This morning's panel will be moderated by Krista Anderson, who is a research fellow at the World Wildlife Fund. The plan is for Krista to start with a few questions for the panel, and then we will take some questions from the audience. We'll use a similar format as for the presentations. Please submit your questions via the Q&A function. I will now hand it over to Krista Anderson and the panel. Thank you, Sarah. As Sarah mentioned, we've heard already today from Sally, Chris, Rob, and Paul, and we're joined by Jeremy now. Our objective in this workshop is to discuss research opportunities, and in particular today, of course, research opportunities around the global carbon cycle and natural climate solutions. Jeremy, as you're just joining us now, I'd love to turn the first question to you. Given your role as a scientist in oil and gas, what do oil and gas company investments look like in natural climate solutions today, and what is your involvement been in this topic? Yeah, thanks, Krista. Thanks for allowing me to tear this one off. I mean, going back to first principles, I think it's fair to say that society is powered by energy, and Sally very eloquently explained the benefits of energy in helping to societies to develop. But of course, society is changing, the population is increasing, emissions are increasing, and the society needs to decrease its emissions. So I think as a world, and as a shell scientist, we are part of the global community that is trying to tackle the climate change issue. As a world, we need more energy, but it has to be has to be cleaner. And there are a number of levers that you can play to decarbonise. And I think as a society, we're going to pull all those levers. I think for Shell, it's about the first lever we have is to sell more natural gas, which has a lower carbon footprint, lower emissions than other energy sources. It's about electrification, it's about generating more electricity, particularly from wind and solar. And it's about providing lower carbon fuel, so be there biofuels or hydrogen, or for people with electric cars, the ability to charge those cars. So that's a way of reducing the carbon emissions. But that's not going to be enough, we're going to need some other things. So we're going to need some negative emissions technologies. Briefly mentioned was carbon capture and storage. And the other one is what we call nature-based solutions, so natural carbon offsets. So Shell is investing heavily in projects to decarbonise it in this way. And this allows us, for example, to offer our customers products, be they gasoline at the pump in the Netherlands and the UK, or purchases of natural gas as a way of offsetting the carbon associated with that. So it's practical stuff that you can do here and now by investing in natural and nature-based solutions projects. Great, thanks. And could you just spend me one more minute talking a little bit about what some of those nature-based solutions projects have been for you? Yeah, absolutely. So I mean, this year and next year, as a company, we're investing around $200 million in these projects. And they cover the whole spectrum. Naturally, in the early stages, this is a lot about reforestation or avoiding deforestation. But we also get increasingly involved in other natural ecosystems that I think also have great potential. So this is about providing products to our customers, but it's also providing the underpinning research and development to understand the potential, the pitfalls, the measurements need to be involved. So that's where Shell's investing at the moment. Great, thanks. And I think, Jeremy, given that you'd mentioned carbon capture and storage, I wanted to turn back to an earlier comment where we heard about BEX and I think maybe Sally, if you wanted to take a first cut at this one, what about the role of BEX in fulfilling our energy demand and what are the research needs there? What is the potential? This is an option that has been sometimes contrasted with natural climate solutions in terms of costs and other opportunities. What would you say to bring that into the conversation? Yeah, so I think BEX, like all the solutions, it can be part of a solution and where you have ag wastes and you have forest residues, particularly associated with forest management to keep healthy forests. I think that there's a important potential there. Of course, it creates negative emissions, which are really useful. We've done detailed studies of the US potential and also global potential. And in the US, by mid-century, with a significant amount of effort devoted to actually dedicated forest crops, you might get between half and a million... No, no, I'm not saying that right. It could be on the sort of level of 10 to 20% of the US energy supply. So it's not huge, but it's not insignificant. In terms of research needs, there's a lot of devils in the details, running power generation facilities with biofuels, which are pretty dirty feedstock. They're all kinds of inefficiencies. There are lots of issues with the efficiency of residue collection. If you're going to be transporting these materials over long distances, a lot of the benefits can be offset by those transportation. So doing really good life cycle assessment is going to be really important. I think that there's an interesting potential of DAC with BEX. So we get the double bang for the buck because direct air capture does need a significant amount of energy. And if you could provide that with biofuels and sequester all those emissions, you could even get a bigger benefit. So just to put that into a finer conscious, if you're using natural gas to capture CO2 as your heat source for every million tons of CO2 that you're taking out of the atmosphere, you have another half a million tons of CO2 from the natural gas that you've used to heat up the solvent to regenerate it. So that's very significant. But if you're doing that with BEX, you basically get two times as many emissions reductions as you would if you took the alternative pathway. So yeah, I think it's important. I think that the integrated assessment models have been extremely optimistic in terms of the potential of BEX, but it's still important. And in certain locations could be extremely important. Thank you. And Chris, I see you have your microphone off mute. Did you want to add something to that? I was just turning my microphone off mute in order to be polite and ready to answer. Good, because I have a next question. Zooming out a little bit as we talked about those research opportunities, I would love to ask you first and the other panelists as well, what might be your sort of top two research questions related to the global carbon cycle and natural climate solutions? So what research do you see really being needed to achieve this 100 to 200 billion tons that you cited as potential? I think we've talked today mainly about the technology and the economic incentives that might be most important. I think where the big unknowns are more in the political and cultural and the social enablers and in the kinds of incentives that actually work in real societies, questions of how things like land tenure get addressed, how you deal with issues of protecting areas from deforestation, where you have weak states and incomplete governance. And I think it's easy to be too optimistic about the potential of natural climate solutions in places that don't have strong institutions and the biggest opportunities for figuring out how to make progress I think are more in the social sciences at this point than they are in the natural sciences. Others on the panel, would you care to offer your two thoughts? Rob, go ahead. I can weigh in briefly. I first of all agree with Chris in that the behavioral side of the ledger incentives, decision making really is an important area that we haven't at least in our world, we focus on this technology side and the economics. But it isn't just about what's possible from a technology standpoint and what's possible economically, people have to decide to do these things. And so I think that's an important area. I'll leave that as Chris said it. I think the other area that I think about a lot with natural carbon solutions and especially negative solutions is scaling. It's one thing to make something work on a project scale. You do it. You make money at the hectare scale or the tens or hundreds of hectares of scale. It's quite different entirely to think about scaling something to the billion ton scale. And if it isn't the billion ton scale, it's really not worth talking about in this context at least. So I think we haven't talked about soils much. Soils are a good example or tremendous benefits for restoring carbon into soil organic matter. We've lost billions of tons of soil organic carbon from soils due to plowing and other activities. So we could put some of that back that would be a benefit for carbon, for water holding, for fertility. But if we take something like a biochar application that's one thing to do it on a project basis, one thing to do it perhaps on a farmer's field, another thing entirely to think about how we would do that across a national forest or on private land or all kinds of other things. So I really think about scaling quite a bit. Scaling to the billion ton scale is very different than making money at the project scale. Perhaps I can ship in on going back to the science, some of the R&D challenges I see there. I think in the short term it's around measurement, particularly measurement of such carbon flux measurements, but also biomass measurements perhaps by remote sensing earth observation. These are all possible, but they're quite expensive at the moment. So lower cost ways of quantifying carbon uptake I think is going to be really important. Next to that models, so development of robust models that have suitable and sufficient data input into them from these measurement techniques, so that's short term. Longer term, I really hope over the next couple of days we're going to be able to think about some fundamental questions whether we can actually store more carbon than is the perceived carbon saturation limit of soils or whatever ecosystem it happens to be, be that biochar or something else. Biochar was just mentioned, but there are many other potential opportunities there. And then really science based, so looking out, well looking into the real detail to understand what those biophysical mechanisms are of carbon cycling and other nutrients cycling, let's not forget the other nutrients, particularly nitrogen in soils and ecosystems. So this is down to the level of the plant root air to the fungi, the bacteria in the soil. So those are real R&D challenges. Maybe I'll add some thoughts in here. It seems to me that the key to making this work is to identify holistic solutions that are win-win-win. They need to win for the people, it has to provide jobs, it needs to be win for the climate and it needs to be win for the ecosystem. And the timeframe that we need to think about is a multi-generational time frame because these are century scale problems and anything that we do that's shorter time frame than multiple generations, the land use will be likely converted back to some other thing that will release all the carbon. So I think that's sort of an unusual sort of framing for R&D and even thinking about experiments, working with communities. And at the end of the day, it's got to make economic sense. And so I really think you need interdisciplinary teams of ecosystem scientists, economists, social scientists, economists who could really figure out, because it's often easy to start something, what's really hard is to sustain things because at the end of the day, it's like who's paying? And the sort of the burn rate to sustain infrastructure and one could think about this as natural infrastructure is very significant. And so projects that are framed potentially around particular solutions, BEX being an example, ecosystem restoration for, for example, restoring watersheds that provide big benefits to water supply. I think that those would be completely different kind of research programs, but something very valuable. Great, thank you. Actually, building off of that, both a timescale question and the sort of question about effort needed, I wanted to ask one more perhaps before we turn to the audience. And this I would start with perhaps Chris or Rob. I think that Rob had raised initially at least this question about permanence and longevity for natural climate solutions. One of the challenges can be that we're not, we don't, we don't know how long carbon can be stored or will be stored in terrestrial sink. How do we deal with this challenge and what are the still important research questions to resolve around permanence? You want to start, Rob? Sure, I'll start briefly. I want to make sure we bring Paul into some of these discussions too. So the solutions for land, most land-based, land-based solutions are not permanent, but they are important in sort of a decade to a century timescale. You know, eventually much of the carbon that we place back on land will return to the atmosphere, but even in a sort of forestry management situation, there are things we can dilute to do to lengthen that time frame. And I think it's the lengthening the time frame that's worth thinking about as well as viewing the world as sort of a spreadsheet of where trees could be and aren't. You know, I think that, that kind of approach is a concern for me about permanence. And a good example of this is, is China has the world's largest tree planting endeavor that's been going on for decades to sort of as a barrier between the Gobi Desert. And in some places, this has worked pretty well in other places that hasn't worked well at all. And it's a lot easier to plant trees than it is to grow trees. So I think concerns of permanence are front and center. And there's, you know, I guess a ton of carbon dioxide avoided as an emission is more reliable than a ton of carbon dioxide planted. But as we said before, we need everything. I might just provide three takes on this question of permanence. The first is that when we think about the long-term consequences of any natural climate solutions, there's potential for different outcomes at the project scale and at the global scale. At the global scale, the objective should be to have any intervention result in a long-term change in the mix of ecosystems with different carbon contents. And that's always going to be some that are grading carbon and some that are losing. And it may be that on a particular project, the trees grow really fast and stay for a long time, but that results in additional harvesting in a nearby area called leakage that doesn't result in a net increase. And so we probably have the potential and this silo model kind of highlights why there may be the potential to have a kind of a steady state carbon balance that's got more carbon in ecosystems than now by how much is uncertain. But there is the potential for shifting the world from a carbon-poperate state to a somewhat more carbon-rich state, recognizing that everywhere ecosystems experience cycles of carbon increases and carbon loss. The second theme that's really important that Rob highlighted a little when he talked about the new paper by Bill and Reg, if you're an author on, is that many aspects of climate change are pushing us in the direction of decreasing the permanence of storage. And as we increase forces that lead to premortality, especially high temperatures, extended droughts, risks of insect outbreak, not to mention the risks of increasing harvesting, we're actually attacking the roots of our ability to increase the carbon interest real ecosystems. And so there are lots of reasons to think that from increasing risks of wildfire to increasing risks of mortality from high temperature, that the prospects for storey large amounts of carbon in the in the terrestrial biosphere are going away. And the third point that's worth keeping in mind is that in solving this problem, there's some benefits in increase in the carbon stock in ecosystems, land and carbon in the ocean over decades to century, even if it's not truly permanent, humans are really creative. And I think if we can make what you could think of as a big down payment on removing carbon from the atmosphere, I'm not too uncomfortable with the risk that some generations down the road are grandchildren or their grandchildren are going to have to deal with the fact that that wasn't permanent. Thanks. And make sure we don't miss out on the ocean perspective. Paul, you did a really nice job of highlighting the role of the oceans in the global carbon cycle and the potential harmful effects of monkeying with the biological cycle, as you noted. What do you see as sort of the, are there any uncertainties related to the future of the oceans in the global carbon cycle? And is there any interaction with natural climate solutions? Oh, I think one of the biggest uncertainties that I've had for many years is why is the ocean nitrogen limited? So terrestrial ecosystems are hardly ever nitrogen limited. You have natural terrestrial ecosystems. North American actually virtually all lakes in the northern hemisphere are phosphorus limited. So the idea of nitrogen limitation in the ocean is almost certainly due to iron limitation of nitrogen fixers. And one way we could monkey with the ocean, which would not lead to the massive change in oxygen and gases on geologic time scales, or at least on time scales of centuries, would be to see if the ocean could be fertilized in the tropics to enhance nitrogen fixation. Now I tried this proposal several times to the Department of Energy and to NSF. The experiment is on order about $25 million, which to them was a choke point. But you know, when I think about physicists that think about machines that cost billions of dollars, $25 million should not be a big choke point for the conceptual understanding as to whether or not we could naturally change the carbon cycle in the ocean by stimulating nitrogen fixation, which would be, I think, a relatively gentle way of pulling carbon out of the atmosphere. Now I haven't done a cost-benefit analysis in terms of how much that would be per ton, but that would be a relatively simple thing to do, depending on the amount of iron that's needed and the amount of nitrogen fixation that would occur with it. So that's one area where you can monkey with the ecosystem in the ocean and probably not have a terribly bad effect actually, might be a beneficial effect. One of the things that we see in terms of what we don't have, I'm just going to back up one second, we do not have a total earth system model that of the natural ecosystem that we can really rely on. And to Chris's point, for example, of social issues, one of the major issues we see when we increase food production around the world in China, in the United States, in many parts of the world is we dump huge amounts of nutrients into estuaries. And those nutrients are going into the ocean and they cause anoxia. And so this is a consequence of human population and the way we administer nutrients to agriculture. So this is a social issue, this is not just a technical issue. And we see this all over the world, we see this in the Gulf of Mexico, we see this in the western China Sea, the sea between Japan and China and Korea, we see it in the South China Sea, we see it in the Baltic, we see it all over the world. So it's one of these things where we need a much better integrated system in terms of science and social aspects than we have now. So I would say those two aspects of things, one is technical, iron fertilization, the other is more of a I guess a computer model. Great, thank you. I don't want to take away time now from some audience questions. So let me turn it over to any questions that we've received in the question and answer box for the panelists. Thank you, Krista. So some of the questions asked by audience members have been touched on by the panel, but Shafiq has a number of questions that tie these things together and drill down a little bit. So I'd like to go to Shafiq. Shafiq, would you like to unmute yourself and ask your questions? Sure, I think Chris and Rob, I think you started to address this point a little bit. I think this question of the rates, when you start pushing carbon onto the terrestrial ecosystem for one, you know, as you try to do it at the early stages, it's relatively easy to push carbon. But as you start to kind of build with time, that becomes more difficult. And potentially then you are just kicking the can down the road where you potentially have suddenly now all this carbon ready to degrade that you can't stop, that you can't slow down. There was a paper maybe about eight, nine years ago, maybe 10 years ago in science on the amount of undecomposed carbon in the northern forests, right, Siberian forests and things that if it kicks off with temperature. So are we potentially creating another major catastrophe down the road if we don't understand this kind of rate question well?  I was just going to say the important thing to recognize is that with the full portfolio of things we're calling natural climate solutions, there's a biochemical, biophysical, biogeochemical link between the inputs and the outputs. And as you think about stuffing more and more carbon into whether it's trees or soils or roots or any part of an ecosystem in the ocean, there's a stability that's associated with that and a risk of later releases. And the thing that we haven't really touched on that's an important you need to remember about these natural climate solutions is that you're essentially taking on the responsibility to steward them into the indefinite future. And that it's not just a question of, oh, I didn't cut down the tropical forest last year. So I'm done that not a deforestation asset depends on not deforestation this year, next year, and every year into the future. And that's actually a significant burden that's associated with the long-term management of any of these. I agree with that. Maybe just a couple of short follow-ups and we'll get to another question, but it's an interesting point. And I think we do look at the examples that we have today for not just natural carbon solutions, but many other technologies too. But I think it's especially relevant for land-based solutions. And the examples we have today start in the best places and that's where that's where projects should start. But as we again push the system as you suggested through the question, we push the system into needing to do these activities on lands that are less productive, more marginal. And so I maybe to reiterate one of the points from my presentation, I really hope that we think about the other ecosystem interactions that will go along with that sort of that wave of land-based activities into more marginal lands and such. I think we have the potential to store a lot of carbon and do good. I think we have the potential to cause some harm if we aren't careful. So I think that's one aspect that's important to me. And a second point about permanence, it doesn't just apply to to land-based solutions. It's also an aspect of CCS and carbon capture and storage underground. And California, I think the rule is that we have to, our project has to guarantee permanence underground for a century or more. And that guarantee over geologic time, it seems pretty natural. Natural gas stays underground for millions of years, for example. But that guarantee on a project basis of having to keep it there for decades to a century is a break on projects that might otherwise be developed. So I think this issue of permanence is a really important one. Thanks. And if I could just build on that, perhaps, because it's tempting to think in any NBS project.  And of course there's nothing could be further from the truth. Keeping the carbon locked up requires continued and sustained activity. So then the question becomes, how do you incentivize that? How do you get landowners, farmers, forest owners, whoever it is to continue to manage the land and ensure the carbon remains intact? So there have to be these incentives, and those have to be developed. They could be financial incentives or they could be non-financial incentives. But they need to take place over years. And the second question I had that I felt we kind of have a little gap in the discussion was this kind of interplay between the ocean and the land at the coastal ecosystems in there. Some of the ancillary benefits could be quite significant there to really drive not specifically for NBS or NCS solutions, but the other benefits and it may make it much more economic to drive. Are there any thoughts on that? Kind of how we think about this kind of interface between land and ocean and how to go after that? Yeah, perhaps I could say something about it. I think your point about the interface between land and sea oceans is a specific point, but there is a general one here as well in that when one is developing an NBS project, it's not just about the carbon capture and the credits associated with that. It's really important that the project has other wider societal or environmental impacts. And in the case of the littoral environment between oceans and land, potentially around mangroves for example, you could there think about increasing productivity from the marine environment, shrimps, fish etc. that has been seen in certain projects. So it is about other benefits in addition to the carbon storage benefit that's so important. You know the land-ocean interface is really rich with co-benefits. It also is a relatively small area and one of the challenges with all of these natural climate solutions is that they tend to result in low fluxes of carbon per unit area and a big limiting factor on how much we can scale up. Coastal type solutions is just the limited area of the coasts. Back to you, Jenny. Other questions from the audience? Yeah, lovely. Thank you. That was pretty comprehensive. So a little while ago we touched on some, an audience member touched on CCS and there was also a discussion about the permanence in that there. So George, if you're still there, would you like to ask your question and maybe the answers could also speak to the permanence of CCS? Yeah, so my question I think is really probably Sally. It really is regards to non-natural carbon capture and sort of what is the best approach in terms of what a modeling or a research has been done. You know, more centralized capture. You know, geographically, you know, all of its captures going on in the Arctic, you know, first day versus a decentralized capture mechanism across the globe. You know, when you think about ultimately the capture, then you got to think about the transportation and handling and logistics to be able to sequester it or actually use it for applications. You know, that's when the sort of the midstream and handling and the transportation and all those things would certainly suggest different outcomes for cost and economics. Yeah, that's actually a really great question. I mean, in my opinion, to first order, you know, we should go after point sources that would otherwise be admitting in the atmosphere. So the location of those will be, you know, optimized for sites that are, you know, reasonably co-located with geological storage resources. The broader question you asked, though, which I really like is that, you know, if you decided, for example, to use direct air capture and you wanted to optimize where that's located, you'd want to find, you know, sinks for the CO2 that were going to be relatively easy to build the infrastructure, which will of course require energy infrastructure. You know, it's a very energy intensive activity. I think we saw a number that 124 exajoles of power would be required to use direct air capture on, I don't know, was it 10 million tons a year, or 10 billion tons a year of CO2. So that's at the scale of a quarter of the global energy system today. So the question then is, you know, do you want to do that in a very distributed way? Do you want to do that in a centralized way? I think it's a great optimization problem. And I think as a research idea, it's a really fantastic thing to pursue trying to come up with an answer to that question, what would be the optimal strategy for massive direct air capture or DAC plus BEX or something? I suspect it also depends what you want to use a CO2 for. So if you want to put it down a geological structure, yes, you need to be close to the geological structure. But of course, if you're going to the expense of direct air capture of CO2, probably in the first instance, you want to use that as a feedstock for other industrial processes, perhaps combining it with green hydrogen to make chemicals, rather than simply making it inaccessible. So all sorts of options that are out there. And yeah, you just need to compare one against another. Yeah, but again, I think it goes back to your objective. If your objective is to take carbon dioxide out of the atmosphere, you know, you have to put it somewhere just making a carbon neutral, you know, eventually having a carbon neutral cycle, you know, is what we're going to be needing. But on the pathway to recovering from, you know, the buildup of atmospheric CO2, we're going to need to be taking it out of the atmosphere. And we either have to take it out and put it underground, or we have to take it out and put it in ecosystems, or put it in, you could put it in structural materials, we can imagine a world where we have massive amounts of carbon fiber that substitute for other structural materials. But given the scale of carbon dioxide removal we need, I think that that I think that's unrealistic to think we can do that at such a massive scale in the timeframe that we need to start doing this. I have a couple of additional questions. I'd like to go to Ajay. Ajay, would you like to ask your question? Yeah, thanks, Jenny. It was a question to all the panelists that, you know, when we take a look at all of the options available under the NCS umbrella and the breakdown that's there in the Griscum paper, are there any particular ones that leap out for each one of you as either being particularly exciting or particularly challenging? Because as Sally just pointed out that like, you know, when people talk about direct air captured and there is, of course, the size of the energy input that is required, but in all of these potential solutions, we're not talking about putting all the eggs in just one basket. It's kind of all of these different potential opportunities have, you know, a role to play. So I'd be curious to hear about what ones do you all see as particularly exciting and the ones that you consider to be extremely challenging? Want me to start? You know, my sense is that each of them comes into particular focus and is the most exciting opportunity in a few places. And one of the things I think we almost have this tyranny of the gigaton hanging over us and the idea that it's not worth looking at any technology or any approach unless we get a gigaton out of it. But I think we need to be more broad-minded about the way we're going to stitch together contributions to solutions from a whole bunch of different components. And, you know, Griscombe and all look at 20 potential pathways. I think there are actually more than that that can be utilized. And I think that in many ways, the both the opportunity and the challenge is figuring out where each of these opportunities comes into its own, where the co-benefits are really meaningful, where the where the liabilities associated with it are manageable and how to stitch things together. And I wouldn't push any of the candidate solutions off the table as being irrelevant. If we go that direction, what we need to think about is how to provide an R&D and an accounting and a co-benefit and accounting environment that allows each of those technology pathways to come to fruition at whatever scale it makes sense. Nice. Thank you, Gris. Maybe a thought from me on that one. So, yeah, I mean, Adja, I think we are going to need all those different ecosystem solutions. But there's one that intrigues me and a molecule that's hardly been mentioned today. It's been mentioned once or twice, which is methane or methane. I think there's some great some very exciting prospects around particularly around avoided methane emissions from things like peat bogs and other anoxic environments, including in agriculture, for example, in rice growth. I think that that has potential to be to be very scalable, but also potentially asks, addresses the question about longevity against climate change, because when the climate does change, methane emissions will become increasingly significant. Great. And if there's no further comments from the panel on that question, I think we have time for one more question from Brian Bartholomews. Would you like to unmute yourself when you're able and ask your question? Thank you, Jenny. We're introducing significant amounts of plastics and microplastics into the ocean. And I'm directing this question at Paul. Are there or could there be any impacts of these on the cycles and the mechanisms that you previously described? I didn't see it in the macro maps that you put up. You don't really see the Pacific garbage patch, or I didn't see it. But I was wondering if this is a man, it's a human introduced element into this sensitive ecosystem. And I was wondering if there's any any comments or thoughts that you have regarding this? Yeah, sure. So plastic is obviously a huge, huge problem in many parts of the world, not just the oceans, but in particular in the Pacific Ocean, Central North Pacific Ocean, the amount of plastic is huge. And ultimately, it's converted down to nanoscale particles. And those nanoscale particles are assimilated into every organism. They're found, obviously, in fish, but amazingly to me, they're found in benthic organisms in the middle of the Mariana trench, which is the deepest part of the ocean, the challenge of trench, actually. It's at 10,000 meters. So you have plastics that are sinking, and they're found in food webs all over the ocean, the extent to which these affect the organisms, we don't know. But certainly, they are going to be something that is going to be a huge problem for decades, if not centuries. And it's really totally avoidable. We know how to make biodegradable plastics that can be consumed to CO2, ultimately, by microbes. But this is a huge problem, especially.  And that is unacceptable. When I go on a ship, for example, to the Antarctic, we have incinerators, we just burn the garbage, which is not great, but at least it's much better than dumping it over the side. And plastics are not allowed on the ship. So that's another social issue that can be can be remediated in a very short period of time, if other countries especially were cooperative. So as far as what the effects are, I don't think we know. We just know that we got the plastics, too, when we eat the fish. And it's amazing to me to see this. We have a person who was studying plastic at Rutgers who worked in Mongolia of all places. And lakes in Mongolia are filled with plastics. So I mean, it's a worldwide phenomenon.  Plastics are everywhere because they're so cheap.


Dr. Ogan doing some more terminology to help you classify different types of infectious diseases. So today in this video we're going to talk about communicable diseases versus non communicable diseases and then contagious diseases. So let's start with non communicable diseases. These are diseases that are not spread from one host to another from one person to another. So the textbook example of this would be tetanus right? You get tetanus from the soil stepping on a rusty nail whatever the whatever the example you want to use but that but you're not going to give that to somebody else right? So that's a non communicable disease. A communicable disease is spread from one host one person to another. So communicable so think about your sexually transmitted diseases, sexually transmitted infections. These would be examples of communicable diseases what you actually get it from someone else and we'll talk about the different types of transmissions in other videos. Contagious diseases I would say the key word here is easily right? So a contagious disease is a type of communicable disease that is spread easily and quickly rapidly from one host to another. So I think about the flu is a good example but to me the best example of a contagious disease is measles. I've seen some data that shows that if someone was if you you know no one's vaccinated there's no immunity. If someone was in the room that you enter four hours ago with measles you might have a 90 plus percent chance of actually getting that infection. So that would be an example of a contagious disease. So communicable diseases are spread from one host to another. Contagious diseases are easily spread from one host to another and non communicable diseases are not spread from one host to another directly. Alright I hope this helps. Have a wonderful day. Be blessed.


So we're going to talk about a very important topic now with some people with a lot of experience with that topic, which is success in transformation. So according to our calculations about a third of companies at any time right now, third of US public companies are actually undergoing some major transformational change, sometimes informal, sometimes formal, in relation to some competitive or technological threat. 75% of those companies actually failed to being successful at that change. They failed to restore results to sector medium levels, which is a fairly modest metric of success. And the effects of a failed transformation seem to be quite lasting. So a public company has about 10 percentage points of total shareholder return for a period up to 10 years. So in net present value terms, that's sort of roughly the enterprise value of the company. So not a very good bet with the approaches that we have today. So I'd like to investigate with the panel. They all have very different experiences of different types of transformation as to what is what is constitute success? What are some of the tips for successful transformation? So I would just ask maybe each of you, first of all, since you can be very different perspectives to describe the type of transformation that you'll be speaking to, maybe a particular episode or a particular type. So Tiffany, perhaps we could begin with you. This is always the challenge of sitting right to the right of the host. You get to go first. Okay. So obviously I work at a technology company at Salesforce, but I tend to try to get people to think that we don't have a technology problem. We have a people process problem. And so I couldn't agree more with the last comment that was made that we need to invest in people as we work through these transformations and not just digitizing the business to transform to drive costs out. So I'm hyper focused on working with clients and businesses around the world on making sure that they pull apart what they're doing technically from a transformation standpoint and then personally on the culture and the people side of it. Excellent. Thank you. Caroline, I guess you maybe have a very different type of transformation in mind. You've experienced transformation in the nonprofit sector. Could you tell us a little bit about the perspective from which you'll be talking this morning? Sure. Well, I mean in many ways, actually, it's not as different as you think. I used to work in the oil industry at Hess Corporation and then I went to the nonprofit sector. And I guess what surprised me was the similarities are much more than people expect. But what happened with site savers sort of 12 years ago, we had a kind of identity crisis. So the board, for example, thought we were like a medical charity and provided welfare services to blind people. But most of the organization felt that we were a development agency looking at systemic change. So there was a real disconnect. And one of the challenges we had to therefore go through was how do we pull everybody together so that we have the same identity? Because until you have that, how do you have a common strategy and how do you align around that strategy? And I think it's really interesting listening to people talking about the key role of having people. One of the things that I've really learned and I now believe very strongly, I think it's Jim Collins's view about it's all about the people on the bus. And initially I was told by the sort of management consultants, you know, you do strategy, then structure, then you kind of populate your structure. No, no, no, you hire the people and also you fire the right people because not everybody is going to be the right person for your new venture and you've got to get them off the bus as much as get people on the bus. From then you look at the strategy. And what I've also learned is you talk structure at the very last possible minute because the minute you open the structure door, that's all people want to talk about. And they don't even care about strategy anymore. I think it's not as much difference as we think between the non-profit and the profit sector then. Marsha, you're an expert on networks and ecosystems and platform businesses. What are the transformational challenges that you'll be speaking to this morning? So I would actually double down on the structural questions as well as some of the cultural questions. One of the things that we argue is that we're actually observing structural change in the economy today we haven't seen for a century. We're seeing the rise of gigantic firms, the seven of the top ten firms in the world now are platform firms. This is going to be a shift not just in product or business model, also in the mental model which speaks to the culture. It's also a change in how the firms operate, give you a tiny bit of data on it. If you simply take a look at the market cap per employee of Twitter relative to New York Times, it's a factor of seven. If you take a look at the market cap per employee of Airbnb versus Marriott, it's a factor of 17. Even Salesforce is a wonderful example. Salesforce market cap per employee is a factor of 10 relative to IBM. There's a structural difference in business model as you run a platform rather than a product company with a platform always beating the product company. That's very interesting. So let's get to the core of the question then. The discriminators between the 75% of companies that fail are transformation and the ones that get it right. So for the particular type of transformation that you're talking about, maybe product to platform or adjusting to the platform economy, Marshall, what would you say are the keys to getting that right? Because I personally can't think of many companies that have successfully made that switch. There are definitely some mindset shifts in making that work. In shifting from product to platform, one of the most important elements is to have an open ecosystem to actually have third parties that you're inviting in. To illustrate, we all know the story of Steve Jobs. In the 80s and 90s he got it wrong by keeping a closed ecosystem and focusing just on the product and he didn't grow. Then in the 2000s he had an open ecosystem and he did succeed. Another observation just in changing the mental map as you shift to a platform company is to create more value than you take. He says it speaks to the new business models of more value for stakeholders and not just shareholders. But if you create more value than you take, people you don't know will bring you ideas and resources you don't have. And that will be one of the ways you help grow your ecosystem. So one be open, create more value than you take. It's an interesting theme there. So in a sense you're saying that there isn't a general thing called transformation. There are the particular new challenges in the economy at this particular time. This platform strategy implementation that you're talking about is a very particular type of challenge. Clearly a lot of digital natives have been successful, those seven out of ten large companies in the world. But have you seen companies that have made the switch, that have transformed rather than created? So there's some wonderful examples of companies that have actually made some transformation. One of my favourites, I don't know if you're familiar with in China, Ping An is a large financial services company. Now the largest financial services company in the world, Klöckner Steel in Germany has done the same thing. You wouldn't think of a steel company as a platform company, but they have opened a marketplace, allowed competitors in, allowed third parties to sell new kinds of goods through their ecosystem. Again, in both of those cases it was an openness play, inviting third parties in. Often managers have a hard time cannibalizing existing business, but I'll give you even a third example. Mahindra Tractor, Mahindra's third largest conglomerate in India. And you would think that tractors would be great as an Uber for tractors to use it twice a year. But if you do that, you're going to sell fewer tractors and they didn't want to originally let competitors in. But think about it, if you let competitors in, all of a sudden you're going to get data on their failure modes, on their successes, you couldn't buy that data from them if you offered to pay for it. And now you're getting it for free, and you could redesign your own products. Creating these ecosystems allows you to get visibility into an entire spectrum of transformation and innovation that you wouldn't be witness to if you had to go it alone. In a particular type of transmission you're talking about, it's all about openness, it's all about data. But you had quite a different opinion, Caroline. You said that the transformations you'd experienced were more about people than you might think. Can you pull that first? I think as a general sentiment people wouldn't disagree with that. But how specifically do you conduct a people-oriented transformation in a way that biases towards success? Well, with us we were trying to transform an organization with offices in 30 countries. And with people, many of whom had been in the organization 10 or even 20 years, whose view was, well, we've always done it this way, we believe this is the right thing to do. Some were even hiding behind where values led when what they really meant was that this is how we like to do it. So that was our big challenge. And for us, I think it took longer than I expected. Coming in from the oil industry, I thought, well, in the six months it's sorted, we've done off we go. But no, no, in actual fact, it took several years. And first of all, to get everybody's buy-in and we had to do various different mechanics to bring people together both virtually and actually. But then the really big challenge was to get all the activities, all the programs that we were running and make those aligned with the strategy. Because a lot of people's view was, well, HQ, I mean, this new CEO, she's got these sort of crazy ideas, she just wants to change everything.  So having to do this alignment, we went through four or five processes really ruthlessly. And in the end, we cut over a third of our programs and said, no, it's not just the new stuff, that has so aligned with your new strategy, everything does. And that was extremely painful. But having gone through that process, what we now do, I try and avoid the kind of great big transformation with the thought of, I mean, one steady state and then there's a huge step change and I'm in another steady state. We have what we might call a restless organization, constantly evolving, making changes as you go to try not to have to do one of those really big steps. Because the other problem I've seen in our sector, where people are going through these big transformations that take a long time, is they become entirely internally focused. What's our governance structure? What is our staff structure? What are we doing for our own vision? And they stop looking externally. And that's when you get bitten by a disruptor who came from behind that you didn't expect. I think our research would support that. That even very big and open and custom oriented companies when under pressure become very introverted. And of course, you can't adapt to the things that you're not looking at, if it's external change in the world that you're trying to adapt to. But coming back to the people theme, I'm hearing a theme of keep the organization fluid so that there isn't this big jolt and maybe something about eliminating the comforting projects. In some cases eliminating people that are getting in the way of change. Are there any other key practices from a leadership perspective in terms of getting people on board rather than galvanizing them into inertia or resistance in a major change? Well, I'm lucky now because although I had to move on a number of leaders, I've been there 15 years and now I have around me some people that I absolutely trust. It's about empowering them and genuinely giving them a lot of freedom and holding them to account for what they actually deliver. Not really so much how they deliver it. So being very flexible about where they work when they work and sharing the limelight, sharing the stage. I mean, I love this kind of thing and Ted talks and all those kind of things.  That's what's important and that enables you to dramatically reduce employee attrition. So we went from a sort of nearly 30% attrition rate to one which is now only 7% and arguably getting to a point where it may even be too low because we need some new blood coming in. But it's very much about how you treat the people, how you respect them and how you give them space. So you said that it was all about the people and listening closely to it, it sounds like you might be saying at least to some extent that it's all about the mindsets of the people. Going from we always do it this way to we're open to new ways of doing things. How do you address sort of entrenchment models? I think one of the key things we've tried to change is moving from, as I described, a belief driven culture to an evidence and data driven culture. So if you have that, that takes some of the sting out of it. And presumably that was quite a jolt in a non-profit. Was that quite a new thing to do? Getting my board to understand that investing in systems, in data, and things that were not actually directly doing an operation on an individual. So it didn't appear to be pure philanthropy, but actually operations research which would enable us to do more effective work was a really good use of donor funds. And then what we were able to do is find some specific donors who said that's really cool and we really want to find non-profits who are data driven and who are not just sort of working off the basis of, you know, that pulls my heart strings, so let's do that thing. So Tiffany, you made this sort of very provocative statement that technology change may not in the majority of cases actually be mainly about technology, maybe more about people. Could you elaborate on that a little bit from your own experience? Yeah, so I'm going to qualify this a little bit. Obviously I work at Salesforce now, but prior to Salesforce I was a research fellow at Gartner for a decade and I spent time with a lot of very large tech companies on how are they going to change the tires on the car as it was going around the track, right? Transforming and competing against these new digital natives. How do they become platform companies? How do they become service companies? You know, Ginny Rometti, the CEO and chairman of IBM had 20-some quarters of no growth and one of her famous quotes is, growth and comfort do not coexist. So, you know, this is really difficult. This is a difficult time, but one of the things I would call back from a technology standpoint is it's not just about making platforms available for external, but this is about also empowering your people internally so that innovation and transformation could come from anywhere. And so those collaborative environments that you get in some of these newborn in the cloud companies that were mentioned, you want to also create that same kind of environment internally. So if someone in the call center notices that there's an issue, like how do we fix it? You know, the famous Post-it Note story, right? Came from an executive assistant, a secretary, not from an R&D lab. You know, the little green stoppers in a Starbucks cup actually came from a customer who was sharing information on a platform, right? And so allowing employees to be empowered to participate in innovation and transformation and the cultural shift that's happening is super important. So it's not just executives having to overcome this mental model adjustment, you know, that Mark Bonczuk has done tremendous work around mental model transformation, but in really thinking about empowering individual contributors to feel like they're participating in the cultural transformation as well. And that's very different. Are you saying that essentially technology transformation is no different from non-technology center transformation? It's all about the people. Are you saying technology transformation is especially about the people in some way? And what is that way? Well, there's no shortage from a technology transformation standpoint. There's some research where we found that an average enterprise has 900 apps that are internally in an environment and only 27% or so of them are actually integrated, which means an employee is having to open 10, 12, 15 applications or tools in order to do their job. And so technology is now obviously amplified an issue that maybe silos in an industry or in a company, in a division, in an organization. And so I would say that technology is probably shining a light that it was inefficient previously. And now in our consumer lives, we know it can be so much easier yet in our business lives it remains challenging. And so those sort of personalities of our home life and our work life are at odds with each other of how easy it is to get things done. You know, I often joke you can order, you know, a ream of paper for your printer if you still have one at home and have it delivered to your house within an hour. And sometimes at work you need three signatures and they need to approve it. It takes two weeks, right? You know, we can ride an Uber together and we can share an expense with one click. How difficult would it be if we worked together and we went on a business trip and we had to split business units and cost centers. One of us would say, forget it, I'll just pay for it because we would never want to do it. So you haven't mentioned the word digital transformation. That's very much in vogue right now. Is there such a thing? Would your perspective be digital transformation is just transformation in the presence of technology or is there a thing called digital transformation that requires a different approach? Which could be plausible because we've, you know, between us so far we've talked about some very different types of transformation. Yeah, I would say digital transformation in my view is you can digitize the business. So modernizing the back office to drive out costs. So that digital side is very technology and for me the transformation side is very people. So digital transformation to me is this combination of both. You can't just digitize the environment or try to inject technology to fix the problems that are inherent in the business already. So if you have a disconnect and a gap between strategy and execution and you layer in technology, that gap is going to get bigger. And so how do you pull those two things together and that's why the platform internally to allow all employees to participate in whatever it is that you're doing. And so for me, digital transformation is this big umbrella but as you mentioned and as many have mentioned already, you know, 70% are at a failure rate to throw technology at an issue because culture is the soft stuff, it's the hard stuff. The technology deployment is the easy stuff but arguably the people stuff is much, much harder. My social will be that there are some things in business that everybody thinks they're good at. For instance, marketing, strategy. There are some things that people are more modest about, which is technology. We don't all think that we can program or whatever. And so probably many managers will feel that they've seen many transformations before, they can do that. But 75% are failing to meet their goals. So on the flip side of the success factors, what are some of the myths or common traps do you think by which well-intended transformations fail? Yeah, well so it was many years ago, I think it was probably six or seven at the Gartner Symposium event that's going on right now in Orlando actually and our head of research said that all companies were going to become tech companies. And when that was stated and then you would hear all kinds of companies coming out and saying we're now a technology company and they were not before. They were selling coffee or they were selling apparel or whatever the case might be. And they have a mindset for developing and delivering the products and services that they were already doing. And now to put on the layer of it, one of our clients, Kone, who does the elevators and escalators, every day you could argue they're in that business. And they said no, no, we're really a technology company. And it wasn't about delivering unique technology on the escalator in the elevator, it was more about for their people and what could they do to empower them to repair them more quickly, make them safer, reduce the amount of time that it would take when something was broken. So in that case the trap is being distracted by a single theme and not looking at the... That's right. And I would say many companies start inside out. They digitally transform ourselves versus saying what would our customers actually notice that we do, because you want it to be customer driven and that goes back to the mindset of having this sort of beginner's mind of it's normally been very internally focused, digitized, drive down costs and instead saying what are our customers, what would they value or patience, whatever it might be and how do we actually drive the transformation from the outside in it? Transformation is sort of an internal, insular sort of word, isn't it? That's right. Would you identify the Carolina? Would you identify other sort of, you know, mental traps and false beliefs that cause this very high failure rate for transformations? I absolutely agree with the internal focus. Like we're going through our strategy review so we'll hunker down and, you know, we'll come out in a year and then we'll see what's going on after that. You know, or NGOs particularly, so nonprofits particularly bad at this, which is we're actually going to spend three months wordsmithing our vision statement so what really? That's not really a good thing to be doing. I think one of the traps we nearly fell into was the sort of concept of having an appointed separate change manager and a transformation office where we put up all these posters with all the things we might be doing and lock the office at the end of the day and you know, those are the guys doing the transformation and all that did was bring in a climate of fear in the organization because everyone assumed what we must be doing is coming up with some huge redundancy program. So we got rid of all of that and I said, look, I have to lead this as the CEO from the top. We need to bring in teams where we go in sort of diagonal slices across the organization so different parts of the organizations at different levels of hierarchy bring them together to work together be much, much more open in what we're doing what the challenges are and focus very, very much on what it is we want to achieve how we're going to measure that performance and do not talk about what that might mean for the structure of the organization and bring all of that down so we will focus very much on what are we doing, why are we doing it and who are we doing it for or what might that mean for the marketing department and what might that mean for my job. So the trap there is not thinking about the whole or not having sufficiently clear goals if I'm understanding correctly. And also not seeing the transformation as a separate something done by a separate team. So the transformation is something that somebody else does to you as opposed to something that we do. Even if it's an internal team it's a significant big transformation that's actually got to come from me from the top and then involve as many people as possible and at the same time the other trap which I've already mentioned I think you are too is the world is still happening while you are doing your transformation and if you're not out there scanning the horizon being aware of what's going on when you wake up and come out of your lovely chrysalis with your new organization it's already out of date. So how specifically do you keep when there's fear in the air that the organization is very busy with this sort of internal change how do you keep the eyes on the horizon? Do you with a particular techniques you employed to maintain the external orientation? Well it's mainly networks I find so I must admit I spend half my life on a Boeing you know so and forever in different countries. And how do you encourage your people to do that in the midst of the transformation? Well you have to try and do both things at once and you have to be very careful about your people setting clear goals and telling them what things they cannot do that's the other thing. So there will be some things that we try and take out of the equation maybe some of the more administrative things I mean you mentioned about expenses and all those kind of things so trying to streamline some of those processes or give people permission not to do some other things so they've got space to both do the transformation work and look outside and what we also did was we did bring in some people but not to be in a to make sure that people weren't so stressed that you know they couldn't actually fulfill their tasks. Marshall in terms of failure factors for platform transformations or ecosystem transformations and a couple of things that I've noticed is that you know there are management fads you know there's perhaps an idea in the air right now that everything needs to be an ecosystem and I've noticed that companies tend to assume that if an ecosystem is the answer that they have the right to be the orchestrator but if there are 100 or so companies in the average ecosystem that means that 99% of them are deluded in their ability to be the orchestrator and would you agree with some of those dysfunctions or would you appoint other you know critical mistakes in the thinking around platform transformation. So those are great questions. Is this in effect a hierarchy of questions that will help you get to the answer of that problem. So I would agree with the initial question they appreciate in value as opposed to depreciate in value and they innovate faster but not everyone is going to qualify to be a platform. The next question you have to ask is do you have the resources to tip the market. All these things are based on critical mass they're based on network effects. If you can't tip the market if you don't have the resources to do that then you may have to play ball with someone else's ability to understand. This goes back to the mental models and the people. It's probably failure to understand how platforms operate. One of the most fundamental aspects of a platform is helping ecosystems partner to create value for others. I'll back into the answer through a story of a failure. So I would argue that predicts at GE is a story of a failure. They tried it was a great idea. I even heard their presentation at many of you probably know the machinery and in principle it's a great idea. I even heard their presentation for their plan is first we do it for ourselves and we do it for customers and we do it globally. Never did they get to the point of we're going to help our customers do it for their customers expanding the ecosystem. So they never ask this question again how you're going to help others create value for their customers. They actually back into what I think is the most fundamental mistake of mind shift and this is for all of you especially those in lower finance. The first question everyone asks when they do platformers really how are we going to make money. Terrible question. You don't do that. The first question you have to ask is how do we create value after you've done that then you get the rights to earn that is helping third parties to create some of that value. So you have to shift again it goes deeply to mind. I've got a compliment you've been picking very different but extremely complicated ideas. You can't get these transformations without getting people involved without changing the models without changing the culture that has to be done or you won't get this to happen. But one of the deepest insights here is asking how you help third parties create value what's your role in that orchestration then you get to ask the question how you make money and how you transform. One of the interesting aspects that may be a platform transformation brings out that's actually present in all transformations is it has to in a sense destroy some aspect of the status quo to create the possibility of the new. So maybe you have to invite in competitors which may in some ways be damaging to your business in order to unleash new innovation. For the companies to get that wrong what goes wrong with that equation. So you've anticipated a wonderful challenge that lots have faced when they try to move in that direction all too often that what happens is as you launch into a platform venture some competitor will come with what is a better product than one of the ones that you sell internally internally and the manager of that product said no no no you can't do that you got to kill that problem but your customers hate that because now they're being denied access to something better. Some companies have actually solved that problem by setting up an equal division. It's a peer to the product divisions to represent the voice of the customer to get other voices in the room especially those of the customer that are of equivalent status as the managers inside the company. When that happens then you can actually invite in the best of breed and you can become the orchestrator. What this also does it conditions your division so you know what your product actually isn't as good as the competitors but we can give you the data here's a help we can redo the design so it gets better rather than keeping out of the ecosystem. So one is setting up an internal division at an equivalent status and also listening to your customers to keep your internal divisions from killing off really good product innovations that you want inside your ecosystem. So that sounds like the trap there might be not you know failing to reconceive the boundaries of your true organization. Absolutely correct. You must consider we describe it again as the externalization of value creation rather than simply trying to create all the value yourself. What you do is you orchestrate the best value also created by others and some of the simple description of an inverted firm part of the value moves from created inside being created outside and that orchestration might actually create a vastly greater value proposition which by the way also explains those numbers I gave you in the beginning. How is it possible that Airbnb has 17 times the market cap per employee of Marriott well it's because you and I provide the rooms. Or same thing with Facebook or same thing with Uber they're orchestrating value creation by third parties. Right. So maybe in a sense you're taking up a final question for us which is you know we talk about transformation as if it's one one unchanging thing you know we ask even the question that we ask essentially assumes some permanent body of wisdom that we can appeal to how do we succeed in transformation but you're saying the platform transformation is the adaptation to a new phenomenon in the in the world. Ecosystems that requires new thinking new structures. So if transformation is adaptation to a changing world even if right now we could define the success recipe we'd probably have to change it tomorrow. So what are the what are the changes in the world that should be prompting new transformational thinking do you think on the part of companies how will transformation need to change in order to adapt to a changing business environment what are some of the forces that you see Tiffany. You see the experience that a customer consumer in the B2B or B2C space actually has with a particular brand coming sort of in the next four or five years to be equal to whatever the products are you're selling so experience and that goes back to looking from the outside in really that voice to the customer the second is innovation and innovation is not only what customers are seeing is how you're using the technology they know that you're using it or not and then what is coming sort of around the corner are you doing those things the next is trust we're sharing a tremendous amount of data and especially in ecosystems like what are you doing with that data how are you protecting it what are the things what are the things that you're doing around it and the forth being values and those four pillars really driving what businesses want from brands and consumers want from brands so from a transformation standpoint if you have to do it in all of those four and then how are you communicating externally do people know where you stand on those four pillars what would you say Carolyn some of the new triggers for transformation that may change what we mean by transformation well within the NGO world is an increasing drive as we're going for bigger and bigger programs and more systemic change is that we need to work much more in consortia and that can be quite difficult because organizations that used to compete with each other and indeed still do for certain parts of funding need to come together need to agree that one of them will be the lead will be the kind of you like the grant manager with the main donor and then need to agree standard approaches and strategies and systems and that's something which didn't really happen in a 10-15 years ago and is now happening much much more and that's how you how successful if you refuse to be part of a consortium and try and just go it's just me and go alone you will never really succeed and that raises a very interesting question doesn't it because transformation as a nuance of I transform myself with full control I transform myself but if you're talking about a consortium you're talking about co-evolution where you only have partial influence so that have you got any experience of how that sort of transformation works because I would agree that's a rising transformational need how do we transform a network how do we not only create the sort of networks that Marshall is talking about but how do we transform and evolve them well for me it comes to the word trust which you use you have to try and establish trust amongst a group of organisations that historically has competed whether it be for money or for research papers and kudos or for sort of supremacy in the league tables of I'm the biggest and get those people to actually think well it's alright I can for example allow site savers to be the lead because they're not going to hog all the money and just you know keep all the overhead and just give me the sort of little bits and pieces what we've had to learn to do that is sometimes to give up space so for example when we're managing this global program and we wanted to take a lead in Kenya and another organisation wanted to take a lead in Pakistan now I happen to have a very strong country office in Pakistan but from the global level I said no that's okay we will let this organisation run in Pakistan then you have to deal with the great outpouring of grief the country director of Pakistan is saying but I'd be much better at doing this but now you've compromised my position with the Ministry of Health what can you be thinking and trying to explain and bring those people in so they can see a full global picture and not just what does it mean for me in my country and that's just a microcosm of trying to do that having to give up some space in order to make sure you protect other space and in order to overall protect those relationships that you need and then again that all comes back to people because I know we talk about institutional relationships but there's not really any such thing there's relationships between individuals in those organisations and so trying to have as many relationships as you can so it's not just the two CEOs go out to dinner it's actually got to be all at those levels and that's a lot of work certainly when I talk to big donors like the UK Government who love walking and consortia I've said don't think that this enables you to do things more cheaply it isn't actually cheaper it's better it's more effective but it isn't cheaper because there's so much works needed to keep that consortia together that's very interesting Marsha what's next on the so we've had sort of B2C ecosystems there's a big wave and we now got some very successful companies there what the economist calls the super companies once it's very high returns on tangible assets you know what's new what's emerging in terms of transformation needs in that space is it finding profitable internet of things business models you know B2B ecosystem models or something else additional factors after Carolyn and Tiffany have already listed all the good ones so thank you so write down what they said already let me see if I can add one or two additional things one actually in terms of the B2B space as opposed to the B2C space almost all of the really successful platforms are engaged in interactions of some kind so it's creating values interaction whether it's a ride a tweet a purchase what have you in the B2B space the value of those interactions is much higher but the numbers still focus on those or if you're moving in the direction of internet of things you can look at machine to machine where those interactions can actually be massive volume so that's a way to think about some of the differences another stepping stone that you should probably consider as you move in that direction is enabling your ecosystem partners to experiment so in the B2C example there's flappy birds and there's angry birds well one of those succeeded massively and Apple and Google but they could then appropriate those into the ecosystem in a B2B context ping on in finance and insurance is allowing its ecosystem partners to experiment and develop new financial products and these are B2B plays and they're actually pulling the best new innovations into the ecosystem so allowing that experimentation among your ecosystem is perhaps another one one last thought would simply be to help you design network effects design methods for your partners to help your partners if you can do that they'll create value for one another and be attracted into your ecosystem so it would be further thoughts so I think we have some time for audience questions and I'm told that we've collected some that we might put up on the screen yeah will they come up here you're going to read them out okay before they put that I have some some questions here and the first one for you Marshall is what can you tell us from your research on how traditional organizations can learn from and leverage customer insights and mega trends for transformational change efforts so listening to your customers is essential in the platform business model platforms really in some ways move the production and the consumption off-platform and really your job at that point is to curate whether it's rides, tweets, stays, apps but what you then have to do is to really listen to your customers about what's working and what's not this is why some of the curation and feedback systems are so essential in almost all these platform business models it gives your customers a place to recount their experience and to not only post new innovations exactly as an app in a Salesforce ecosystem but then also recount their experience and interacting with that which tells you here's what's working it then helps you do the design to give you another illustration when Amazon offered Fire TV it suddenly gained access to all of the content that folks then watched which then allowed them to design new content and new TV shows folding that in they've now won two Oscars and eight Emmys it's really being able to listen to your customers in some really interesting ways so give them voice both in terms of production and in terms of consumption and make sure you pay attention to what they've said the second question is for you Tiffany Salesforce is a heavily tech-based business I would love to hear from you what advice could you provide to incumbent traditional organizations to disrupt themselves the million dollar question so I would say many companies actually come to us in the three and a half years I've been here it's interesting when I do I'm involved in executive briefing so executives from companies like a Boeing you know come into our offices and they're very interested in the following question we want to learn Salesforce on Salesforce like how do you run the organization how do you metric and measure people we have something called v2 mom and they are trying to inject some of that sort of born in the cloud thinking into their environment that tends to be a little more legacy and if you look at somebody who has done it well it is usually that breakout of a division that they will pop something up so I'm going to go back to IBM again but when they stood up Watson they chose not to stand it up next to or in their home headquarters right they moved it to Silicon Valley they said we want to have a very different feel from a cultural standpoint and then at some point maybe we bring it back in and so we see organizations trying to learn from an organism but it has everything to do with changing the metrics that's one big thing of really letting people fail and learn and how do you continue to reward them and give them a safe environment by which they can do that versus just having it be the very did you did you win did it succeed did you hit your numbers where your metrics driven and no failure which is not reality so I think the backbone of corporate growth is personal growth and change is hard personally and so imagine multiplying that by a hundred people or a thousand or a hundred thousand lots more depending on if you're looking across the ecosystem so it's one of those things where you really have to look at the organization the metrics as well as the ability to allow people to fail so we have got an interesting question on trust which some of you bought up so trust building you can read the question that's one of the top there how pragmatically do we create the trust particularly in a situation where there are good reasons for fear things will change people may become more important less important you know may lose the job how do you main trust under those circumstances I think you were touching on that Caroline yeah I mean and I think it can be particularly difficult when you're in an organization which is spread out among many many offices across the world so you because trust is easiest to build face to face building actual personal relationships with people you know always try and do that if I can because it just is so much faster than any kind of email sort of correspondence and all that kind of thing which we do tend to rely on far far too heavily what I find personally now is that I I do a lot more video communication we used to do the newsletters and the CEO talks and all that kind of thing always in sort of bits of paper or emails now I do an awful lot more of the videos and I encourage my guys to do that the old fashioned phone calls rather than you know the the webinars are also far better because trying to get that personal contact I think is the way actually to to build the trust and we're interested to hear you talking about the importance of being able to fail now in our world that can be difficult because a lot of our income comes from donors and our donors they're not all like this some are better than others but what they tend to say is we want a really exciting novel innovative project with no risk and that is really quite difficult to do and one of the things we tend to do we do have other money that we generate from very large numbers of people who just give you small amounts of money month on month and we try and use that money to take some risk and encourage people to do things that might well not work What about the hard part of transformation because in a way there are some rational reasons for mistrust right a contract an exchange of value an understanding of someone's role may change may disappear there are and often the plans to do so necessarily have to be secret so you have information asymmetry power asymmetry in that particular sort of fearful context how do you how do you create or rebuild trust is it a case of getting the painful stuff over quickly or being very transparent or well certainly one of the things if you've had to move somebody on typically if it's not working rather than a kind of redundancy situation one of the things I've learned is the only regrets I've ever had is taking too long over it and particularly at a senior level hoping that things will get better and so what I've learned to do is make your decision fairly quickly and do it fast also it helps with the individual concern it's much easier if you spend four or five months in an organization to then say you know what this just was a really bad fit and then both sides can go off and the other people can say right I'm going to go and get a new job that wasn't a suitable place for me but if you spend a year or 18 months going through complex HR performance processes and desperately trying oh then everybody else in the organization is distraught it's extraordinarily painful and then that person's CV is more damaged because they've got a much longer period so being decisive when you have those difficult decisions to make it's hard and particularly in a non-profit where often the culture is well we'll just put them in another place until they retire and we'll certainly learn that's not the right way to go being decisive is key but you also have to call out just on trust specifically like there's a crisis of trust the Edelman trust barometer is not going in the right direction and so even with everything that's going on especially with the advent of technology the trust has to be core to what you do and who you are it's our core tenant it's our core value since day one our CEO Mark Benioff is very vocal about where we stand on trust and so if it's important to your customers and your employees you have to come up with a stance and that goes back to it has to be something that everyone understands where you stand on that and if you make a mistake everyone understands that something's going to happen it's also how you respond to that mistake and now with social how quickly you respond waiting a week to come up with the perfect answer you know the vision statement take three months like the perfect answer is the wrong answer right it is you have to come out with something and make sure that you stay ahead of it you have to be transparent I think back in the day when you used to do your annual reports or whatever reports you were doing you were always trying to spin it to make it all sound so that lovely phrase so that we can be even better than we are and now we've recognised we stopped doing that and actually put into the public domain when something's gone wrong because nowadays if I read a report or a website or something from an NGO where they've met every target and everything is absolutely wonderful and they've not had a single safeguarding moment you know that's to say actually this did go wrong and this project didn't work and then they will trust you when the project does work and they'll believe you let's just see if we can get in one question maybe with some short comments there's a very interesting question about the role of disappeared now the role of technology and actually facilitating transformation so we think about transformation we typically think of a program office and a Gantt chart and PowerPoint presentations but you know actually this is something that we can we can have data on and there are patterns of behavior and one can detect it more or less quickly maybe for you Marcia how can technology actually help the process of transformation can we be more scientific and more evidence driven in the technology age around about transformation so I think in some ways we have the answer to that Caroline mentioned earlier this wonderful point that you need data driven decision making so the technology that captures data the technology so they can see how a decision was arrived at by the way this also builds trust because then they see what evidence is being used to drive a particular decision so the technologies that actually capture and disseminate data and decisions is one another one I think is actually important is cloud and machine learning if you're going to do this you need to be able to capture the relationships from lots and the interactions that are occurring inside and outside your ecosystem and that's much easier to do than it is on premise and then it's also be able to train your ecosystems on top of that using machine learning using artificial intelligence those things will actually give you pattern recognition and give you extra help I was going to add one small thought to the trust element be clear about the rules up front and when they change make sure you have skin in the game if you communicate that fairly to everybody not just selectively but then you might absorb some of the downside something made that change and then they'll trust you if you're pushing all the damages of change in direction onto someone else why should they trust that if you are absorbing some of the damage then they feel okay this is a shared burden as you make a change and they're much more willing to trust you it's been tremendously rich discussion let me join me in thanking the panelists I think I've learned a lot today and I hope you have a great job


Okay, I think if we do it right here like genuine like sidewalk public property, right? There's a guy who is beautiful who is in the car right in front of us. We actually have matching cars and he is Beautiful he looks like Drake and I was like he's not here so you can't see Sitting in his car this entire time Hey guys because today we are launching You guys will see them throughout the video, but they are only available for the month of June I have worked so hard on them. You don't understand like I made so many revisions And I've been working on them for a very long time They're 80s inspired revival teas if you guys want to hear more about them check out my Instagram But yeah, they're only available for the month of June so if you guys like them be sure to pick them up I will love you guys forever if you guys pick them up. I'll love you regardless. Don't worry, but yeah Anyways in today's video I'm gonna be showing you guys the ends and the outs of pretty much my entire Instagram everything that we do You guys will see it here. So yeah, if you guys are new here, and you like this video be sure to subscribe I would love for you guys to stick around. I have those really good biscuits waiting for me Like you know the ones that are in like the tube and then you like have to like hit the counter And then you bake them that's anyone know I'm talking about and they like Pillsbury. I don't even know but they're so good So soon as I'm done. Mm-hmm this video I can eat them my Instagram is Kinsey Elizabeth If you guys are not following me you guys should do that especially right now because I am on tour with garage clothing What is this Friday? Okay, if you guys are watching this tomorrow We were having a meet-up in Chicago at the Woodfield Mall Again, everything is my Instagram and then next weekend. We're having one at Venice Beach in LA So if you guys live in LA or Southern California as a whole I would absolutely love if you guys could come and say hello Anyways on to the video. So the first thing this is something honestly This is like a really big ordeal if I do this I normally do shoot my photos on the go, but sometimes I will have like an Instagram thing If I really need to have some photos because lately it's just mm-hmm. Yeah So I've got some outfits as you guys can see. Okay, so most of the time I took my Instagram photos on the go I don't really like plan it out this much But today I am planning it out because I'm shooting when you merge and just a few other outfits because My Instagram lately has been lacking and you guys need to know that I wear clothes So I have this nice clothing rack in my room. This thing is so amazing It's kind of handy all the time because I'll like plan out my outfits for the week or especially for trips and stuff I'll put on my outfits and it is a lifesaver. I got it from Urban Outfitters But I have some outfits that I'm gonna shoot some pics in all laid out here. I'm very prepared The next thing locations guys, there's so many things that you can do with location I really like shooting myself on the go So that just means typically finding like a nice wall nice background whatever I don't go too crazy with the backgrounds There's so many things that you can do you can do like more lifestyle So at a coffee shop, that's a good one a nice car one and then of course you have the classic wall photos Number three poses for this outfit. This is just a solid Wall off of the day picture. This is my OOTD pic if you will But there's multiple different angles that you guys can do some people take it this way Some people take it this way and some people take it this way I personally am a fan of this angle.  This is a good go-to. It's very easy because I literally get coffee every day It's 2 p.m.  Yeah, because like I don't want the It'll look a little weird I do this all the time though if I've already Oh So cute Okay, took a bunch of photos Anyways I also did a hair flip that's also very important when it comes to Anything that I do my hair gets really flat and it's just not a move Also, if you guys know what coffee I got, let me know in the comments down below Nice shirt, right? There's also like the flower wall pick. These are nice because flowers are pretty It's cute instead of doing like a solid wall for the day. You can do a flower one You know, just like really changing it up. This video is so dumb But this is just what you guys asked me about so Okay, got some flowers and someone's driveway Look at it. Hey, just the guy just walked out so I think he hates us It's not like someone's driveway. It's a complex and I think it's public property It's not I'm just trying to understand better. It'll be okay. Oh, I never mind. Okay Okay, I think if we do it right here like genuine like sidewalk public property, right? Is that a thing? I think so. I think so That's okay, right? Okay, okay. Let's just do it really quick. Took a bunch of pics Very very very those aren't cute. Yep. See this is what really happens.  Awesome. Great shirt. Uh, uh, Lincoln bio And to the car photos You just have this is also one where you're in here. You have a coffee. It's a disorder deal Uh It was actually really good Angels out of the car This is always a pretty solid go-to And um, the lighting is always pretty good. So like you can't really go wrong. See especially overcast overcast lighting is the best She's like Lighting so um, there's so many things you can do I personally like cloudy lighting the best when it's kind of like overcast that lighting for me is like Perfect. Um if you guys are shooting in a house, um There's a ring light ring lights are amazing. They also cost a little bit of money So if you guys don't have a ring light and you don't care to buy one Um natural lighting is best right by a window. So if you're taking a selfie or whatever Do it from a window because then you get the best lighting on your face Um natural lighting is always really good. It's not too harsh. It's not too forced Let's go. Number five saved photos. I know that I've talked about this before but saved photos Really do change the game for me. You can just get so much inspiration from what you say Like I just will randomly save so many photos on my instagram just because I think they're cool I like what they're wearing in it. I like the pose. I like the style I like the location like anything that I save photos all the time and that is like a really big thing Honestly, it helps me a ton The next thing I'm going to be talking about are my film photos So Recently I made a video where I was talking about like my polaroid photos I'm like how to get a polaroid effect on instagram I started using disposables as well and a lot of you guys have been asking me how I edit those again They're just disposable cameras Anyways, the shirt is really cute only available for the month of june. So check it out, but we're going to For the lab where I get my pictures developed. This is where I get all my disposables like printed and yeah This is really fun because it's like Christmas because you have all these pictures. I don't honestly only know I have no idea what's even all this. I do this all the time, but it's so exciting. So This is the very exciting part I love this and then I scan them on a printer. They were literally all fuzzy. There's like literally Five photos. They didn't even give me what okay? Well normally it's more exciting That sucks They're just normal disposable cameras and then I will get them developed and then I scan them and that's literally all I do You guys want to see another video where I talk about how to get a Disposable camera effect On a photo I will figure it out for you guys and I will do it because you guys are really liking that video It's like, yeah, I kind of just took you through a day of if I'm going to shoot through like an instagram Normally again, I do do this on the go But I felt like you guys could get a lot more out of it if I had it all planned and stuff Which a lot of people do do that and I have done it before I just don't like doing it as much anymore Because I like my instagram to just be like very like this is my life I don't know but I hope you guys enjoyed this video and it was helpful to some of you guys If you guys trying to step up your instagram game I'm always trying to win feel like Mike can always do better If you guys like this shirt be sure to check it out and check out the other two that are linked down below I love you guys so much. I hope you guys enjoy this video. Um, and I will see you soon. Bye