe I shouldn't take this job. Or you say, hey, guess what? Let me show you why I am Mr. Team. And then help them understand why you're going to create a bigger pie and that you are not going to be the failure. So if you can understand what goes wrong and you can convince them that you're not the type where they're going to make a mistake, they're going to want to have you even more. Right. It's a sure bet for them. Yeah. You're trying to make it a sure bet for them. And one way of understanding that is to explain why you're not going to be the unusual case where things go wrong. So it's funny to talk about failure a little bit. Yeah, I think many would feel uncomfortable about it, but it's such valuable information. And again, it's showing them that you care about their interests, right? Going back to this empathy, their side of the table. I want to make a big pie. That's my goal here. So I want our interests to be aligned and I'm trying to demonstrate how it is that we're going to succeed on that. I'm a big fan of making the other side's argument. So a lot of people in negotiation, when they hear the other side making some story, they spend all their effort showing what's wrong with it. And then what happens, the other side doesn't think they're being understood. You see, in life, we can't always get what we want, but we can always be understood. And therefore I need to help the other side. I need to demonstrate to them that I understand their perspective. So this is actually a place where Chris Voss and I disagree a little bit. Voss will, when you can't give the person a bonus, he says things to the effect of, I know you must be thinking that I don't really value your work because I'm not giving you this bonus. And he wants the other person to say, oh, no, no, I realize you do like me and this, that. Actually, if that's what my boss says to me and leaves it there, say, yeah, FN right. So you can't just say, I know you're thinking this. You have to explain, here's why I really do value what you do. Here are the ways in which I value it. Here's how I've demonstrated I value it. Here's how I'm going to value it going forward. I may not be able to do this, but here are the other things that I do. And so you have to make the other side's argument, but you're not doing it to put them on the defensive. You're doing it to demonstrate you understand and there's something else that's going on that's even more relevant. Well, again, and even in sales, summarizing their points allows them to feel good that you're on the same page, which opens the door then for more communication. Without that, those conversations don't go nearly to the place that we want, well, that I want them to, speaking personally. And let's actually work on that some more, to do the yes and to that story, which is, let me put out on the table all of the objections that you might have. Right, absolutely. Because the fact is if you don't ask them, I don't get a chance to answer them. And so you might just be walking away in the end. We're not going to have a deal because there are these problems that I haven't addressed. So I don't want to hide them. I want to talk about them because if I can't resolve them, then we're not going to reach an agreement. And you may be embarrassed to ask them, but I know you're thinking of them. So, you know, for example, I'm thinking the listener to this podcast saying, well, okay, Barry, that's great if you were the small party. But why should the big party ever agree to this? Why should they give up more than half the pie? Because they were used to getting it.  And so you might end up with no deal. And getting half of a great deal is better than a lot of no deal, right? I think the lines I'd rather have 10% of a watermelon than all of a grape. Now it's a little bit trickier in the event that the small side is prepared to accept less than half the pie. Now do I tell them? And do I want to have a reputation for somebody who does fair deals out there so that more people want to do deals with me? I might choose not to in that case. That's the harder one, if you'd like. That's such a key point that we've made on a past episode is that a lot of this stuff theorizing is if there's no other deals to be made and there's no reputation or no trust that's built. But all of our careers, all of our lives, we are building that reputation. And do you want to be known as the person who's the cheapskate, who's the cheat, who's the manipulator, who plays the sleight of words to get one over on someone, to get that small win, only to lead that person saying, never do a deal with this person again? Correct, yeah. So I think in life we want to have a reputation for being fair, for doing deals painlessly and for making deals great, for making the pie bigger. People say, oh Barry, oh my God, I'm scared to negotiate with you. And the answer is no, actually, people like negotiating with me because I'm spending my effort trying to make the pie big. Right, and in a sales example, that leads to referrals, right? So if someone feels that you've been transparent, that the pie's been made larger and they're getting their fair share, they're going to be happy to introduce you to their neighbor who also needs your financial services or their buddy who's looking for a used car or their friend who's looking for a real estate agent. So all of this reputation, when you have a greater sense of the pie and understanding how to split it fairly, pays off in the long run. We're on the same page, my friend. What are some pies that might be invisible to our audience right now that they're not thinking about that they could actually have some fun practicing these skills? I think it's useful to do it in some fake cases where the stakes really don't matter because in some sense, let's, and how do you learn how to play gin rummy or poker? That was the question? Yeah, not here in Vegas, sitting down and putting money into the casino. But what else was true the first time you played? What did you do? You lose. You lost. Yeah, but in particular, even before that, what happened, I claimed you learned how to play with cards up. Yeah. Yeah. And it was artificial, it wasn't completely real, but it allowed you to understand what was going on. And so I actually like to teach people negotiation initially with all the cards open, because that allows both sides to understand what's happening. If we can't figure out how to reach a deal with all the cards open, boy is it going to be hard to figure out how to reach a deal when people are hiding stuff. Absolutely. And so I think that's an issue that sort of, it'd be so much harder to learn to play gin rummy, bridge, poker, whatever if we have to do everything all at once. And so one of my big suggestions, if you'd like, is to do the cards open versions of negotiation. So we can get comfortable with that and understand what's going on. And then we can start moving to more complicated. So the next version I'd say is negotiations where people don't have to reveal information, but they're not allowed to lie. Harder, but we're sort of making our steps one at a time. And essentially, let's not jump into the English channel and try and swim across it before we first have had some simpler negotiations to play with. Got it. Well, we love asking everyone of our guests what their X factor is, what's that unique skill set that has set you up for success. What do you think your X factor is, Barry? I'm an iconoclast.  That gave my parents a lot of challenges when I was growing up. It's like when somebody says, that's the way it's done. You know, it's like, well, yeah, but why? Why? Right. I was sort of a why not kind of person. And even when I have good ideas, you know, like, okay, honesty, none of my colleagues invested in it. I came up with a new way of doing an MBA program. What we do is we bring students right out of college. They do the first year of their MBA, then they go out and work for one or two years. And then they come back and finish their MBA. The reason why that works so much better is that when they're getting their work experience, they know something. They know some accounting, some finance, some marketing. So they get much more useful jobs, much better experience, better pay, as opposed to spending two years doing PowerPoints in Excel where they don't know anything. Right. And my colleagues say, you know, look, we really love that idea. But if we do it, it's just going to encourage you to come up with more stuff. I'd say my superpower, if you'd like, is challenging the status quo. Well, I love it. Thank you for asking so many wise, fantastic book on negotiation with so many great case studies and examples that were easy to follow. We really appreciate you stopping by. Thank you for letting me have an hour of total coolness that I hope will last for at least a while so my daughters can say, wow, you know, Johnny, I can't believe it. That's great. Well, you made us cooler in negotiations, Barry. We appreciate that. All right. We made a big pie. Let's share it, my friends. Thank you. Love it. Thank you.


Welcome back to the School of Calisthenics with Tim and Jaco. And today we've got two awesome guests with us to do the School of Calisthenics combined. We've got Jason Bell from the NFL representing Team NFL with Tim. Tim just likes the NFL as a supporter. I would have been in the NFL given my stature. I don't know, I've been a grown-up in the NFL. And then we've got Rugby World Cup winner, Will Greenwood representing and captain of Team Rugby with myself. And we're gonna take on Team NFL in the combine.  We're gonna lay down a few tests, tell them how it all works. The combine is where they test collegiate athletes in skills, tests, speed, quickness, how high you can jump to see if they can make it in the NFL. And we're gonna do that right now to see if we have the talent to get it done. So there's four formidable athletes going up, head-to-head, Team NFL, Team Rugby. Let's see how it goes. Oh! Will Greenwood, Rugby World Cup winner, 2003. But our coach, Clive Woodard, always said you are never the finished article. Getting better never stops. And I'm here to learn from the very best at the School of Calisthenics. Tim Stevenson, head of Hanson's Exercise Science at the School of Calisthenics, dropped from Nottinghamshire under 14's county side when playing fly hard to couldn't kick it 10 meters. Jason Bell, former NFL player, co-host of the NFL show. And I love school so much, why not the School of Calisthenics? Jaco from the School of Calisthenics, former Rugby player, owner of a mullet played for every team in Nottingham, except for the ladies, despite my haircut. First test, we're gonna go flying frog stand. Push-up, frog stand combo. See what the boys have got. You nearly went straight into a handstand. It was like, oh, there you go. Come on, Will, come on, Will. Ah! Oh, nice. Fuck, better than the first one. Five points. It doesn't need a map. Expect it to happen, that's the cue. See, you do it. That was close. Right, Timbo. My go. Ha ha ha! Fuck. Five. I'm like, I'm like, I'm a pressure now. Yeah, no, this is a... I'm gonna take you out of the elbow, son. That's it, it's a team win. It's a team win. Ha ha ha ha!  Ha ha ha ha! I'm not! I'm from the team! We're in together. I'm from the buddy sport. The buddy sport! It's like the... Oh. Oh! Yeah, just like... So, peek-a-boo challenge. Bar across the eyes, like, Cyclops from, what's the film? X-Men. X-Men. As soon as the bar moves your eyes, you can see your peek-a-boo's over. You're shanaz. It might be a problem for Will. Well, you're not allowed to rest your nose on the bar. Ha ha ha ha ha! That is... My body weight. Yeah, that's half my body weight. Go on. Let's go. Ready? Yeah. Three, two, one. All right, you're on. As long as you can. Why are you swinging, Will? Look at Jaco, strong in this one. Nice, Will. It's 10. Jaco's got his concentration face on. Come on, Will. There's 25. Wow! Here we go. Oh, we've got a wobble. See your bingo wings going, Will. 35. Jaco, you resting on the bar? No. 45. Go on, guys. All right, 58. Ah! Total. You only just lasted longer than a minute. So pretty, actually, about half a second after. 58. That was good. When you're ready. When you're on, like, remember you were quite nasty to us. Are you ready? Let's go. Eyes lower. There we go. That's one. Good, man. 10 to go. Feet together, Tim. 20.  Keep the camera on. Shake and bake, Kyle. His eyes are low. I can see some eyes. I can see some eyes. 40. All right, last one. Feet against the wall. Shoulder taps. For reps. Yeah. What in the world? Let's go. Max in 30 seconds. Total team. Total team. Come on by, yeah. No, you got this. Okay, you're on. Are we as old as anyone can be? Nice. 3, 2, 3, 3, 4, 3, 5, 3, 6, 7, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, come on, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47. 47. Oh, Jacko, you'd appreciate that. Whoa! Say that, get that on camera. Jacko likes it when you can stop it on the air. You know a good coach on how they stop and stop blocks. Stopwatch skills. Get into position, then I'll start. Ready? Yep. Is that Wolverine? It's 10, Jacko. Look at that bum going in. Beautiful. Walk. 5 to go, Jacko. 3, 2, 1, stop. 63. That's not PB. Never done it before. 110. Ooh! All right, get comfy, then you can go. We're off. Yes, Jason, come on. There's 10. Go on, Jason. There's 20, you've got 10 to go. 5, 4, 3, 2, 1, 6. 3. You've only got to beat my 40-something. It's going all of a sudden. Don't ask your back. We're going early for 10. OK, ready? Yep. We know who you're going to. 1, 2, 20. Bring us home, bring us home. 15. Go on, 80. 20. Go on, 20. Go, go, go, go, go, go, go, go. 60. Come on, come on. 25. 3, keep going. 2, stop. 7, 7, 7. Nice. You're strong. That is strong. 7. Strong. That is strong. It feels nice. It feels nice. Everything is... I haven't gone out tonight. I haven't gone out in my son's life. But I'm going to burn one in the first. The inaugural school of calisthenics combine has finished. The results are in. It's a draw, boys. Draw. One each. Is it? I know. That's the first draw in my life. First of all, lad, you want to win. Secondly, you want to draw 30. You do not want to lose. That's the result. We're all winners, aren't we? We're all winners. And on that bum shell. Until next time. I love draws. Cast is best.


Hello, I'm Gina Betenoek. I'm a photographer and a social entrepreneur from Mexico City. I founded Ojos Casienden six years ago, an organization which aims to change perceptions about disability by focusing in the ability. In Ojos Casienden, we're looking to start a dialogue among society. The way we do it is by teaching photography to the blind as a way for them to be seen and heard for what they have. The characteristics of the next generations of leaders I would say definitely passionate. I think more and more people are looking to do something that makes a difference in the world in an innovative way and taking any challenge that comes in the way. What I can see is that younger people are more concerned of making a change in their society and tackle different problems from different angles. And what is amazing is that more and more they want to work as a team and I just hope this carries on that way because that's the way we're going to have a bigger impact. After all, it really takes a leader to have a crazy idea, a dream to make true and a focus on how to reach it but what it would be without the followers. I think this generation has opportunities and challenges but what would be life without them? I would like to focus on the challenges and I think the biggest challenge would be to handle change and uncertainty. We're living constantly in uncertainty, we don't know what's going to happen and if we manage to focus in where we want to get we'll manage to know how to get there in different ways in an innovative way and just achieve what we want. But also another big challenge I see is because of this movement so fast and everything is in the moment we want it is how to balance the personal life with the professional life. But also along with these are opportunities and I think what it is fantastic is that thanks to technology and the social media it's allowing us to reach more and more people around the world and by that I also think it allows us to share our experience and learn from each other and just work as a team to tackle some problems in the world. What I hope to give to the young global leaders community is to share my experience of what it's been to try and change perceptions towards people who have been labeled from their circumstances for what they don't have and people assume they can't do something for getting their history and what they make them who they are today. But also I would love to share with this community what have been my successful stories along with my failures because I think it's a great opportunity to learn from each other. What I hope to get from the community would really be to get to know other people who are around the world amazing people making a difference and get inspired. I think we need to keep inspired and motivated and remember why we're all down this road. It's not an easy one but when we get together and we share our experiences everything is possible. So I just hope to get and give obvious to the young global community.