So I've been given a very nice introduction, but really I start thinking about myself as a husband and a dad. I have two sons, Jason and Cole, who are 24 and 21 years old. That's my house in New Jersey in the United States. And you've seen the past roles that I've had, you know, everywhere from developer to business analyst, the project manager, etc. So I have a lot of battle scars from over the years developing systems and software. And my passion is helping people improve and to change the work environment so that's engaging and fun. So what's happening today is that the reality of things is the world is changing so fast. I'm sorry, is somebody talking over there? I'm sorry, get distracted. So what's happening today is that the world is changing at a rate in which the basic systems, structures and cultures built over the past century cannot keep up with the demands being placed on them. And then the incremental adjustments to manage and strategize, no matter how clever, are not up to the job. This is a great quote by John Cotter. This is what's happening in our world. And I think we've seen that earlier Scott talked today and he mentioned about bimodal IT, mode one being the slow and mode two being the fast. So that's what's happening. So as a result of this, enterprises cannot keep pace with the rate of innovation is happening. And as you know, almost everything today relies on software and systems. And companies have to respond really quickly. I mean, you've seen Uber, Airbnb just dominate markets. In fact, Airbnb represents 50% of the revenue of the world's largest hotel chain. And a different chain that Marriott was bragging the other day about that they're putting up 30,000 new rooms. Yet Airbnb said we're going to put 30,000 rooms up in a week. Wow, that's a big difference. So even small nimble competitors can make a big bite of even the largest giants. That's what the problem is today. And as I mentioned earlier with that quote, we don't have the systems and structures that support this change, especially in large enterprises. So Agile has been great. I mean, I can't believe Agile is 21 years old and it's produced incredible results and outcomes. But in reality, it was developed for small, collated teams. And if you hear in the different communities, that Agile was developed not to scale. That wasn't as intent, but we have to make it scale. So we've had to add new structures and things to it. And the other thing that a lot of the methods don't address. And Safe, as an example, stands upon the giants in Scrum and Combon. We're able to be in existence because of these methods. But those other methods do not address things like strategy. We can't have the accumulated opinions of the teams create a strategy. That would be impossible. It needs to come from executives and upper management who have the information and access to the knowledge to create this strategy. And it needs to be communicated up and down the chain. And strategy just can't be top down. It's got to go top down as well as bottoms up. So that's where we're at today. So one of the things that we want to look at is we need a more scalable approach. Not only scalable, but modular. Because each organization is going to be in a different place. In some cases, an organization isn't ready for the Agile portfolio management. Or Agile, HR, whatever it might be. So you need to be able to put in different parts of Agile in the enterprise. So my talk is going to be two-fold. Talking about the scaling mechanisms of Safe, as well as a more generic. What makes a framework scalable and modular? What are the characteristics of a scalable and modular framework? So one of the things that you want to be able to do is to start simple and expand to software and systems. You also want to be able to scale work across the enterprise at different levels. For example, the portfolio level, the program level, the team level. We want to be able to adapt to different size enterprises. You know, an enterprise may start out as a small business and quickly grow to a medium or line size business. The method needs to work. It needs to be able to grow as the organization grows. We want to be able to organize around value, not silos. And I'm going to go into each one of these over the next few slides. We want to be able to use a scalable requirements model and have a scalable content authority. We want to use principles and values to guide the implementation and make the framework work in your context. Because every organization is going to be the same and therefore we're going to have to make adjustments to it, adapt it. And so we have to rely on something to make sure that we're headed in the right direction, have that north star to follow. And those are principles. We want to foster informal learning networks and really be organized networks. And we want to empower teams in this new way of working and thinking. So as I mentioned, you can start simple with the scaled agile framework. This is two levels, three levels safe. We've got team, program, and portfolio. And interesting enough, basically a lot of people look at the diagram and they think that it's complicated. And in reality, we have three roles and we have the same scrum ceremonies that you would have on any team. And then we can use Kanban if we like. We can use XP if you like. And basically this is just showing the iterations in the backlogs and the fact that we have built-in quality. But what happens when you have teams of teams? You know, Dave West mentioned the other day that scrum doesn't have something that's native to it when you have to align multiple teams. Each team ends up becoming kind of, you know, selfish. In other words, they're just worrying about what their goals are. And then we get different alignments. This team is going that way, this team is going that way, et cetera. They're not aligned at all. We have to be able to align the teams to a common mission and vision. And that's where the program level comes in. And again, there's just three roles here. And then we have a common backlog for all the teams to work against. And then we have the portfolio. Again, just three roles. So when you break down the big picture, each level by itself is pretty simple. But it looks complicated because on this big picture, we have the roles, we have the artifacts, we have some practices there, and some concepts like develop on cadence and release on demand, where now it's called release anytime. So we have all these objects on there so that you can click on them and drill down and learn more about that particular item. Now, as your organization, perhaps it's working on software and large systems, complex systems. Maybe it's an F-15 jet. Maybe it's a spaceship that's going to Mars. So those kind of clients are using SAFE because it is scalable. And we have this new level that allows us to expand to these large value streams for these large complex systems. As an example, EMC has a value stream that has 20 trains in them consisting about of 125 people each. How do you coordinate these different teams of teams? That's not a really simple thing to do. So this new level here, this value stream level, allows us to scale. And it's kind of a fractal of the program level. So we have a release train engineer down here. We have a value stream engineer up there. We have a system architect down here. We have a value stream architect and a solution management instead of product management. It's just a fractal. And we have some additional events so that we can coordinate the work across the value streams. And we have guidance and advice on how to do that. So one of the other things I mentioned was we need to be able to scale across different levels of the enterprise. What happens when the teams are agile but the portfolio is not? Anyone here? Anyone experiencing problems because the portfolio is not agile? Yeah, what are some of those problems? Challenges with the business case. It's too heavyweight? Okay. What else? Right, the backlogs aren't prioritized. Right. Right. What else? The backlog is already outdated. Great. I mean, you've just given the business case for needing for different levels. And strategy needs to come from the top. But it's not just top down. We need to get feedback from the teams back up to the portfolio because that helps inform the strategy. So we need to use systems thinking to make sure that the entire system is agile. We just can't have agile teams. Another one that you guys didn't mention was that what happens, what do executives believe in? The more projects we start, the what? They think that the more projects will finish. Now, is that true if you think about lean thinking? It just doesn't happen that way. But that's what they think. So when we have the portfolio level here, we can put whip limits on new strategic initiatives so that the teams don't get bogged down too much with their existing work plus having to analyze new work and then have more work than that they can do and then for them to be task-switching between one initiative and the others. You lose about anywhere from 20 to 40% overhead from task-switching. So this is just a quick overview of the safe levels. We have the portfolio level. That's basically where strategy formulation comes in. That's where we manage the pipeline of demand of new strategic initiatives. That's where we determine what the value streams are within that portfolio. And a value stream is a series of steps to get from concept to cash. And we'll talk about that a little bit more in our next few slides. The value stream level is for those who are building the world's largest systems or software. And we have some new constructs in there to help with that effort, such as model-based systems engineering, set-based design, agile architecture, having customer and supplier relationships. How do we manage that? That's talked about in the framework. The program describes agile release trades. That's the team of teams that I mentioned earlier. And they build features. They build the solutions and the subsystems. And arts align to a common mission and purpose. And it's important for the teams to have a common mission and purpose. Do you think that people are motivated without a common mission and purpose? No, they're not. But when you're aligned with a common mission and purpose, there's no stopping that team of teams. That train is going to go really fast. And people are going to be really passionate about doing that work. Because otherwise, it doesn't matter what system you're coding, you're just coding. You don't understand why you're coding and what you're trying to achieve. And on your day-to-day work, you want to be able to understand how you can contribute to it. You know, Daniel Pink discusses mastery, autonomy, and purpose. And that's what we need to give the teams. Now, teams in SAFE are just like any other agile team. And they have choices. Scott talked about choices with Dad. And we have choices here, too. So teams can use Grum. They can use Kanban. They can use XP or Hybrid of all that. The other important thing with the framework is that you have different size enterprises. And this can't be a one-size-fits-all solution. We need to be able to put in different variants of the framework to adapt to those needs. So, for example, small businesses can get by with just one agile release train within a value stream. And they might have a portfolio. But you don't have to have a portfolio level necessarily. For example, at Scaled Agile, we have about 31 people in our company. And we have one agile release train within the value stream. And we have multiple value streams there. So we have sales. We have marketing. We have the framework team, which I'm part of. We have curriculum, community, et cetera. But we don't need to have those multiple value streams, because we're very small. So we just live in one value stream. Then you might have a larger business, and you may need that portfolio. And you want to be able to have multiple value streams. So let's say a banking company, you may have a value stream for deposits systems. You might have another value stream for loan systems. You might have another system for mortgages, mortgage servicing, et cetera. And each of them having their own value stream and maybe one or more arts. And if it's very complicated, like the EMC example where they have 20 agile release trains, you might need to have the value stream level to help coordinate all those value streams and all those arts. The largest businesses may even be more complex. So what we're seeing here, we're seeing multiple safe portfolios. We're seeing multiple instances of safe using both three level safe and four level safe. So we can adapt safe to meet the needs of whatever size enterprise you work in. And many organizations are like almost multiple companies. They used to work at IBM, and it was like working in 20 different companies. So each business unit would have a separate instance of safe. And they may use three level safe, they may use four level safe, or a combination thereof. But the trick is in most organizations, we implement safe with an instance of safe for each business unit. So that big picture that we saw before here, that's an instance of safe. The framework itself is an instance of safe. So another business unit may also have an instance of safe. So they have their own portfolio, they have their own value streams. So one of the things that I'm seeing today is that the hierarchical nature of how we're working puts a lot of friction on the system. So we have these hierarchies. So we're supposed to be doing agile, but we're in a hierarchy. And it's very difficult for work to flow when we're in a hierarchy. What we really need is more something like a network. Where each of these spheres represents a team, and the largest sphere is an agile release chain. And imagine a network of people that are working together. And one of the aha moments I recently had about safe was that it immediately implements a social network between 50 and 125 people. And immediately you get the benefits of this social network through PI planning. That's where we do a two day big room release planning. And during that release planning, people get to meet face to face for the first time. And as a result of that, we're able to plan and coordinate our work. And we also get to meet each other. Like I'm sure a lot of you haven't met each other before. There's a lot of people that I knew from India, but I have not met before. And it's been great coming here and meeting you. And it's very powerful to have this network. I had one client, the power went out there, had one client. They told me that 150 years of culture melted away after this one PI planning. They had never seen each other before, but yet they were working together. But they really weren't working together. They never seen each other face to face. It's much different experience when you see somebody and you're working face to face. But I don't know if Padma is in the audience. And she is in our safe LinkedIn forum a lot. And I speak to her through the forum. And it was really great seeing her in person. It was a whole different experience. I feel really connected to Padma now because I've seen her in person. All right, we don't have slides here. What's going on? Somebody pull out the plug? So I can talk through some of this while this is getting fixed. So many organizations rely upon silos. So you might have one of the silos being the business itself. Another silo being the systems engineering group, a development group, a QA group. Thank you, et cetera. And silos are not optimized for value delivery. They're optimized for vertical communications. There's frictions between the silos. I remember when I was working as director of development for a medium-sized software company, my goal was to get the software out as quick as we could with good quality. And the QA's goal was to make sure that software didn't get out the door until it was perfect. So we had this friction between us because our goals were different. So we really want to have an organizational structure which goes horizontal instead of going vertical. The communication across silos is extremely different, difficult. A lot of times these silos cause the splitting up of groups into different locations where you might have in the U.S. we're doing some development, but we're doing QA in India. How do you think that's going to work out? You're not going to have the teams really collaborating. They're going to be at odds. There's going to be a lot of friction, a lot of delays in the system. A lot of times there's political boundaries because the director of QA has a different goal than the director of development. QA's job is they want to create as many bugs as they can and prove the quality of the product whereas director of development wants to get the software out the door. So we're not aligned on our goals. So what we want to do instead is that we want to organize around value, not in silos. So what you can picture here is that each of these organizational parkies is a different silo. And then we have to get people from each of these different silos to form teams and then teams of teams. And then if we want people, we have to get permission from all these different managers. If we need to extend some of these time, again we have to go back to those managers and ask for more time.  So it's not a very efficient structure. Instead we want to be pulling people from each of these different silos and then organizing them around a particular value stream. Maybe the other example I gave you around mortgage servicing. So that the people who are developers and testers are working with the business. And ideally they could be co-located. I was working with Citibank and what they decided to do was they took a whole floor in New York City and they cleared it and created an open space for both the business and for all the developers and testers who were scattered throughout the city. Now we're working together in a single value stream and it's much more efficient that way. We all are working towards a common mission. We're all working towards a common vision. So the R takes a systems view and we have a cross-functional train. We have cross-functional teams to create an organizational structure that can move with speed and agility. And then we have these roles which support scaling the themes. We have a chief scrum master called the release chain train engineer. We have product management in addition to product owners. We have system architects who help guide the solution and provide intentional architecture along with emergent design. We have a system team that helps the team integrate their work until they can do it on their own as well as test and enter and scenarios that none of the teams can do. For example, performance testing, that's difficult for to do across all teams. Do security testing, enter and scenario testing of the solution of different features. And then of course we have the business owners and the customer. The other thing that we want to have is that when we have these different levels of the enterprise we also want to have different work items so that we have a surface in which we can explain the type of functionality that we want to have. And at the portfolio level we don't want to be getting into features or stories that's way too detailed. We want to have epics instead of projects and we'll talk about why projects are evil and if you don't have to have them I would recommend getting rid of them.  We have the epics which are like a large initiative. You can almost think of it as a project but it's not quite the same because it doesn't have all the baggage that a project has. And we can break those epics into capabilities if we're using the optional value stream level or we can break those epics directly into features so this doesn't have to be a linear model. You can skip different levels and skip different artifacts. And then we have enablers. Enablers are things which allow us to implement those features. It might be an architectural thing. If you're working in large systems you might need specification documents because when you're building an F-17 you just can't rely upon user stories. You need to have detailed specifications. You need to have manuals. Capabilities describe higher level solutions. They're kind of like you can think of them as a big feature. So the capability might be hardware acceleration and then the feature would describe in detail what those hardware acceleration features are. Then the features need to be broken into stories because that's where the actual execution is. And notice at each level we have different roles who are responsible for that content. So at the portfolio level we have the program portfolio management team responsible for the epics. At the program level we have product management who is responsible for the features. They have the content authority. They decide what's going into that program backlog. They do the prioritization of the program backlog. But it's not done in isolation. It's done collaboratively. And then we have product owners. They are embedded with the teams. So what are some of the problems that you have with product owners that are both responsible for the return on the investment as well as going to user conferences, meeting in executive meetings and having to work with the teams. What happens? Right. Yeah, you have what I call seagull product owners. They kind of come by. They drop their turd and then they leave. So they're not staying with the teams. But meanwhile the teams need answers. And if the teams don't have answers that causes delay in value. So what we do is that we have the product manager and they own the program backlog. They collaboratively work with a team of product owners who own the team backlog. And then they work with the team which implements value. So this way we're kind of splitting the responsibilities between product management and product owners. The key here is that we want product owners to stay with their teams and have to constantly leave to an executive meeting or to a user conference, et cetera. Of course we want them speaking to customers but we want them to be embedded with the team as much as possible. The other thing that we have is a scalable flow of value through an enterprise con bond system. This is new to SAFE 4.0. And what this does is help ensure that the flow of value happens quickly. We can have whip limits. We can understand what our cycle time is, what our lead time is using cumulative flow diagrams. For epics and capabilities and features, it's mainly about two things. One is getting readiness of that particular work item type. And secondly, being able to decompose those epics into either capabilities or features or taking capabilities and splitting them into features. So we're going through the process to make sure it's ready. So we're doing some grooming. We're doing some estimation. We may do some spikes and write some actual code to see if something is feasible, especially at the epic level. We might want to prove out some architectural concepts. We might want to prove out the business model at the epic level. And once we have broken those features, let's say the capabilities into features, then we want to move it through the con bond to make sure that that feature is ready to be implemented, that we understand it, that we know the acceptance criteria for it, and then finally to break them down into stories. And this really helps us understand where we're at in the process. What state are we in? Are we overloaded in a particular phase like analysis or design, et cetera? So this is just a deep dive into one of the con bonds just to give you an idea of what it looks like. So when a, let's say capability came down, we want to put it in the funnel, then we want to do some review and some analysis on it. And again, it's lightweight review, lightweight analysis. And then we can break them down into stories or features, I'm sorry, features. And then we'll go through a process of analysis. And then once it's been analyzed and it's been approved, it goes into a backlog, and then we start implementing it. And finally, it goes into a done state. As I mentioned earlier, safe teams have a choice of methods. They can use scrum, they can use con bond, they can use XP, or a hybrid approach of both. How many people here today are using scrum and con bond together? A lot of you out there, right? So scrum bond, a perfectly fine method to use with safe. A lot of teams, when they're, let's say, they're DevOps or maintenance teams, where the arrival of work isn't really predictable, find that con bond is a better method. Personally, I like scrum a lot for non-maintenance type projects, because I think it really helps, it pushes the envelope on improvement more so than con bond, where you kind of can keep your old ways of working. But together, safe and con bond is very powerful, because you get the discipline of scrum, plus you're able to see what's going on on big visual information radiators and have whip limits and make sure that the teams are getting to a done state. So the other thing that we have is we need some constructs to help us make safe work in a particular company's context. And even within a company, each business unit is going to have different needs so therefore we need a couple of things. One is that we need managers to become lean agile leaders who are going to teach lean and agile behaviors. They're going to teach continuous improvement, teach some tools for how to analyze for problem solving and how to address those problems and for them to act differently. We want them to be servant leaders and to get out of the way for the teams. Another informal organizational structure that we want to use is community of practices. Because if we're not working in silos anymore, how do we work on improving our craft? If all of the QA people want to improve their skills in testing, how do they do that if they're not in a functional silo anymore? Well, there could be a community of practice for that QA group. There could be a community of practice for developers to improve their software craftsmanship. What about release train engineers? Again, we might want to have a community of practice for them, but we don't want management dictating what the communities of practice are. We don't want management dictating how the communities of practice work. It's something that should be an informal mechanism that's used by the team to help them continuously improve. Finally, we want a set of values. We want to instill a lean agile mindset and use principles so that we can make safe work in your particular context or whatever scaling method that you're using. You need to have principles to provide that guiding light, that North Star. We talked about the communities of practice, and basically it's an informal network of people that are working together, experts, collaborators. You might bring in subject matter experts to talk about things. You might teach continuous integration. Whatever it might be in one or more domains, community practices are a great way to have an informal network of practitioners that can learn from each other. We talked about safe being a principle-based framework. I'm not going to read all these, but you can get an idea of the type of principles that we have. It's both lean principles, agile principles that really make safe safe. We want to embrace a lean agile mindset. In addition to embracing that lean agile mindset, we want to embrace the agile manifesto. Safe is perfectly aligned with the agile manifesto. There's nothing about the framework that isn't aligned about it. And the manifesto can scale. There's really very few things about the manifesto that would prevent the manifesto from scaling. And then we used the metaphor of the house of lean to explain these lean practices and principles of respect for people and culture, flow, innovation, and relentless improvement. Not just Kaizan, you know, it's relentless improvement where we always have this constant sense of danger. What are our competitors doing? You know, what things are going to bite us? We want to have our eyes and ears open to the different things that may happen. So we call that the constant sense of danger. There's a few more ways that we can adapt safe to your enterprise's needs. One is to use lean agile budgeting. And we want to get away from the project paradigm because project cost accounting gets in the ways of teams. It requires the use of time sheets and it causes delays in getting value to the customers. We have to bring the people to the work instead of bringing the work to the people. And we want to have stable teams, dedicated teams, and not being on five or six different initiatives.  And where are your loyalties? Which project should get your attention? So there's a lot of friction and overhead. Instead, we fund a value string. And that value string gets funded for at least six months. And therefore, we don't have to approve individual projects. We don't have to approve individual features. That is decentralized control. The agile release train and the teams make those decisions. Also, you know, one of the things about SAFE that people misunderstand is that the icons on there are really twofold. One is to give you an understanding of the SAFE model. It's a domain model. And the other thing is to navigate to particular guidance. So if we click on an icon, you get guidance. But we show the customer here and we show the customer here when it's in collapse mode. That doesn't mean that we're not working with a customer at the team level. That means we didn't have enough room on the big picture to also put the customer down at the team level. And also, if we had too many icons there, it would be even more complicated looking. So it really doesn't reflect, you know, exactly how it works. You know, all models are wrong and some are useful.  Because it's just more than teams. We need to have programs. We need to have strategy. We need to have continuous improvement, not only at the team level, but in the entire system. We have to use systems thinking in that regard. We have another thing called a spanning palette. And it's these icons here. And these icons can apply at any level. So we used to have a program vision and a portfolio vision, and the big picture was just getting messier and messier. So in reality, those items can apply at any level. We can have a portfolio vision, we can have a value stream vision, we can have a program vision, and teams can have a vision for themselves as well. We can have roadmaps at different levels, like a portfolio roadmap or a program roadmap. We have metrics at different levels. Agile and lean metrics. Not the kind of metrics which causes the wrong behaviors, like comparing velocities between the teams. We want to measure actual business value. Because who cares about how many stories you complete? Who cares about how many features you complete? That's just activity. We want to actually measure what the business value is. So we have guidance and advice on that. And the advice, of course, you know, you can, over time, as you understand the framework, you change it. You know, you don't have to use the reports that we provide as a starting point. You can come up with your own, use your own. But at least you have a starting point for this stuff, because most people get really anxious about, how do I start natural transformation? What should I do?  We provide you that guidance so you knew what to do. You can put in a system that's going to work from the team level all the way up to the portfolio. All Agile teams are on one train, except for perhaps shared services. So the train plans together, they integrate and demo together, and they also learn together. And that's a big difference. When we heard Dave talk about, you know, all these missing constructs. But we have the constructs here to do that. And it's a success pattern we know works. We need to be able to scale from the team to the train. So all the teams meet face to face in a release planning meeting, or what we now call a PI planning meeting. And they commit to a set of objectives. They don't commit to a set of features. What's wrong with committing to a set of features? Teams finish all the features? Why not? Right, some are not really valuable, right? And as you go along, you're going to realize, well, to get the value, we can drop these stories, we can drop these features. So we really want to be looking at the business value that we're getting. So we have ways of doing that. We have different ceremonies for the teams that work together. We have scrum or scrums. We have a PO sync, similar to a scrum or scrums, but it's for the product owners. And then we have an art sync if you want to put those two ceremonies together. Sometimes organizations feel that the product owners and the scrum masters should be in all one meeting. They find it more efficient that way. But sometimes it's better to have just a PO sync and discuss, are we on progress with the features that we're developing? Maybe having some grooming sessions to get ready for the next program increment, et cetera. Teams, we do retrospectors at the team level and that helps them improve. Now what about program issues? Issues that affect all the teams. We have system issues which affect all of the teams. So we need to have an inspect and adapt ceremony at the program level so we can fix that. And who do you think is responsible for that, for removing those impediments at the program level? The RTE, right, because they're the chief scrum master for the train.  So we provide advice on how to coordinate. So one of the important things is is that we want the whole system to iterate. So if we have one team doing two week iteration, another team doing a three week iteration, yet another team doing a four week iteration, it's really difficult to plan together. It's really difficult to integrate the work from different teams. And then you're constrained by the slowest team. So therefore we want to have the same start dates, same finish dates for all of the teams. And we want to have a common roadmap for them. I just wanted to mention to you that we're having a safe SPC class in Bangalore on April 19th to the 22nd. The instructor is going to be Joe Malone. And is it safe to adopt SAFE? Absolutely. 60% of the Fortune 100 companies are using SAFE. 10% of the Global 500 are using SAFE. We have 38,000 SAFE train practitioners in over 80 countries. Our LinkedIn forum has over 6,000 members. In fact, I just looked this morning, it now has 9,000 members. So we talked about 175% growth. Now it's even higher. And we have over 21 case studies, which proves that our patterns work. So if you want to learn more, you can go to our website, scale.joffirmic.com. And there, it's a free website. We don't ask for a blood sample. You don't have to give your e-mail address. You don't have to identify yourself in any way. The guidance and advice on there is free. You just can't take our copyrighted materials and create your own, but you can read the ideas and implement them. And often we have a company submit a case study to us. We don't even know that they were implementing SAFE. They just did it on their own, looking at the website. Not as good outcomes that way, because really you need the training and you need to follow an implementation method. So these are our two main courses, leading SAFE and implementing SAFE. And we have other courses as well for the teams. Well, that's it. Do we have time for one question? No time for any questions. Looks like I went over my time box. I appreciate that. I got a little bit fouled up in the beginning so I'm sorry if it wasn't as smooth as I normally am.


Welcome to the Future Trends Forum. Now is our time to start this week's session. I'm glad to see you all here today. We have an unusual and very exciting project with some great guests. I'm really looking forward to our conversation. What I'd like to introduce to all of you is a program called the 100 Year Project. It's a new way of thinking about educational technology. The idea is to look back in the past from what we've learned from the history of educational technology and extrapolate forward to see all told 100 years of where educational technology has gone and where it might take us. In order to do that, in order to have that conversation, I'd like to bring on board three of its leaders. So let me just begin by moving from left to right. We're starting off with our good friend Lev Gommick. And let's see if he is here right now. Hello, Lev. Hey, Brian. Great to be with you. Good to see you, sir. Very good to see you. And congratulations on the announcement this morning of the Arizona State University's chatGPT program. Congratulations. Just another day in the life of Arizona State University. It is. You guys are tremendous. So, Lev, we'd like to ask people to introduce themselves in the form in an unusual way. Instead of the academic obituary fashion describing what you've done, we ask you to say, what are you working on for the next year? So, Lev, just tell us, what's coming up for you? What are the big projects and the big ideas for the next year and for you? Well, thanks, Brian, first of all. And hi, everybody. You may have stolen one of my headlines for what I've been working on. That is All Things AI at ASU, sort of the spirit of the Doug Engelbar tradition. We think of it as very much about augmenting, you know, human intelligence and all things in that journey. And today, as Brian shared, we made, I think, a really fun and exciting new announcement with a collaboration on blueprinting that future with Open AI. And, you know, looking forward to our journey and hopefully inviting you all to be part of that as well.  And specifically in our VR work, some folks may have heard of our Dreamscape Learn initiative, which is a terrific collaboration. And it is going deeper and faster. In many disciplines, we started with biology, now we're doing chemistry, space science, art history. I mean, that's fabulous work. And the other piece that I'm personally spending quite a bit of time on and would love to come back another time to chat with you all, but perhaps if some of you are going to join us for the 100-year project, we've talked also about the ways in which we create an ecosystem of platform technologies to support transferring of credits, digital credits, for not only things like the typical stuff that you would think is, which is to say courses, but all evidence of learning that goes on. And we have a project called the Trusted Learner Network, which starts with learner sovereignty in terms of owning their own learning journey and have a fabulous international collaboration on that. So those are just three things that are keeping me busy. Well, those are immense things. I'm just delighted to hear about them. And then, yes, I would love to bring you back to talk about the network. That would be terrific. And I've got to ask because outside here is about 25 degrees. What's the weather like there? It's relatively chilly. It's sort of mid-60s, but if you give me a... But such as a winter chill, you can sort of see I'm wearing my... Yeah, it's only 68 degrees. And so, yes, it's such as it is here, as you know. And one of the reasons we're hosting the 100-year project in Scottsdale at the end of February is that elsewhere in the country, it's typically not as nice weather. Quite true. Quite true. Well, I'm delighted you could join us, Lev. We've been looking forward to this. Let me bring on stage your colleagues, your co-conspirators. And let's bring them on for their conversation as well. So, Stephanie, hello. Hello, how are you? Oh, excellent, excellent. Very good to see you. And where are you today? I'm in Scottsdale, Arizona today, where it's 61 degrees. I see there's a theme coming up here. There's a theme. Well, I'm so glad you could join us.  Along those lines, let me ask the same question I've put to Lev. What are you going to be working on for the next year? The 100-year project is a huge part of what I will be working on. I also have a couple of other projects that may be of interest to this group. One is called Platosium, and it's about playful pedagogy and the importance of how it addresses mental health crisis, loneliness crisis, teacher retention, and student retention. So that's, yeah, we're doing an event for that in LA. Next month, and then we have obviously the 100-year project design summit coming up here in Scottsdale. And then we have another event later in the year that we're working on with the Swedish American Chamber of Commerce to pull the Amadalan concept that they've developed since 1968, where the country basically shuts down for a week. And academia, industry, and government come together to address Sweden's biggest challenges. So we are taking that concept as inspiration and developing Amadalan Arizona. Oh, wow. I wouldn't know about that. I've never put Sweden and Arizona together, but that's a great idea. They are very inspirational folks, and it's no coincidence that they are one of the happiest countries in the world, given the sense of hope and agency that a system like this brings. Oh, it's a great country. It's a great country. Well, it sounds like you're going to be busy as heck.  I'm so glad to hear it. And maybe that Swedish inspired project, maybe we could bring you back to talk about it later on. Absolutely. Excellent. Well, let me add one more member to your trica. Let me bring the ringleader on stage. And let me add him to the mix. We have Joe Lambert. Hello, sir. What do you know? Brian and Joe, we're back together again. It's great to be here. Since you've already asked the question, I'll answer it.  But we're very excited about one thing we're working on, which is the next International Digital Storytelling Conference. We'll leave the Northern Hemisphere where it's been since 2006 and go to Belam, Brazil, because the COP28 will be in Belam. And so, you know, we're trying to connect. I actually take it back to COP30, right? COP30 and 28 just happened. And so we're trying to link our work in digital storytelling to some of these big pressing issues around climate change and around, you know, what we're going to be doing to deal with the impact of climate change in all the contexts. You'll see that that theme will be more front and center with Story Center in the coming year, and it's front and center in the 100 years project. So let's transition to talk a little bit about that. Well, I can't wait to hear about that. I'll just say it's a super pleasure for me to have gotten to work with Stephanie and Lev over the last year on this project, and I'm deeply thankful. And Stephanie and I are both excited to hear, Lev, you know, give us the background on this. So I'll turn it over to you, Brian. Well, it's great to see you, and I'm glad all of you could make the time. And I have a personal connection with you. Lev is someone that I've worked with off and on back when he was in Ohio as well as in Arizona. Stephanie with Shaping EDU and Joe is co-founder of the Digital Storytelling Movement. So three very, very special people. Let me ask, by the way, if you're new to the forum, what I'm going to do is I'm going to ask our guest a couple of questions to get things rolling. But then I'd like to turn it over to you all with your questions and comments. So as Lev and as Stephanie and as Joe speak about their work and show you a bit of it, think about what you'd like to know more of and hit the chat box more, but also get ready to hit the Q&A box. And of course, if you'd like to join us on stage, just hit the raised hand button. My first question is, why a 100-year project? What are you hoping to accomplish for this framing that we don't already have? Brian, maybe I can start. And again, I think it's meant to be intentionally provocative. I mean, the whole idea of 100 years is obviously a different arc and a different framing of the times where more times than not, most of us including myself have a hard time thinking beyond the sort of tyranny of the urgent or the things sucking the air out of the room on a particular ed tech technology and or set of initiatives. So this is a bit of an invitation to the privilege of thinking in much longer horizons than is typically afforded. And as Stephanie shared, and this is very much, and Joe shared as well, very much a design focus activity. The way we sort of started it, Brian, was if you sort of look to some of the very, very early activities that happened in our community, it's about 50 years ago that, you know, we started to see the conversations that now are some almost 60 years ago in the broader technology space, begin to find their intersections, you know, inside what we now understand as the sort of educational technology space. There's some terrific archives, you know, that have been written, open archives that have been written about those early days. And certainly, you know, what we did and again under Joe's fabulous facilitation, you know, we had a gathering at first design session, actually in beautiful New Mexico, near Santa Fe in a gorgeous, fantastic setting. And we really kind of did the retrospect of what has happened over the last 50 years. And I've already sort of invoked the Doug Engelbart framing of it, because of course that was 1969. And obviously that's more than 50 years ago, but when we took a look at all the kinds of technologies and as it were in sort of inspirations for the art of the possible, we found ourselves working around and massaging many of those themes and carrying them out to approximately the present time. And then again, very much organically from the 25 or so folks who were part of that, and I've already put in the chat the website of the 100 year project that you can definitely take a look at. You know, we began sort of laying out and putting together opportunities for thinking for the next 50 years and not just sort of again for like what has to happen next week, next month, next quarter, next year even to try to think about the ways in which we as humans interested in education can leverage technology to achieve more greater humanity, better understanding of our relationship to each other and to the earth and to the things that matter along the way. And again, I think Joe is the consummate's storyteller. He has created a kind of an arc of conversations to try to advance that work and I know he's going to share more about that. Thank you, Beth. Thank you. Lev, Stephanie, do you want to add more to Lev's creative introduction? Sure, yeah. I think that it's interesting to look at. Last year was the 100th anniversary of technology in the classroom. So that's the first recorded instance of a radio being brought into a classroom to enhance the experience. So here we are 100 years later. We look around our classrooms. They look very similar to what they did back then. So what is the experience going to be for the learner and how do we give an agency in that process over the next 50 years? We have to be very intentional about it and be proactive rather than reactive and getting the right people in the room to have that conversation is what this event's all about. Great. Taking us back to radio. That's excellent. The thing I would add is that I think some of us, I'm about 40 years into my career, some of us kind of see this 40-50-year period as the big generational shift and I've got a 21-year-old undergraduate daughter at the University of Puget Sound and Biology and I'm sort of imagining her as me 50 years from now. Basically, she was born when I was 47 so it's almost like who would this person be and what will they have to journey through and what are we doing to prepare? So the approach we took after a lot of discussion was to provide people with a postcard from characters who were existing in 2074 who actually are the elders of that period, maybe deeply integrated with the younger generations underneath when they're working with, but we sort of hear them say, when did it have been great if? Back in the 2020s when you were dealing with all those things, you thought about this or you dealt with that or you prepared us for things like endless climate-related crises that all of us are seeing right now and continue to see. What are we doing in our educational institutions to make that possible? So the theory of the design, the conference and the approach that will be taken is we'll have a setup where we'll start with young people and their perspective then we'll move to a kind of middle-generation subject matter experts framing these big emergent trends of AI and automation and virtuality through AI or XR and the idea then is that there will be working sessions where people will be thinking about these narratives from the future I call them postcards from the future and drawing out what are some of the critical issues in research, what are the critical issues in policy, what are the kinds of things we'll do in our curriculum and certainly about the context in which education so the small groups will work toward that with the idea that we're moving toward an outcome that we hope will be a solid report but also a series of tools not exactly in the organization of a tool box but everybody in our retreat at Ghost Ranch last year said we need to keep innovating ideas about what you can do to prep for the massive changes that we're expecting and so there will be some I'm working on a game there'll be things like a game there'll be things like how do you tell stories from the future and that's the kind of thing we want people to walk away we are also going to ritualize the experience where they're going to bring their ancestors in at the beginning and exit with a commitment to change something in their lives and in their professional environment wow this sounds like a fantastic event and by the way just to look ahead from the forum perspective first of all the bottom left of the screen you should see a tan colored button that will take you 100 year project webpage but also we're going to do a live session from the event itself about a month from now which I'm really looking forward to this sounds like as your futurist here I'm just delighted by this and I'm wondering Joe do you want to give us a try of showing a couple of these short stories my hope was that these stories would give people a little bit of an idea of how this would work Joe maybe you can tell us a little overview of that we'll do it as people have the idea each of what will be 10 scenarios take characters from around the planet who are facing educational dilemmas in this case how campuses will react when a large number of refugees caused by some environmental disaster are suddenly needing to be integrated into campus life so in some ways the campus will become one of the institutions for climate refugees to sustain themselves we note that some of the institutions are ready with their integration into communities to handle that but many institutions won't be ready and we're already seeing these sort of situations with fires and disasters I heard University of Oregon is in the middle of an ice crisis and inevitably that's one of the ideas but we then talk into the cultural issues of AI we talk about the way that digital addiction will become something that many people will suffer even as we're giving people these tools we're realizing people are getting lost inside some of these places we talk about the impact of automation and how many many many professions will be affected and what will that do to people and how many other organizations are going to go through this massive reorganization of labor in the mid-century all of these things are speculated about by people like Kim Stanley Robinson and the futurists in the science fiction world but we're trying to say now these are pretty real likelihoods and how do these stories stir up something in a way to illustrate it and if we had to pay for the illustrations it would have been a $100,000 project we used mid-journey AI to generate the visual material so it's also from a digital storytelling standpoint a kind of new mechanism for doing scenario storytelling and this is something I did with the Institute for the Future for several years back in the late 90s where we were telling stories into the future and trying to come up with the illustration mid-journey and meta amazing what it can help you create and I don't think it's art but it's part of the process of our doing new kinds of work that's a great way of putting it but why don't we take two minutes and everybody take a look at this video I think we come back you know of course the one I shared was the longest of all of them but I think hopefully people get a taste I think it's kind of clear what these are intended to do I think what's going to be fascinating is how people work through these stories toward their own vision of what they would imagine would change in their own work and the kinds of issues that we expect to address in depth at the conference I think this is a great example I mean I love the way that you've used all the AI art including the autonomous quad buggies which is great I loved seeing the people which I know is essential to any good story and I loved hearing the voice of the narrator which really brought that home in a very intimate way I'm just curious before we go further what the rest of you will have thought about that story and again if you want to hit the Q&A box or if you want to raise your hand and join us on stage we can fit a few more people Roxanne Riskin our good friend says in the chat that the ease of using AI to generate multimedia removes a large barrier of time and needing to hire expert designers too Chris Jones says this is inspirational and here's a question for the three of you a quick question and then Krieger asks can you share out this video I can envision a couple of different class topics and projects that would be really helpful Leymann is waving his head I said maybe after after the event we'll have some feedback from the participants in the room and be able to potentially enhance it a bit so we are also looking forward to creating a montage out of that as well and so I concur with Stephanie I was not trying to do something that was ambivalent I was just thanks Stephanie I agree with you we invite you all to if you're interested to as Stephanie has offered in the chat be in touch Brian obviously we're looking forward to you joining us and participating and through your network we're looking forward to getting to the goals that we're already anticipating some that we want to be serendipitously open to what might have unfold but there will definitely be some products that we anticipate to frame this 50 year horizon through the scenarios that through the game framework that we hope people will be able to take away with them and use in their own context the level of education museum settings the list of people who are part of our first design session as well as the second design session come from a fairly diverse set of education and we've done our level best to curate the participation so it is an invitational and so in this case you are all friends of Brian and that's probably good enough for us to choose to join us at the event live just to say that you're friends of Brian Alexander and you're well on your way but it's only going to be about 150 people it's not meant to be a massive gathering because we actually want to continue to do work together get to know each other better learn from each other and use the creative storytelling framework as release the vehicle for engaging what we hope will be deeper conversation and there are relatively few presentations as part of this work Excellent, excellent all around just want to share a couple of quick thoughts you have obviously you have fans and supporters in the audience today Chris Jones echoed the call for this to be available so you can see that there's definite interest in it Karen mentioned something really interesting, as a Florida resident having been through various hurricanes I'm very familiar with aspects of this as to how no one can predict all of that John Hollenbeck points out an interesting point he says it's distressing to think we'll be in classrooms and dormitories classrooms and pedagogy so that's a long-term one and then Lisa says one of the most depressing things I've seen so I recommended to her my most recent book more depression Brian one thing that I want to add is that one of the deliverables from this design summit will be part of this report which will be free and accessible to all who don't have the resources that we necessarily have we're also creating a manifesto and it's really a call to action and we're designing that creating that throughout the design summit and we will definitely share that out as part of the report which will be a multimedia report so we're looking forward to that great, excellent, excellent I'm really glad to hear that we have another question from Chris and this is like a perfect bridge transition question what are the other scenarios in this set and I'm sure Joe says I'm glad you asked you know I go down another species communication which you know I just saw an article about a 20 minute conversation with a whale and some scientists so you know we're projecting out but a lot's going on you know we have again I mentioned digital addiction kind of mental health caused by automation crisis you know we've spread these stories around you know the different kind of people that we have in our network so the voice overs are done by a lot of my friends and colleagues but there's a piece about physical enhancement and competition and the degree to which you know things like gender fluidity and identity will be built into enhancement and non enhancement organic Olympics as opposed to the enhanced Olympics the idea those ideas are you know one of the stories what am I leaving out you know remember my nine things in the play no I mean you know genetically modified teaching in a post-truth era is about an imagined character at a small campus called New Albion who is greatly limited and it's sort of imagine what would happen if DeSantis's approach to new college in Florida was executed across the country you know who would be the sort of surviving academics trying to find the right language and in this case a way to talk about evolution without getting fired so there are things that I would say fall into the political you know realm because we know the politics of democracy and autocracy are going to be critical in this next and any of us that thinks we'll get through 2024 without having to confront that I mean some of us think that those are immediate issues of how educators can function under an autocratic situation so again I think you guys get the idea we didn't cover them all and what we want to do is encourage people to make their own and this is something we'll you know evolve a way to assist people and I hope a little guide is one of the things that can come out of this we've talked about a little paint by numbers template for people to write into a scenario either a decade ahead or two decades ahead or in this case five decades ahead so that's another tool we would imagine coming out of this process Excellent I thought it was terrific also it was great and I would add did you mention the permaculture scenario I didn't you know I have a colleague here who's an Australian who does youth work and I imagine her as performing artist turn media artist turn permaculture expert teaching the three sisters the squash, corn makes you know bean makes as a kind of late 21st century performance art permaculture as performance art so they again is a little bit of what we're trying to imagine but I think all of everybody here could tell a story like that and it might be useful for a planning process like this one I think so friends I've got more questions but I want to hear more from all of you too what would you like to what else would you like to see in these kinds of stories what else would you like to know about how we were made and how is this helping you think about education technology in this framing so again just use the chat box and of course the Q&A box as you've just seen and you can join us on stage this is a this panel here is one of those panels which disproves the myth that you have to have a beard in order to be on the forum so you can have one question from John Hollandeck or actually a theme that he's been asking which is about pedagogical changes and I'm curious in your envisioning of the next 50 years what are some of the pedagogical transformations that three of you have been thinking about or were they heard from other people involved in this project certainly in the first design session one of the themes that seemed to be tracking 50 years ago forward was a general trend towards making real the long time aspiration and promise of a learner centered set of frameworks and I think the sort of the autonomous or sovereign learner interesting because I think a part of that was reflected by the people who were in the room themselves are fairly sovereign autonomous didactic learners themselves sort of felt like that that was one of the themes that might well carry on into this next design session and again I would not be sort of prognosticating but certainly if the AI journey continues to unfold one could well imagine relationships to the machine in a way that are a little bit different than just the dystopian views that certainly are important again in sort of black swan scenarios but perhaps there are also more optimistic if not dystopian scenarios continue to support autonomous sovereign learning pieces that's one theme that just in quick response Brian to the question I'm sure Stephanie or Joe may have reflections as well please thank you Joe go ahead Joe I mean I think this is the essential idea of inventing we don't really think we're prognosticating the future we're not saying what's going to happen we're saying part of our role now is to invent context that respond to trends and that we realize things like the autonomous learner and the sovereign learner are things that we've already seen just coming out of the pandemic the shifts and so what more and you know I have to say Arizona State University is perhaps the most interesting campus in the country right now because of its commitment and I see it in the field of the arts where I come from to putting innovative people in the same laboratory meaning the whole campus is a laboratory and I think more campuses need to follow that lead of making it you know we overuse the world innovation but a place where invention is inherent it's like we have a problem let's address it with new ideas with new visions and yes I would hope like Lev says they're more utopian a lot of us come from the tradition of techno utopian perspective and we haven't given up we're still trying to use these tools for the best uses to make the best humans to create a healthy, safe diverse you know functioning planet sustainable planet so you know ASU's role in this is critical and so I hope all of you take a look at what we do but also at the other things that are happening with shaping EDU with many of the different institutes and organizations that are there of which you know I've had the pleasure to work with several of them but I'm learning new things about that campus all the time and I would add that one of the critical components of this design summit is that we are co-creating the future together we've created a forum and an environment for people to feel like they have a method of contributing to what the future is not that it's happening to them but they are actually co-designing it with us so I think that's a really critical piece of this having that sense of agency in the future and to the point about the future being some of these scenarios being a little depressing I think that's where we get to put a different hat on and say okay it doesn't have to be this way how do we prevent this from happening or how do we proactively deal with it if it's inevitably going to happen together and we're not alone in this process we have this community which we will convene repeatedly over the next 50 years to pro-create this together Stephanie I need to figure out how to clone you and bring you to campuses all over the world if you figure that out let me know working on it that's going to be another story we have more chatter in the chat box appropriately and people have pointed out a Star Trek school that appeals to them some calls interdisciplinarity and some calls for a type of teaching that I've always mispronounced which I think is hudugaji and see Karen has shared some about that which is very good and again let me just say if there's any right everybody for questions for this process please put them in the Q&A box or raise your hand we have some more comments about Carolyn, I think this is Carolyn of JPL who says that she doesn't see instructors going away so that part of the that labor aspect is still being there question is how they get to teach and what they get to work and the role are they more navigators guiding students through the process that the students have more agency in determining what that path is and the role of educators will change and we have to be ready for that indeed I agree thinking about this, let me ask this from a different angle when you have all these stories together and you also have the other features you have the tools, you have the templates you have the game or games that are involved where do you go with this next after you've got a report or some different multimedia documents and then you want to put this out into the world do you actually make this an annual event where you keep coming back or is there another way you would like to do this virtual events or for example take advantage of XR that Lev mentioned right away and have an XR based event where do you go with all this all of the above I definitely see this being an annual event and having some virtual components so we can have a more diverse group with different perspectives from around the world as well as more students contributing as well that's something we're really excited about as the students from the next generation service core who are very future focused will be joining us for this event and offering their input I would just say that one of the fun things of the first design session we are designing it into the second session is actually those voices, diverse voices of young learners that are out there and I think that we certainly gleaned insights some of them were provocative and other of them were maybe a bit more predictable you know we certainly by the way I should just also add in addition to young learners that are being invited here at ASU we have an interesting senior living team a project called Mirabella and we've just started to selectively we've asked for two members of the Mirabella community to also participate they are even older than I am and they will be invited to join us and bring wisdom which is perhaps one of the things we might say come with aging or at least I'd like to think so and the learner community that I think again we are trying to be intentional by design for those of you who are interested the Mirabella project is a fantastic initiative of a community living arrangement that is essentially a campus in the campus here in the Tempe area with services for recently seniors whatever that even means by age these days all the way through continuing with care and with fabulous integration into the life of the young learners as well being mentors tutors and as well all those people all essentially getting an ASU ID and being able to participate in the life of the campus so you know it is part of what Joe was sort of saying earlier about ASU it is sort of in the spirit of inventing the future in a way that is definitely not the traditional role of a university and I think that what we'd like to do is get more input for other ideas whether it happens at this organization called ASU or a museum environment or community based learning project coding camps all the things that are going out there to not predetermine what the outcome is kind of what the goal here it is as Stephanie said to be as generative and catalytic as it can be the idea of hosting a regular set of sessions again it will all depend on kind of what the value is as the participants see it but we certainly have had lots and lots of interest and whether it's a regular convening or virtual convening such as the one you're hosting today Brian we'll sort of figure that out and who knows in the future are going to afford us and it was certainly very interested in the in ruled opportunities letting people explore that environment in ways that we hope will be intuitive and fun at the same time well excellent I would just add about the Marabella community most of them are retired educators so we really get that first-hand perspective of what the last 50 years look like from the classroom as a learner and an educator wow that's terrific and you know what we should do is we should have a session there entirely about senior learning well we have a comment or a question that has come in from Noah Geisel who asks are some of the main outcomes for participants less about the exercises of predicting and more about diving into critical thinking and reflection about our roles and responsibilities in the future Stephanie you just started nodding vigorously yes yes I think it's not we're not looking for you know the magic eight mall to help us figure out what's going on we're really looking at okay how do we approach the future with an antifragile mentality and be prepared for whatever is thrown at us and we can do that in this group so we're really cultivating a future-focused mindset and exploring how everyone can in a participatory way design the future together that's what I think futures work does best I definitely agree friends we're coming up to our last five minutes here and I want to make sure that everyone gets a chance to to share their thoughts and to put their questions up we have Geisel LaRose let me just share this because Geisel is a great person I think she's coming to you from New Orleans right now and she says I commend the committee I look forward to participating Geisel does a lot of work with making webinars productive through a website foundation which is terrific so hey Geisel good to meet you in Brian's forum thanks for sending me a note yesterday Geisel is great and that's one of the things we do in the forum is we network like we had some more interest in the Mirabelle community from the chat Roxanne Risken our good friend says that she's heard of Horizon seniors it's the same up in Portland it's the same developer although this one was co-developed with us here at ASU okay people over 75 75 plus she says yeah less about age specific okay and then John that gets even more age specific says old people learning imagine that and then we have some our good friend Mark Corbett Wilson who I think we'll see there and there's another says that this is the first time he's heard of people talking about teaching seniors for a while so I think it's especially important let me ask a question Jones he had it with connectivity so with this afterwards but I'm curious what you think about demographic transition in terms of our shrinking ultimately shrinking human population which will start which will start to happen the last decade of this project as well as the dwindling number of children and the growing number of seniors is that something that you all have been exploring in these stories absolutely and the stat I read last week which was still wrapping my head around it is that less than 10 percent of people involved in higher education by 2030 will be on a campus so that's that does a lot to the landscape of what but also how we prepare the best experience using technology for future learners of all ages is critical to the future success of education as a whole so fewer than 10 percent of the people involved in academic enterprise will actually be on campus and the rest is going to be a combination of distance learning and work from home yes and that's so what does that do to the college experience right the traditional college experience someone goes off and you know what becomes part of a different community and has that kind of immersive experience how do we replicate something like that to best prepare young learners for the future and to be successful in their career path it's a lot to process it's a fantastic thing there is a stat that I'm just blanking on his name sorry Phil Hill was sharing from federal data that about one-third of students right now are taking classes entirely online about one-third are taking some of their classes online and only about one-third are taking all their classes online so consider that a snapshot on the way to what you just described Stephanie if you get a chance if you share where you found that line people are clamoring for it in the chat speaking of clamoring while you're doing that let me start off by asking Lev this question what is the best way for people to keep up with this project and what are the best ways they can get involved can we start with a web page or yeah I think the 100 year which is still highlighted there on the left-hand side of the screen just below our video screens here is the space there is again a kind of set of internal organizational Slack channels that we're working on at some point it may prove that we use that or something else to keep some of the dialogue going for those who are interested in the kind of making of work in terms of the product outputs I'm sure there will be all kinds of interesting ways for folks to learn to engage again hopefully Brian you'll invite us back to a Shindig platform set of conversations over the next period of time and certainly we'll do our best to not abuse the social media world but try to keep folks who are interested informed and invite people to again as Stephanie Joe and I have been saying through the hour to feel this as a genuine invitation to help us co-create the many many different pathways to learning for us here in this community as well as hopefully to do less harm than we have over the last 50 years to the planet by being intentional about the ways in which we leverage our knowledge and the relationships that we have to machines you know in the next 50 years oh thank you I like the way you think left Stephanie what's the best way we can keep up with you can we find you a LinkedIn yes LinkedIn is where I must active so please do look for me there and happy to connect with all of you very good and Joe again we've been having connection difficulties but he put his email in the chat and of course you go to storycenter.org to find his digital story telling nonprofit enterprise right there it's the it's the top of the hour here so I'm afraid I have to wrap things up but I want to thank both of you all three of you for being just terrific guests this is a project that's the deer in my heart and I can't wait to see where it goes thank you both for your time and for your initiative in this project and we'll look forward to talking to you very soon bye now and thanks everybody thank you Brian thank you everyone but don't go away yet friends let me just wrap things up by saying if you'd like to keep talking about this if you want to keep sharing stories and thinking about these ideas we can do this over at the social media enterprise just go to hashtag FTTE and you can see all of my different social media presence is there as well as my blog if you'd like to dive into our previous sessions which includes some on story telling of course the future look at tinyurl.com slash FTF archive if you want to look ahead to our upcoming sessions we do have our follow-up session again in a month along with one on mental health one on college sports and the department of education and still more thank you all for being with us this was an exciting session I look forward to circling back with us in the meantime I hope everybody there is safe and well sharing cold areas I hope you stay warm and I hope you're all very very well we'll see you next Thursday take care bye bye