Welcome everybody to the Westridge Avenue area, Water and Sewer Improvement Community Design Meeting. If you are not already needed, please mute yourself. You can ask your questions after the presentation is finished. Your project manager is Dina Johnson. We also have our engineering design consultant, Brian Shareeb, on this call if you have any questions. And if you can see the chat message, if you can open that up. It has, this is also in the PowerPoint. You can see how to get to this page on the Fort Worth website. And on that website, we will post a PDF of this PowerPoint presentation as well as this video of the meeting. Okay, I'm going to hand this over to Dina Johnson. Good evening everyone. Thank you for attending this community design meeting for Westridge Avenue area, water and sewer improvements. We have an agenda. We're going to start with introduction, project overview, project area frequently asked questions and timeline. I'm Dina Johnson, project manager, my telephone number,<PHONE_NUMBER>6, Dina.Johnson at FortWorthTexas.gov. The design engineer consultant is Danaway, Brian Shareeb is the project manager. FortWorth to prioritize replacing water and sewer lines that have high risk of failure. The risk of failure is determined actually based on the available data, which include water, many break history, leak history, CCTV inspection. This is where we install the camera inside the pipe to tell us the condition of the pipe. Edge of the line, line material, let's service lines and cast iron lines. This project will replace the cast iron water lines on Westridge Avenue, Ridgeway Street, Edge Hill Road. To address frequent main breaks, FortWorth water management has committed to replace a minimum of 20 miles of the cast iron pipe every year. And currently we have about 55 miles of cast iron mains at various stages of design for replacement in fiscal year 2023 and beyond. This project is in Council District 3. Construction will impact the Ridgeley Area Neighborhood Alliance, Ridgeley Hills Neighborhood Association and Plum Valley Place HOA. Sanctuary sewer mains and water mains will be replaced in an area bounded by Cambui Boulevard to the north, Brown-Evron Road to the east, West Viquari Boulevard to the south, and Edge Hill Road to the west. Landmarks include Ridgeley Country Club Village at Cambui, Primrose School of Fort Worth West, and homes as well as apartment complexes. We will be replacing water and sewer on Westridge Avenue from Cambui Boulevard to Westridge, and also water and sewer on Edge Hill Road from Sea Land Lane to Westridge Avenue. Water replacement on Ridgeley Place 400 feet from Westridge Lane to the west. Also water replacement on Ridgeway Street from Westridge Avenue to Winthrop Avenue East. And finally we have water line replacement in an easement north of Ridgeway Street from 160 feet north of the Ridgeway Street Westridge Avenue intersection to about 550 feet southeast. Water will be turned off during construction for about 15 to 30 minutes only. This is when the service is transferred from the existing line to a temporary water line. And when we transfer the service from the temporary line to the new line, those switchovers will be done during the day. The contractor will knock on the door and let customer know when the water will be turned off. The transfer normally takes about 30 minutes for a house or business. The temporary water line is to ensure that you are not without water during construction. In the summer month, the continuous flow keeps the water from becoming stagnant in the above the ground line. During the winter month, water must be continually flowing through the temporary line to keep the line from freezing. Customers also should keep their faucet dripping. The bill for your water usage while you are on the temporary line is based on the average previous month usage. That's how it's calculated. Construction will be in the street and easements. The Fort Worth water need to access your property. We will contact you. And if we need an easement from you, a city land agent will contact you as soon as possible. Sanitary sewer service will be not interrupted at any time. A new sewer clean out will be installed at the property or easement line. The sewer clean out provide cruise easy access if a backup or lockage occurs. When we get to the construction phase of this project, the inspector and the contractor, which is you're going to meet later on in another meeting will work with the residents and businesses who need a driveway access during active construction hours. We will have a traffic control in place prior to start of construction.   We will have lane closures during construction and signs will be posted to alert motorists. Construction hours normally between 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. Monday through Friday. And if requested by the contractor, it will be from 9 to 4 or 5 p.m. on a Saturdays. This project is in the design phase. We'll have more information after the contractor is approved by the city council. We will host another pre-construction meeting with the contractor and the inspector also will be there to set up the start date for the construction and we will create a schedule for the street that will be impacted during construction. We will host a community construction meeting before the contractor breaks ground. For more information, you can go to www.fortworthtexas.gov and type in the project number 103-500 in the search bar on the home page. Which wood and south hills water and sewer improvements will pop up to get project page update scroll down to the bottom of the project page and click on subscribe to this page. The link to a PDF. Of the PowerPoint and link to the YouTube video. This presentation will be posted on the project page. For any emergencies of water main breaks sewer backs up 24 hours a day you can call<PHONE_NUMBER> choose option one for non-emergency from 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. Monday through Friday. You can call the same number at 1-7392-4477 closed on city holiday. Download the my FW app from the app store or Google play. You can report sewer overflows leaks and water main breaks missing or broken meter leads. Water theft water violation no water service. Water pressure issues and sewer any other sewer concerns actually. Again, I'm Dina Johnson project manager my telephone number at 1-7392-7866 my email address is Dina Johnson at Fort Fort Texas that go. The design consultant engineer would turn away and associate is Brian Sherry. And now I want to thank you for attending this presentation and we're going to open it for questions. Don't have anything I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Okay. Can you hear me? Okay. You said you said that there will be a knock on the door before the water outages. Will that be true for homes within the gated neighborhood as well? Yes. be inside the gated community if they need it to or whatever if they needed to if they need if they're gonna be cutting the water for any other time they'll be reaching out to you. Okay okay um Lea can you give us can you give us an idea as to when this construction will begin? Uh we're thinking about um lake uh winter we're gonna start construction. Let me look one more time. Okay if you're not needed can you meet yourself? Okay Leanna says of this year uh 2024 and the one 2024 yes. Okay and I missed one from Wade. Wade said general idea well he's asking the same thing uh general idea on the start date of construction and time to complete so you've answered that question. Yes um I asked the consultant to come up with a timeline how much it's going to take to complete this project. Brian do you have those information? Yeah what's what's going to happen is the the franchise utilities are going to start to move first which comes before this project and and right now um the gas that the gas company probably has the most extensive work so you'll see gas get out there here in October work through about February after which time the the contractor for this project will will come online um so you'll probably see it in the you know February maybe early March but they they need to get started sooner than later um they're gonna there's actually three sets of utilities in Westridge it makes it a little difficult and almost everything's going to go back within the same trench line so every almost everything with a few exceptions is going to be between the curb lines um and one uh one of the one of the items that's going to take a little bit longer is there's a there's a 24 inch pipe on this project that really can't be taken out of service during the summer that puts out a lot of the city so they're going to um install the largest water line in in the fall of 2024 but all the smaller utilities will be replaced before then. Okay we've got a question from Leanna she said she said gas operations begin this fall does that affect land closures as well? Temporary um gas has gotten really good about replacing a lot of their lines within the ground we don't have final design from them just yet they've been provided everything that the city is going to be doing so I think you're gonna see some service lines every once in a while that are replaced and that may be a couple hours of downtime um depending on what you know most often in modern times they're actually using a method where they trench underground so you may see some um you know combed off areas so it'd be inconvenient but you shouldn't see the whole lane shut down for for gas operations. Okay Camille said um will any consideration be given to replace the water mains and sewer on the additional streets in the originally neighborhood for example Winthrop Avenue west Sharon and Winthrop Avenue east? Those those will be probably on a future project but not with this project. Okay um John Van Son will the entire road surface be replaced? Yes it will be replaced yes we will be working with TPW transportation public works on the pavement uh the type of pavement whatever we have out there we're gonna be replacing and putting it back in an original best shape as it was before. Yes okay he also asked are any other will there be any other changes to the roadway? No you know Brian okay um Tina how long will the disruption last it sounds like it may start in October soon and could go for a year so is it going to be Brian you might be able to answer this it's going to be a 365 day project? It the the city's project itself uh we're going to we're going to look at keeping it within a year the city's portion really starts in in February the big work that you're going to see uh you know is with the replacement of utility pipes is going to take place in the in the early spring through through the end of the year the pavement after that the we've got to give the franchise utilities enough time to clear their conflicts um so that we don't run into them so that the you know the water and sewer contractor does not run into them um and there's been a lot of coordination between the the franchise utilities and the city's utilities it's a very uh the corridor just has a lot going on uh within it so there's a lot more coordination than say a normal residential street. Okay do we have a um ballpark date of when we'll be getting a contractor on board I don't know we have to advertise and things like that do we have a ballpark idea when that'll happen? We're going to be bidding soon and so the contractor I think is going to be on board before construction starts um you know I believe the intent is going to be around the first of the year. Okay um okay we've got Leanna just to be clear gas operations begin in October 2023 and water operations begin February of 2024 and will be completed before the end of 2024 that that would be the goal we're going to we're going to put some firms in there they may have to use two crews to do it they've got to do their work in the future months so they don't affect the systems on the way to this water water line taking out of the taking out of service during the summer and I'm echoing I apologize there that's okay you it wasn't you I think Brian was not very clear at the end uh Brian I don't know if everybody heard what you said but um I just want to emphasize something weather permitting normally would like to finish this project by the end of next year but with anticipation of the weather it might take up to 18 months to finish and um do you agree with the timing Brian on the length of the project and ordering material the the and we're trying to phase it right now one of the last things we do to go before we bid is we know that large diameter pipe takes some time to get but while the contractor orders that pipe he can start on the smaller diameter smaller diameter lines Dina can you go back to the project map go where I'm sorry what do you want to go can you go back to the project map yes okay um another question from chat wait a minute okay okay here we go thank you um let me see just to be okay uh during this time will Westridge from Camp Bowie to Vickery be completely closed off or will we be able to access this section of Westridge it will never be completely closed off certainly not permanently um if the contract one line open Brian there would always be one line open yeah in fact a lot of the sanitary sewer is going to be replaced by a method called pipe bursting where they'll probably go to one manhole on each side of the section and do most of the work underground so you're going to have temporary closures um when they when they put the water pipe in the ground they were required to cover uh their work uh that day so you're going to have some temporarily temporary lane closures you're going to have some barricading at at locations where the contractor has to leave the ground open for that night or you know there's something happening right there where they need to get back to the access point but the goal and intent is to never close the road completely down certainly not for the whole length and if the contractor is having to do that probably because he's discovered something that's not quite working right or he needs to get special permission to do one very specific operation the intense not to close the road for the whole project there should always be at least one line open okay so that kind of goes into this next question so when you say phase project can you help walk us through the various phases the most ideal situation yes um what you'll see probably going into the spring and into the summer is as there's a there's a 12-inch water line that runs down the street mostly on the west on the east side of the street and a sanitary sewer that kind of runs through the center the contractor will be responsible for replacing sections of that line from camp buoy down to west ridge um far so your your your disruptions are going to be mostly from the center to the east side of the street um in the fall and in the winter of next year most of the lot the 24 inch or 30 inch line it's going to be upsized will be placed in from north of ridgeway down to edge hill and then edge hill over to uh sea lands and most that's that's on the west side so it's you're going to see more barricading on the east side early on um and then as as um he rolls over to the large dam or pipe you're going to see more of the barricading there on the west side okay he's never going to have the hall he's never going to have one full lane closed the whole time he's going to barricade his area he's working but when he's not in that area you might have some uh you might see a trench line but it would be drivable okay now south colt um asks will there be any improvements to sidewalks or will sidewalks be added when streets are repaired not we will not have any sidewalk added on this project how about repairs no no repairs okay all right that's all i've got in the chat um does someone have a question they want to ask i bet you all need it can you unmute yourself if you want to ask the question we've got camille do you have any questions hi can you hear me yes ma'am okay great thank you first just thank you for having the meeting and answering all the questions really appreciate that when it comes um to establishing detours and this may be a question that's better suited for the pre-construction meeting um is there a way to avoid the like ridgely neighborhood um and maybe detour people millburn over to brian erving and down but it sounds like i guess for the most part maybe the roads are gonna i i guess i don't know if there's ever going to be a time where you need maybe just we'll never yeah we'll never have to my you know as we look at the project right now i don't think we're going to have a permanent detour okay the contractor when he finally starts to look at his what he needs to do if he identifies something you know because he has a piece of equipment that needs to sit to the side of a ditch he's gonna have to he's gonna have to provide what he wants to do to the city first for approval before he can do that okay chances are highly likely we're never going to shut down the entire road there's there's always be at least one line of traffic i just normally during construction the contractor has to present a traffic control plan and it has to be approved by the city till then we'll share that with you during the next meeting during the construction meeting wonderful thank you so much okay i'm just going to keep going down the list um i've got chris gooch i think you've asked some questions do you have any others we've got e moses do you have any questions any questions a john van son no i'm good thank you okay all right we've got leanna thank you i'm good thank you okay um maryl king i'm good thank you okay rj stark poll i think you asked the question did you have any more yes just just a follow-up on that last question i know this is this is not a project for sidewalks but i'm wondering as this was being reviewed and planned were there any considerations for future projects that would include sidewalks extending the length of west ridge this is the water department project and normally sidewalks improvement will be handled by transportation and public works um they are the one who can fund those type of projects got it got it okay thank you okay tina castillo no thank you guys it's been very informative okay and the last one is wade calden now that that answered all my questions essentially we're getting ready to start and it'll probably take us till the end of next year and just keep our eyes open for what's going on when it's happening okay dina anything else you want to talk about no i i think a lot of those question would be more clarified during our next pre-construction meeting and um like on the traffic and on the lane closures all these would be more clarified when we have the contractor on board dina can you go back to that slide that has um how to find the page should be the last one okay yes it'd be i would i should be able to get the pdf of this power point up tomorrow morning um i will try to get the video done as well but that might be monday before it's available i think this is the one you need celly or information okay so if you if you do this w w dot for texas dot gov all you have to do is type in 103 500 in the search bar on the homepage and this page will will come up okay thank you everybody thank you everybody have a good evening thank you everybody


Welcome everyone to my presentation. My name is Pratik. Today I will talk about our recent work on two round Adaptively Secured MPC from Isogenes, LPN or CDH. This is a joint work with Navid from UC Berkeley and Visa Research, with Hart from Fujitsu Lab and Shikhar from ETH Zurich and Visa Research. Today we will talk about secure computation. We consider the two-party setting. There are two parties who have their private inputs X and Y. They want to jointly compute a function F on their inputs. To do so, they run a protocol Pi on their inputs and outputs the protocol output. The protocol should satisfy two properties. Mainly, it should be correct. That is, the function output should be same as protocol output. And the protocol should be secure. That is, the protocol should not leak anything about the private inputs besides the output. The works of Yao, Gold, Reich, Mikali, Wigdason, Beaver, Mikali, Raghave presented the first few protocols for secure computation. Since then, secure computation has found numerous applications in privacy-preserving machine learning, blockchains and many more. In this work, we consider the primitive of Oblivious Transfer or OT. It is a two-party protocol between a receiver and a sender. The receiver has an input choice bit B and sender has two messages M0 and M1. By performing the OT protocol, the receiver obtains the message of his choice. OT security ensures that a corrupt receiver should not know the other message M1-B and a corrupt sender should not know the choice bit B. This simple primitive suffices for general secure computation. It's complete. We also know that round-optimal OT enables round-optimal secure computation. Hence, in this work, we focus on obtaining round-optimal OT protocols. OT also has other applications like private-set intersection and zero-knowledge. And in this work, we want to achieve universal composability security based on RAND-Canadies model. So, we are going to focus on UC security. So, let me briefly recall the security properties required from our OT protocols.  To get simulation-based security, we need probabilistically polynomial-time simulator SIM such that it can extract a corrupt sender and a corrupt receiver's input given the trap-dose of the setup string or some extra power. We model the security of the protocol by considering a PPT algorithm simulator. The simulator interacts with the real-world adversary algorithm to create an ideal-world adversarial view given access to the functionality. We say that security holds if the view of the adversary in the real-world is indistinguishable from the view in the ideal world where it interacts with the simulator send. We also consider adaptive security, which is the strongest security model. In the setting, the adversary can adaptively corrupt any of the honest parties before, during or after protocol execution. The adversary obtains the internal state of the honest party upon corruption. In such a case, the simulated honest party view has to be opened consistently to the honest party's input when the party gets corrupted in the ideal world. That is non-trivial and really hard to achieve and that is the focus of our paper. And we also consider malicious corruptions where the corrupt party can arbitrarily deviate from the protocol. So let me briefly discuss the current works on Adaptively Secured MPC protocols. It is known that constant round Adaptively Secured MPC is impossible from black box simulation due to GERG and Sahai. So the works of GERG et al. and the recent work by Chakrabati et al. construct constant round Adaptively Secured MPC protocols from non-black box techniques. In the setup model, the works of Kaneti et al. and subsequently Chua et al. and Garai et al. constructed linear round protocols using the GMW paradigm. The work of Hazai et al. showed that public key encryption with oblivious ciphertext generation is the minimal assumption required for Adaptively Secured MPC. However, these protocols are not round optimal. So the focus in this work is to obtain two round MPC which is Adaptively Secured in the setup string model. In the setting, there are a few works which used IO and finally there are only two works which construct two round Adaptively Secured MPC from standard assumptions. The work by Ben Mouda et al. constructed it from DDH LWE and quadratic recidivosity in the common reference ring model. The recent work by Kaneti et al. constructed achieved the same result from DDH in the common random string model. But these are like only three assumptions that we know from. So we asked the question whether can we construct it from more assumptions. So we focus on constructing the MPC protocol from other assumptions. So we demonstrate that a two round OT with indistinguishability based security and something called oblivious receiver message sampleability implies two round Adaptively Secured MPC. So we call this OT primitive as RIOT. And this is a very weaker OT primitive compared to Adaptively Secured OT. And then we build RIOT from CDH, LPN and Isogenes. So this yields the first two round Adaptively Secured MPC protocol from CDH, LPN and Isogenes in the malicious setting. And in the semi-honest setting, we construct the first two round Adaptively Secured MPC protocol from LPN and Isogenes. Ben Mouda et al. constructed it from CDH in the semi-honest setting. And to be more specific, for Isogenes we constructed from group actions which can be instantiated using the seaside and the sea fish assumption. As a side result, we also construct the first non-committing encryption from LPN in the setup string model. So let me briefly go through the techniques. Let me briefly recall the security properties of indistinguishability based OT. Firstly, the receiver, corrupt receiver should not know M1-B and the corrupt sender should not know B. So this can be modeled as we can see here that suppose the receiver's choice bit is 0 then it should not distinguish between a sender's message when M1 is 0 from a case where M1 is 1. And for the sender, for a corrupt sender it should not be able to distinguish when the receiver's choice bit is 0 from the case where the receiver's choice bit is 1. So this is IoT or indistinguishability based OT. Next, we will add sampleability properties for the sender and the receiver message. So we will consider the OT protocol in the CRS model where the setup string consists of the CRS and it is generated along with the trapdoor. So the trapdoor will be used by the simulator which we will see later. So firstly, let me describe receiver sampleability property. We require that there exists a probabilistically polynomial time algorithm OB1 which obliviously samples a receiver message PR. So now a simulator can honestly construct a receiver message using the OT1 algorithm and the simulator can claim that this PR on the right hand side is obliviously sampled. In order to do that, it needs to give a randomness for the randomness which is consistent with the oblivious generation of PR. So we require another algorithm, INV invert1 which inverts the randomness of the simulator which was used to generate the actual OT message and it gives out randomness which is consistent with the oblivious sampling of the receiver message. And the two distributions of the receiver message and the sampling randomness should be computationally indistinguishable and that is the receiver sampleability property. Next we need sender sampleability property. We require that there exists probabilistically polynomial time algorithm OB2 which allows obliviously sampling a sender message PS corresponding to bit 1 minus W. The adversary provides M0 and M1 as input messages and the algorithm is parameterized by the adversary's chosen branch 1 minus B. Now a simulator can honestly construct a sender message using the OT2 algorithm. The simulator can claim that it was obliviously sampled. And in order to do so, the simulator is required to provide the sampling randomness which he obtains by using the INV2 algorithm so that inverts the sender's honestly generated sender's message randomness into a sampling randomness. And the two distributions of the sender message, receiver message and the sampling randomness should be computationally indistinguishable by the sender sampleability property. So these are the two properties that we need and we denote an indistinguishability-based OT with receiver sampleability as RIOT and we denote an indistinguishability-based OT with both sender and receiver sampleability as RSIOT. Now we will discuss our techniques in the CRS model. We start off with RIOT. We show that RIOT with a few other primitives imply RSIOT. These primitives are equivocal and obliviously sampleable garbling and obliviously sampleable commitment scheme. These are all instantiable from one-way functions in the CRS model. Our work also shows that RSIOT suffices for Trapdoor Simulatable PKE in CRS model. Next we construct semi-adaptive OT from RSIOT, equivocal commitment scheme and obliviously sampleable garbling and Trapdoor Simulatable PKE. Combined with the result of CDMW we also get non-committing encryption from Trapdoor Simulatable PKE which can be obtained from RIOT. Finally we apply the result of BLPV to get an adaptably secured MPC protocol from RIOT. Finally we show that RIOT can be constructed from CDH, LPN and group actions in the CRS model. So let me briefly go through the building blocks. We require garbling schemes. A garbling scheme consists of free algorithms. It takes in input a circuit C and randomness R. It outputs a garbled circuit GC and the encoding table EN. The encoding algorithm takes in input the encoding information and input X and it outputs encoded input capital X. The evaluation algorithm takes the garbled circuit and the encoded input and it computes the output Y. Correctness of garbling ensures that Y is same as C of X. Privacy of the garbling scheme ensures that the encoded input does not leak anything about the in private input X. This is captured using a PPT simulator which outputs a garbled circuit and the encoded input given the output Y without knowing what is X. An adversary cannot distinguish a simulated garbled circuit and a simulated encoded input from an honestly generated one. We also require equivocal garbling property where the simulator generates the simulated garbled circuit and the encoded input. Then later on it gets the input X and it has to produce the encoding information and the garbling state. So given these information an adversary cannot distinguish these from an honestly generated one. Such garbling schemes are instrumental for adaptive security and they can be constructed from one-way functions as shown by Kennedy et al. Finally we need oblivious garbling schemes Here an obliviously generated garbled circuit always outputs Y and can be sampled using an algorithm called OGB algorithm with randomness R. And there exists a randomness inversion algorithm which outputs randomness R prime such that an honestly generated garbled circuit with randomness R can be shown to be obliviously garbled using randomness R prime. The difference from equivocal garbling is that the adversary does not get the entire encoding information since the garbled circuit is supposed to be obliviously garbled and there is no encoding information when the garbled circuit is obliviously garbled. And the work by Lyndel et al obtained oblivious garbling schemes from one-way functions. Next I will talk about commitment schemes in the CRS model. There are three algorithms. The setup algorithm generates the CRS and the Trapdo TD. The commitment algorithm generates the commitment C to message M using randomness R. The verify algorithm decomputes the commitment to check it. The commitment should satisfy binding and hiding properties. Finally we also need oblivious sampleability property where an honestly generated commitment can be claimed to be generated obliviously by inverting the randomness. So oblivious and we know that oblivious is sampled commitments can be obtained from one-way functions due to Naur et al. Now I will go through our RSIOT construction from RIOT. We will try to construct our RSIOT using an obliviously sampleable garbling scheme, obliviously sampleable commitment scheme and RIOT. The receiver commits to its choice bit B using randomness R to form a commitment C. It computes RIOT receiver algorithm using the bits of R as choice bits. The sender garbles the circuit CIR so the circuit has hard coded inside it the commitment C, a bit E and a message M. It takes in randomness R and outputs M is C is a commitment to bit E using randomness R. Now the sender will garble this circuit CIR with E, C and M, E as hard coded inputs and he runs this for both E is equal to 0 and 1. This way the sender computes two garbled circuits GC0 and GC1 which encrypts M0 and M1 within it. The receiver should be able to evaluate GCB correctly and obtain MB if C is a correct commitment to B using randomness R. The sender also computes OT sender message using the encoding information of the garbled circuits so the receiver gets the wire labels corresponding to the bits of RI. The sender sends the garbled circuits and the RIOT sender messages. Now the receiver decrypts the wire labels for GCB corresponding to randomness R it evaluates GCB to obtain MB. Indistinguishability based security for a receiver RIOT receiver security and hiding of commitment scheme and the sender security follows from binding of the commitment scheme RIOT sender security and privacy of the garbling scheme. Also we can see that this protocol satisfies receiver oblivious sampleability because it follows from oblivious sampling of commitment scheme and receiver oblivious sampleability of the RIOT messages. However, we cannot argue sender oblivious sampleability since the sender is committed to the RIOT sender messages even if we use the oblivious garbling scheme instead of a regular garbling scheme here the adversary can distinguish since the encoding information is committed inside the RIOT sender messages. If we use equivocal garbled circuit then the output of the garbled circuit to be set at the time of the garbling it cannot be changed when inverting the randomness and hence the RIOT sender messages will again help in distinguishing an oblivious sample sender message from an actual one. So we have to modify the previous construction so in the new construction or our final construction the receiver algorithm remains the same the sender algorithm now consists of two levels of garbling the sender garbles the circuit CIR the circuit CIR has hard-coded inside it the commitment C and a bit E it takes in randomness R and some message T as input and outputs T if C is a commitment to bit E using randomness R. So this is the outer garbled circuit there is an inner garbled circuit GC prime that is going to encrypt the sender's message M so it takes an input a commitment C prime randomness S and a message M and GC E prime outputs M if C prime is a commitment to 0 using randomness using some randomness S so this is the circuit CIR prime now the sender computes a commitment to 0 using randomness S and it computes the encoded input for C E prime in GC E prime S T E the sender computes the outer encoding of T E and sends it to the receiver it also sends the inner encoding of S E and M E to the receiver the sender also computes R I O T sender messages on the R I bits R I bits of receiver the two inner garbled circuits and the two outer garbled circuits are also sent to the receiver now the receiver decrypts the O T messages to obtain wire labels for R I in GC B it has obtained the wire labels for TB already from the sender's message it computes GC B like the outer garbled circuit corresponding to bit B to obtain TB which is the inner encoding of C prime B right and it evaluates the inner GC B prime on TB and the inner encodings of S B and M B to obtain capital M B so we can again claim that receiver oblivious sample ability follows from oblivious sampling of commitment scheme and also from the receiver sample ability of the R I O T protocol this is similar to our previous construction sender oblivious sample ability follows from oblivious sampling of C prime equivocal garbling and oblivious sample ability of the inner garbled circuit so here we require equivocal garbling property from the outer garbled circuit and oblivious sample ability from the inner garbled circuit suppose the receiver's choice bit is B which can be obtained from distinguish a dependent simulation to oblivious sample the sender message corresponding to bit 1 minus B the sender oblivious garbles the inner GC prime 1 minus B and provides oblivious generated encoded inputs instead of correct inner encodings for branch 1 minus B or the garbles inner garbled circuit 1 minus B if we use the linear pincast construction then these are random values instead of oblivious generated encoded inputs so now an adversary cannot distinguish between an honestly sampled sender message from an oblivious sampled once since in both the real and idle worlds the outer garbled circuit for 1 minus B branch always outputs a bot or a junk value this holds true even if the adversary obtains the outer garbling randomness due to the equivocal property of the outer garbled circuit so the simulator can claim that the branch was oblivious sampled and this trick of 2 layering of garbling allows us to obtain rsiot from riot for more details I would suggest you to check our paper so let me summarize what we discussed so in this talk we just saw this construction that is highlighted for the rest of the protocols I would refer to the paper in this work we constructed 2 round adaptively malicious secure mpc from riot an instantiated riot from cdh lpn and isogenes to end with an open with 2 open questions what is the minimal assumption for 2 round malicious secure riot or more general what is the minimal assumption for 2 round adaptively malicious secure mpc protocol thank you


And we offer it to the kids who are aging out of the foster care system so that they have a real shot at getting good jobs and being their bosses, because I encourage entrepreneurship to children that we look after. So that's what I'm very proud of. That's what I'm currently working on.


a panel discussions on why we should mind the gap and how we can connect ideas to results. And to moderate this panel, I'm happy to invite the stage, Deepa Prahalad, CEO of ANUVA and Outer. And joining Deepa on the stage, I want to invite Professor Rita McGrath from Columbia Business School, Professor Richard Daveney from the Tuk School of Business and Montaza Mulyahau, General Manager of Strategic Initiatives at Saudi Telecom Company. Hello everybody, it's a pleasure to be here today to discuss this very important topic of bridging the gap and minding the gap between strategy and implementation. Roger is always a hard act to follow. I think he gave us lots to think about in the way we view these issues. You know, it just seems based on the data that despite our best intentions and a lot of rituals around strategy creation and our understanding of its importance, many great strategies seem to still go the way of our New Year's resolutions. Don't really deliver the results we expect and the data from PMI seems to back up this point that up to half of projects don't get implemented on time, about 40% don't achieve the results they want. And there is a huge amount at stake for companies and for society in improving that scenario. And I'm really excited that we have such a fantastic panel here with us to discuss what we can do about it. What are the things that have worked? We have two very well-renowned Thinker's 50 Thought Leaders. We have Professor McGrath whose pathbreaking work in HBR Discovery Driven Innovation has influenced many different companies to think about strategy differently and she is also a professor at Columbia University and consistently ranked as one of the top 10 management thinkers by Thinker's 50. I also have my old professor from the Tuck School of Business, Professor Devaney who has explored many different ideas in his best-selling book, Hyper Competition. His latest is talking about the impact of pan-industrial society, what that looks like, what it actually is. He is a well-renowned expert and won the Strategy Award from Thinker's 50 last year as well. And I also think it's an important compliment that we have somebody who is very well-versed in the world of strategy practice. I have Montazar Mulaho who is head of strategy at Saudi Telecom Corporation, a very diversified company that serves the Middle East and Africa in telecom. So welcome all of you, wonderful to have you. And let me just start out by very briefly saying that we know that growth and prosperity really depends on having the right strategies and implementing them the right way. And I'm gonna ask you for a very quick answer, your high-level thoughts and then really delve into your specialties in a follow-up of if you could tell us in two to three minutes, what do you think are the real barriers to implementation in a lot of corporations? Rita, I'll start with you and maybe work back this way. Sure. So I think the first thing I see happening in a lot of companies is they pretend that there's certainty where there isn't. And we have this enormous desire to be right. And I mean, the amount of human breath that gets wasted on trying to prove that we're right about situations in which there are no data, the right answer doesn't exist yet, is just ridiculous. And it kind of echoes Roger's point about organization as machine. If the data don't exist, stop arguing about who's right and instead focus your energy on figuring out what the right answer is. So briefly that would be my take. Okay. My perspective is that we're on the verge of a significant change akin to what we saw from 1890 to 2000, excuse me, to 1920, let's say. And that additive and digital manufacturing is going to reform how we have to implement strategy, how organizations are structured and that we're too often stuck in old paradigms that make it impossible for us to think about the future. And we need to break that before we get anywhere. I want to start, I would like to hear from you. Yes, thank you. Well, I think the challenge is that we tend to face any kind of an issue of either design or execution by having two duffel bags. So analogy was important and I'm using that to express what do I mean, how you can tackle that. So one has processes in them, the other one has numbers. So whenever we're faced with a challenge, we used to either throw processes at them and think that they would be resolved or assign KPIs, which in my opinion don't work. So it's extremely important to think of how would we have another third duffel bag in order either to mix both or look at this rather than mechanically that from a people perspective. Thank you. And I really want to drill down because all of you really have approached this very critical issue from different angles. I think Rita, you've done a lot of work on looking at how the perspective with which we approach implementation can dramatically alter its results. And so I'd like to start by just asking you, what is the starting point and the importance of the starting point? What is the difference between really viewing strategy from an industry-focused perspective as opposed to an arena-focused perspective? Oh, thank you for raising that. So one of the dominant paradigms in strategy forever has been industry, like when I started in the field, all the cool kids were doing industry analysis and positioning in order of entry and that kind of thing. And what I think that has done is created enormous blind spots in how we think about strategy. So what I'm arguing is that we need to start thinking instead about, I call them arenas, which is a pot of resources that you're contesting. Various players who are part of that arena borrowing Clayton Christensen's term, jobs to be done, each of those participants to an arena are trying to achieve. And then the translation of your organization's capabilities into attributes that those players can perceive. And the thing is they only perceive the attributes, right? They don't perceive what it is your organization's doing to create those attributes. So let me give an example that might make it more concrete. So if you think about the market for teenage clothing, you think about what is the job that clothing does for teenagers? Well, among other things, it communicates status and what tribe they belong to and who they are and so forth. And yet if you think about other ways that those jobs can be done, right? Don't telephones and social media and pictures and selfies communicate those very same attributes. They do. They're actually competitors for clothing. And if you think about it even further, if I'm a teenager and I'm taking pictures of myself and I'm in a blue shirt on Monday and I'm in the same blue shirt on Wednesday and I'm in the same blue shirt on Friday, well, how lame is that, right? I mean, who wants to be looking the same all the time? So what you could begin to see is the substitution of traditional notions of quality and clothing. So the quality that my mom might look for in clothing, which is it's durable, it lasts, it does all these things. That's not what teenagers want. What they want is to look different all the time and hence we have the phenomena of fast fashion or disposable fashion. And the winners have been companies like Zara and Forever 21 here in the States, H&M, Ross Stores, TJ Maxx, who are the losers? The traditional high quality clothing people. And I think if you look at it through the lens of an arena, you would draw completely different conclusions than if you said, oh, well, we're all in the apparel industry together. It's a different market. Thank you. I think Montessar is a practitioner. You have a unique take because you've really spent 20 years on the front lines of implementing strategy in a very diversified business that has both a complex consumer and a business side in terms of services. And I encourage all of you to go look at the Saudi Telecom website. A lot of companies track their performance and their service quality, but they actually post their results online, which is unusual. So I really wanna hear from you of what are the people challenges? I know you've spoken about de-engineering the process of implementation. Maybe you could walk us through what that looks like and what that means. Thank you. So three years ago, the company was claiming that strategy execution is not doing well. So we are not achieving what we designed. And from my experience, there is never lack of design of strategy in any organization. Everybody wants to design strategy in an organization. But once you want to implement them or execute them, challenges arise. And so SDC went through everything, PMO, EPMO, transformation offices, project execution in the corporate. So at the end of the day, when two or three years ago, we were like thinking, so what are we doing wrong? And again, I think we were trying to tackle the strategy execution challenge by adding more processes. So the best consultants in the world were hired, right? To spend millions of dollars in trying to resolve this issue by adding processes. And what we found after applying some of these processes that we are neglecting the people side or the emotional capital of the organization. So SDC, like all of the telecoms in the world are facing a decline in their legacy services. So there is an emotional capital of fear in the organization. So people are fearful of losing their market share. So SDC today is 60% market share of Saudi Arabia telecom, business. And how would we maintain? So people are fearful. And the process does not address that at all. So just a small example. And it's not the big things. So you don't expect to hire shrinks across the organization to do that. It's actually paying attention to the details. And for example, we do a bi-weekly meeting with the business owners of the initiatives. And these bi-weekly meetings were just to follow up on the progress and to collect more data about how we are doing in terms of the targets. And it wasn't going well. We couldn't collect feedback. We couldn't get data on time. And it wasn't of quality for us to use and project. So there was a process. There were KPIs. But then we noticed that the way we conduct the meetings, we did not think of how would people perceive that. So what we usually do is go. We ask the business owner to come to our meeting room. Usually they come either one or two individuals and we're nine. So can you imagine nine people from the corporate sitting with a business owner from the business unit and starting hammering him or her with questions? So why is this green? Why is this red? Why aren't you providing data? So we were actually putting more on an emotional capital that is already there, of fear. So what we thought is, okay, so let's experiment. Let's instead of us asking them to come to our quarters, let's go and visit them. And not any more nine people, it should be two or three. And instead of us asking them questions about their progress, let them present their progress. And the result was phenomenal. So it wasn't a change of process. It wasn't changing the KPIs. It's actually just tackling and be aware of the emotional capital of the organization and dealing with that. You know, I think that's a very important point. The people element often gets neglected in some of these documents. And Professor Devaney, you actually have done a lot of different types of work. I mean, when I was a student with Hyper Competition, you talked about strategic capitalism and how this is really important for countries. And now you're one of the leading experts on this new set of tools. Technology has kind of a mixed perception as it is, but you're really saying that this new set of tools and digital and additive manufacturing is going to open a whole new world with tremendous implications for how organizations transform and implement strategy Can you help us understand what some of these changes look like? Sure. I think there's a couple of fundamental principles that are going to change. The first is an agreement with Rita. And what she calls arenas, I call pan-industrial marketplaces in my latest book. There'll be a kind of super convergence of things happening. And this is because additive manufacturing and digital manufacturing is going to allow companies to expand the scope of the firms and still get operational synergies by information sharing and their industrial platform and the knowledge of how to do additive manufacturing. So that's kind of the first principle and you have to really understand that. So an example of this is agricultural equipment. Companies are making harvesters and in it, it contains all kinds of different devices now. And those devices include things that measure the humidity in the air, the sunshine, the degree of aridness in the soil itself, chemical properties that require a fertilizer or other kinds of things, the bug count. And you can just imagine all the things that could be measured that would then be able to be used to get a better understanding of how to improve the farming and get the yields up. So we call this machine still a harvester when in fact it's more like a moon rover or a Mars rover. And so the functionality of it has changed so much that the industry definition now is constraining what we think of that machine to be. So that I think is gonna be a big mind shift for a lot of people. The second principle that I see here is that additive manufacturing is gonna fundamentally and digital manufacturing with industrial platforms is gonna fundamentally change the way we implement. So there's a lot of software out there today which allows us to run supply chains and do all sorts of things like that. And those things, and so a lot of implementation is gonna be around reprogramming the machines or around the machines learning how to do things better. And that's going to take over more and more of the human element of the organization. So implementation based on trying to retrain people and things like that may simply be way out of a paradigm of the past. I know what I'm saying is very controversial because what I'm talking about is the death of human-centric organizations. We are so biased about ourselves, we think we're the primary value adders all the way through the system. Whereas the machines are gonna start taking over more and more of that value adder. The third principle of implementation, let's say new product development is also gonna change significantly towards the machines. You think that humans can do the innovation to design new products. But there are now programs attached to 3D printing and larger additive manufacturing systems which eliminate a lot of what a design engineer would do. And so let me give you a couple of examples and then I'll turn it back to Deepa. There's a whole new set of software packages called generative design. And in generative design, the engineer puts in the original picture and CAD file of the product that they want or the part. The computer system then takes the principles of additive manufacturing and starts to use all kinds of new forms and structures that humans aren't used to doing. So things that used to have multiple pillars in it, now have these curving spiral supports in them and all kinds of structures that humans would not come up with. And they're often based on biological structures that evolved over many, many years. So it redesigns the parts. There's another software program which then looks at all the parts in the product that you're making and decides how can you 3D print combined parts. So you can reduce 300 parts down to 12 and eliminate assembly. So you don't have to retrain the workers because they'll get rid of them. Sorry to be so hard. So it looks like that's a lot of changes under foot and not always encouraging I guess on the human side because that's a hotly debated topic right now. And that's something that I want to really explicitly discuss and get all of your perspectives on. Because I think the idea of change is very exciting on the front end and people come on from these off sites really charged up and ready to go. And what sometimes we fail to fully appreciate is the amount of change that that requires on people across the organization not just on the front lines but really in terms of what the leadership capabilities need to look like, how we need to train and model and inspire behavior. And despite the rise of technology what you'd also hear at the same breadth from many corporate CEOs is how intense the war for talent has really become. And I think we have spent some time talking about what the deficiencies in the process are but I really wanna ask maybe I'll start with you Rita is really what do the winning companies that do? I'm assuming everyone makes some mistakes and has had some beliefs that turned out to not really pan out as planned but what do winning companies do and how do we actually prepare people to change direction and do so with confidence or at least be able to flag problems at the right time? Well I think our, and this relates to something Roger said earlier, I think our model of what leaders do is evolving pretty quickly. And it was funny I went back and researched this as part of my new book which is about strategic inflection points and how organizations can benefit from them. And the great thing about an inflection point is if you pick it up early it can take you to new heights and if you don't, well the opposite. And one of the things I would observe is that instead of sort of telling people what to do what leaders are increasingly learning is how to get the organization to generate options. So you can think of that as the result of project outcomes but generating lots and lots of options that then gets chosen by leadership in sort of a much more organic process. So rather than this idea of all the information aggregates up to the top so the only person that's got all the information is the leader and they make the decision that all goes down again. We're seeing a much more iterative kind of almost organic. So what I think leaders are doing today is they're setting a broad direction so we kind of have a sense of what the boundaries are what the constraints are. And then letting the organization experiment in order to find out what the correct path is through those boundaries. I'm seeing a lot more of that. What about the role of actual consumers as a source of expertise? I think especially in a tech world and I'm increasing a lot of product development. Winning companies seem to be able to inspire not just inside their four walls but also outside in society among others. So what is required to engender that type of reaction? What do winning companies do right? You're asking me? Yeah. As a follow up too. Sure, I think what we're seeing a lot more is people really digging deeply into how consumers are behaving. Not just sort of what do they say, what do they ask. So as an example, we're looking much more at behavioral rather than demographic or psychographic segmentation as an example. So where are those people coming from? What do they want? And more importantly, how are they behaving so that we can make some much more intelligent trade off choices as we're thinking about how we serve those consumers. And much as I really have to ask you the same question as well because Telecom of course has been really a leader around the world in bringing lots of new customers into the world. And I think that is another paradigm that has actually shifted as a result of that industry. I think we always used to think that we had to answer everyone's needs but that phone has become an aspiration around the world and it's actually enabled people to now go back and offer services that were out of reach in many countries, whether it's finance, healthcare, education, insurance. And it's taken it backwards, right? We've flipped the script in this industry and I think yours is also an interesting point because you have to get front end, very great customer service and customer loyalty. On the back end Telecom is almost a quasi law enforcement and security type of industry. And how do you really balance the two and get people aligned across many different tasks? Well, that's a huge question. But just first of all to address the issue of how would you, what's the winning ingredients? I think those organizations that don't distinct between strategy execution and value delivery. If these are the same thing, you cannot distinguish between them. So, and some of the corporates and some of the organizations distinct between them. And I think that's a really risky thing to do. For the Telecom in particular, there are a lot of exciting things that are happening. So big data and leveraging those big data, trying to work with other parallels within the value chain of Telecom in order to generate value and also contribute to the society as well. And also respect privacy and respect all of the, well the output of the Telecom to the society and to the culture in general. So it's extremely important again to stress the fact that these are not mechanics. These are people who are working together in order to achieve value.  And as far as the role of leadership, I always read about flat organizations and empowering people, but ultimately, isn't there still some responsibility of leaders for results, for the conduct within their organizations? If you really see what's happening even with our leaders in Facebook and when there are these huge lapses, ultimately it's not everyone who jointly comes to testify before Congress. I mean, there is some expectation of responsibility. So how do leaders try to think about their role or what do they need to do to even monitor what's going on in such complex organizations? Any one of you are welcome to join in. I think it goes along with your topic. So maybe you should take it. Okay. I feel I'm speaking a lot, but anyhow. That's okay, wanna hear? I think the values, the principles of any organization is extremely important and that needs to be consistent across the organization, whether it's based on how do we design the strategy to be, I mean, based on those value principles and then going through execution and value creation based on those values and making sure that they are aligned. So again, privacy is an extremely important thing that is now emerging. There are a lot of calls, especially for telecoms, to respect privacy and to handle privacy with a lot of dedication. So I think it's very important for the organization to be aware of the responsibility that the consumers are giving to the organization and they need to apply their value, their value set to either design or executing that strategy going forward. Thanks, and then Professor, just one second. So one of the things my research has shown is that we make this false dichotomy, I think, between change and stability and you have either one or the other, right? And what my research suggests is that organizations that really thrive, and this gets back to leadership, have some things they keep very stable. And the things that I've found they keep stable are leadership, general direction, often strategy, surprisingly, culture, values, networks, those things kind of endure over time and provide that kind of center for the organization so people don't freak out. What things do they keep dynamic? Roles, movement of people through the organization, investment patterns. So you see lots of experimentation at the edges, lots of awareness outside. So there's this dynamic between what you choose to keep stable and what you choose to keep dynamic. And I think that's one of the biggest choices leaders make. Okay, that's very interesting. And Professor Devaney, I think in some of your earlier comments, you're almost suggesting that for people who are really struggling with the people issues and firms that are struggling, maybe we should let some of that go and focus on making machines smarter to compensate for all our lapses. And what's interesting is that people accept that guidance in some contexts and they're very resistant to it in others. So I'm just curious to understand what you think the people issues are going forward in really embracing some of these new technologies. We're seeing some pushback already and I would love your thoughts on how that might look. Yeah, well, first of all, let me say in the bigger picture, what do we do with a world of abundance with a consumer base that doesn't have any money or jobs? I don't have an answer to that because that gets the political philosophy. Do we wanna go to redistribution of the wealth, tax the big companies and then distribute them, all sorts of things that might suggest that Karl Marx was right, that capitalism in the end will bury itself. It'll become so efficient that it's not useful to people anymore. But as I see it, I have not worked with one CEO who wished that they went more slowly and trained and retrained their people more. They always come back after the fact and say, I wish I'd just gotten rid of them and brought in new blood that agreed with the direction we're going in. And because by the time we got it done to try to change people's minds, it was too late. So my belief is that the management of the future is gonna be managing turnover and moving in new people to replace the old people in the organization so that you don't face that kind of cement in the organization. Because you can talk until you're blue in the face and people don't change. They don't really care about your opinions. And they have their own and their individuals and they have rights to think the way they want. But at the end of the day, they don't have the right to think what they want in the middle of the transformation. And so overcoming that is a big issue. So I know I'm pretty harsh about this, but... You think? No. But this process, I don't understand why people react negatively to that because this process has been what's been going on for since the beginning of the first industrial revolution. We've automated people out of jobs for centuries. And we've laid off people for centuries when we didn't need them. And we've replaced them for centuries. The only difference is now that it's gonna be more of a faster kind of rate in turnover. I wonder about that though, because I think fundamentally the way we ask the question really changes the answer we get. And I think if we look at a new technology and say how many people can I replace, that's one question. I look at places like India and other emerging markets where they're saying there's a long road before we can really think about reforming education. How do we use technology to make people employable? How do we compensate for five years of missed school because you had to, you know, family hardship? But now how do we bring people together and train them? And I've seen entrepreneurs basically take people from villages and give them a very highly immersive tech heavy environment and get people trained in digital skills and basic English and saying we don't want you to just be able to find a job. We want you to be able to ultimately become job creators using maybe the skills of your native place. We send you back with this newfound confidence in soft skills and digital training. So is there really only one choice that executives have to make? Or is that the easy default we tend to gravitate to? Yeah, I understand what you're saying. And as a solution for India that works, I think. But these are folks who haven't been imprinted with a paradigm yet. And this is the first time they're getting a new one. So you've got to imprint them with the future paradigm, not the past paradigm. And unfortunately, the people who've been in the organization for a lot of times say, are suck. And they just can't think about it.  You're sitting next to one so people like that. Is it fair? What's that? I said you're sitting right next to one so be nice. Right next to it. But I've been more critical. Yeah, it's kind of interesting when I meet people from engineering backgrounds that are steeped in conventional manufacturing, they don't believe in additive manufacturing. They don't wanna adopt it because a lot of it entails throwing away their design principles that they had for years and their manufacturing principles which have been repeated so much that they start to think of it as science rather than as just fluid methodology that changes over time. Well, I'm eager to hear from you, Rita as well. You've talked about the fate of companies like Kodak and many others who have gone through this process and what the impact on people in the community has really been. And I'm just curious to get your thoughts on what are the alternatives? How should people handle this when change is inevitable? Because we do see that even in this country there is a pushback among for wages, higher wages for workers. We had things for labor rights in many factories in the early 80s and 90s. So I'm just curious to see where does, you talk about inflection points, where is the inflection point where people say, no, we need to restore some balance and think about the people who work for us. Well, so I think the interesting thing in mentioning that example is Kodak was a fabulous employer.  I worked for an optometrist when I was in high school and every March people would come in with money from the Kodak bonus, every March reliably, year in, year out. Because Kodak always gave a bonus, it never went away. And I think one of the things we overlook in the, as hyper competition becomes more and more the reality of what we're dealing with is that that does create pressure on organizations to be able to offer that kind of stability, those kind of good jobs, and the need to be responsive in the marketplace. So an interesting contrast, which I've drawn on, and I think I was just in Japan and was on a panel with a gentleman who at Fujifilm in Japan basically turned Fuji towards digital and saved it when it could have easily gone the way of Kodak. So a couple of points I would make. The first is someone always sees it. It could be somewhere deep down in your engineering organization, it could be in your scientific organization, but someone in your organization is paying attention to what's happening long before it's obvious to everybody. And one of my questions would be who's paying attention? Who's listening to that person who says, there's something really weird going on out there or there's a trajectory that we should be following. So I think that's point number one. Point number two is as a large organization, we often overlook the fact that there are unique and powerful capabilities that organizations have built. And that's what gives you an advantage over startups.  And the problem with that is that it leaves behind what is unique and powerful about what the organization as it is does. So to me, one of the critical things that make the difference between those that suffer from an inflection point and those that actually take off is being able to sense what those capabilities are and really leverage them. So an example might be helpful here. So one of my clients is a company called UPM. It stands for Universal Paper Mills. They make really glamorous stuff like two by fours and paper. They actually make the paper the economist is printed on. And their CEO took a look at this operation some years ago and he said, you know, paper, two by fours, probably not growth industries. What is it that we are uniquely good at in the world? And the answer he came back with was enzyme technology. So it turns out that to take tree bark and stuff like that and turn it into paper, you have to be really good at the little bugs that do this. And he split the company in two. He said one part of the company is gonna be the mature businesses and we're gonna run them for cash. And the other part of the company is gonna be what he called the biofior businesses. And we're gonna center around enzyme technology and they're gonna go figure out what enzyme technology means for our future. And it took them a little while, but today they are among the world's leading producers of biodiesel plants. And so it's finding that core that is relevant today and is going to be relevant in the future in some way that you can't quite identify yet. But I think separates out the innovators that make it through these inflection points and those that don't. Before I turn it over to questions Montezard, I'd also like to ask you because you are in a very high tech business, you're bringing blockchain and a lot of interesting technologies on the business backend. And yet your mission statement is still customer first. That's your strategy. And you're also explicitly talking about bringing services throughout your territory and preserving the cultural and religious values of the region. And so you seem to have a lot of emphasis on people. And so this idea of how do you balance the pursuit of technology with the needs of people? I would love to hear your thoughts on that. Okay, so there are a lot of hype these days in telecom about blockchain, digitalization, and also agility. And so we need to look at those. So what methodology or which technology we need to adopt in order to create value to our customers? Of course, today STC is working, well, in Saudi Arabia and in the region, in other countries in the region, but also we have some equity participation in other regions of the world. So we need to take that in consideration knowing that every context has different dynamics. So it's extremely important to link between what tool we need to adopt to what value this will create to our customers. Makes a lot of sense. And I would love to open it up for questions to Aliyah. I have just one to step in. We have one question. We have hundreds of people watching through the live stream. So I have one question for the panel that I just received. To get approval for initiating a strategy, we raise the perceived value before implementing. We make assumptions of how the future will look like. And when it comes to the reality, this may be different. How to manage expectations of people in such an uncertain future? Yeah, I'm opening all of you. Please feel free to respond. Well, what I'm watching at the cutting edge and even the bleeding edges, firms are not as much anticipating as they are experimenting. And then using machine learning to sort out what factors help you pick more successful products or help you to improve the existing products more. And so it's much more kind of an exploration than it is a planned process. And I don't think there's anything new about that. I mean, Henry Minnsburg, one of the people I consider them as a founder of the whole strategy field. He's written about emergent technologies. And his friend and my mentor, James Brian Quinn, talked about emergent strategies as well. And so I think that's just happening at a faster rate and it's being automated. And because you can't really know what the future says, but you can make certain guesses so that you can monitor the right things to help you get that feedback to continuously adjust strategy and the kind of planning model that you suggest where there's no feedback from reality and performance back into what you're doing. I think that's a deadly way to go, especially when everything changes so fast. And I've talked a lot about discovery-driven strategies, discovery-driven growth. And the idea there is that you can plan, but only as far as the limit of your existing knowledge and assumptions takes you. So I see it very much as a discipline around taking assumptions, converting them to knowledge in a systematic way. And the beautiful thing about that is unlike some that fear that this is just a blank check and a license to do whatever you want, it's not. It's saying, here's what I need to learn. Here's what I think it's worth to our organization. Let's take that next step, let's learn that. And then given where we stand now, what's the next step? So it's much more disciplined and logical in a step-by-step kind of way as you're making your discoveries going forward than this kind of unplanned free-for-all that I think we sometimes think planning under uncertainty is. And just to compliment that, there is always a false assumption in big corporates that a strategy is engraved in stone, right? So you are not allowed to touch the design, okay? And I do believe that successful companies need to have that feedback mechanism. So it's an open system where you have an input and output and feedback. So you will always either refresh or even look again at your strategy's principles from a concrete feedback of execution. So again, a strategy is done in order to help you maneuver through where your challenges are posing and would take you somewhere. So if you think that this is not working or underachieving, then you need to look again at your strategy and you need to have that capability in your people to have that open discussion. Are there other questions from the audience? Thank you. My name is Fleming, I'm from Decide Act. My question goes in or maybe also a bit of comment because we circle a lot around the people issue which agrees very important here, but isn't the question that the way we manage strategy is basically old-fashioned, the way we monitor it is manual. It's not measurable and we should maybe instead look at it in a way where we make strategy just as transparent, measurable and concrete as our finances. And yeah, I know people will laugh. I believe this is possible, I'm working with it. It constrains the implementation a lot if you're capable of building a strategy by design meaning that you have to have a recordious look at it in terms of who would run a company without being controlled of your finances. So we have to establish a strong governance where you actually can monitor it and by building it that way you can engage your people in what Roger mentioned as making the decisions what's gonna happen and also what you're mentioning right now. So I believe that what is needed is digitization of strategy, implementation or support for it and a follow-up where we have it very tangible. And then of course involve things like blockchain not the currency way but actually we can register how things are connected and when decisions are made and ensure complete governance. What are your thoughts about this? So may I just say something? So I think nothing happens overnight, right? So there are organizations that are facing challenges of having an effective system reaching their objective that they want to reach and once they do that then they might look back on that process and set of capabilities and try to make it efficient. So then they would think of, okay, so what tool I need to deploy in order to reduce cost, increase turnover, et cetera. But I do believe that some companies jump in the later stage without having an effective way of handling it first. So I think it needs to be a learning curve for an organization to go through that. Any of the other panelists? I'm gonna jump in. I think one of the things that gets in the most way of an integrated approach to strategy is that we break things up in silos and as a consequence you don't have that line of sight through to all the different moving parts that have to go into making a strategy actually happen. So I'll give you a little example from my own life that happened to me just two weeks ago. A client wanted me to sign a bunch of books to send off to their clients. So I get this box of books, I sign them, I tape it all up, I have the FedEx number, I have the address, everything's set. FedEx guy turns up at my doorstep and I hand him the box and he looks at it with horror. It's absolute horror and I'm thinking, what could possibly be wrong? And he says, you don't have a label. And I said, well, okay, go to get one from the truck, I'll fill it out, whatever. He says, I don't carry labels on my truck. Literally, we are two human beings with a box in between us and my understanding is FedEx's entire mission in life is to get boxes from A to B and for want of a shipping label, this cannot happen. He literally left the premises without the box. And I'm just using that as an illustration of talk about strategy implementation not happening, right? I mean, this is a company whose sole mission in life is to get boxes from A to B and they can't make it happen. And it's not anybody's fault, but they have designed their whole system around the need for this label that integrates all the different silos and absent that it's not gonna happen. So I think a lot of us have that kind of thing going on everywhere in our organizations, we just don't see it. And so that's one of the big reasons I think why we have these gaps as you alluded to. Yeah, we... You tell me. We have time for one minute and one last question, okay? So please, can someone just bring the mic quickly? Yes, thank you. Thank you. I would like to challenge a question, put a question and a challenge to Professor Devaney. I think you're absolutely right when you talk about the harsh realities of what's coming with machine replacement, augmentation, artificial intelligence, but I also think there's extraordinary possibility coming. I've just returned from some time in Egypt and when I looked around, I thought this leapfrogging of capability could make a difference in so many places of the world. So I want to challenge you to switch the hat and talk about the possibility coming with this. Sure. That's another topic that I talk about in the book. It's hard to tell whether the, from additive and digital manufacturing, whether we're going to lose jobs or gain them. The first thing to keep in mind is, is that in the US, very few people actually work in a factory. There's a lot of people working for manufacturing companies, but they're doing marketing and distribution and product design and all kinds of functions beyond actually making it. So we're not going to lose as much as let's say an Asian country where they have a large workforce and great assembly lines and their core capability is conventional manufacturing methods. They're going to have more dislocation. That's first of all. And then secondly, I think the other part to keep in mind is the opportunity structure. Nobody yet knows what those opportunities are going to be. But one of the examples that I like to use was something that I speculated about back in 2015 in an HBR article. And I talked about that we now have the capability with additive manufacturing to make artificial coral reefs. Things we couldn't do with conventional manufacturing because it's such intricate structure that's involved and it's very biological, not very mechanical in its nature of the structure. And that I thought that eventually fish companies would make their own, create hatcheries and then harvest and be able to create a large amount of opportunity for people who don't necessarily have a lot of skill because they'd have offshore factories that harvested the fish and froze the separatism and then would freeze them and package them so that they could be used. And the other part of that I thought was it's not just gonna create jobs in fisheries, it's also got the benefit of helping lots of people who right now don't have food. And secondly, lots of new products can come out of that. Everything from new kinds of frozen dinners because there'll be a glut on the marketplace of fish to all sorts of other kinds of fish related things.   And then about a month ago, I read that Jacques Cousteau's grandson is experimenting with the creation of barrier, of, excuse me, of artificial coral reefs for exactly that purpose. And what he wants to achieve is to be able to make coral reefs in colder water because the existing coral reefs that took centuries to build by Mother Nature are being killed with global climate change. I'm so sorry that I have to cut in because I think we're out of time but I think we've had a very stimulating discussion and really highlighted the point that while there is a lot of choices still left to be made by humans even in the advent of new technologies, new questions about our perspective, our processes, how to best deploy the new tools that we have. And it will, I'm sure, give us plenty to think about in terms of both the strategy creation and taking it forward in the implementation process. So thank you very much to all the panelists. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you for your time. Thank you.


Let's explore how to calculate the path taken by a charge particle in a magnetic field. And then we'll be able to answer why these beautiful auroras are only seen by people at the poles. That's right. At times, these people can see spectacular light shows in the sky, but only happens at the poles. We'll be able to answer that question later. All right. So let's start with a case where you have magnetic field, which is into the board. Place an uniform into the board and let's consider a charge particle. Let's say a proton that's moving perpendicular to the field. That's what we'll start. So let me just write that down. Let's consider a case where particles are moving. Let me just let me just draw it over here. So let's say we have a proton that is moving perpendicular to the field. So the field is inwards. Let's consider the proton going upwards. The case we're dealing with is velocity of the charge particle is perpendicular to the magnetic field. I want to now know in this case, what's going to happen to the proton? How will it move? Will it keep moving straight or will it turn? What's going to happen? What is the path that it'll be taking? How do we calculate that? Well, to calculate the path of any object, we'll have to figure out the force acting on it. And we've seen before that the force acting on any charge particle in a magnetic field is given by the Lorentz equation. The Lorentz force is f equals q, the charge of the particle, times v cross b. And if you're not familiar with this, we've talked about this in our previous videos on Lorentz force. Feel free to go back and check that out. So let's figure out the direction of the force acting on this using the cross product. And then from there, let's see what will be the path taken. So why don't you pause the video and see if you can figure out the direction of the force? Remember, to calculate cross product, you use your right hand rule. So why don't you try using your right hand rule and see the direction of the force? All right, if you're given a shot, let's see. I'm going to bring in my right hand. I orient my right hand to make sure that my four fingers, the four fingers are in the direction of the velocity because velocity is my first vector. And then I curve them in the direction of the magnetic field. Now the magnetic field is inwards. So I've curved my four fingers also inwards, see? And so the thumb now represents the direction of the force. So my force acting on the charged particle will be this way. This is the direction of the magnetic force. So what's going to happen to this particle? Well, because it's pulled inwards, the particle will sort of turn. It's now new velocity after some time is going to be this way. It's important to notice that the speed will be unchanged. Why? Because the force is perpendicular. Remember, vectors, vectors don't have a component in the perpendicular direction. So this force will be unable to change the speed. So the speed remains the same. Okay, what's going to happen now? What direction will the force act now? Will the direction of the force be the same? Well, let's see. Again, if we do a V cross B, let me uncurl the fingers. Okay. Now I'll have to align my finger again in the direction of the velocity. And now again, I will curve them this way. And notice now my thumb is pointing at an angle. So the force now is going to be pointing this way. Interesting. So again, it's going to turn a little bit inwards, and this will continue. And as a result, you can kind of see that the force is always going to be pointing at a some common point, which is going to be the center. And as a result, you can kind of predict now the charge particle is going to go in a circular path. So let me draw that circle for you. So charge particle is going to go like this in a circular path. This Lorentz force is going to act as the centripetal force of the charge particle. And so what we now find is when the velocity of the charge particle is perpendicular to the magnetic field, we find that particle travels in a circle, goes in a circle. And it's going to go this way in this example. So that's how you figure out the direction. Let me give you one. Let me give you an example. What if we have magnetic field to the right like this? This is our magnetic field. And let's say we have a proton that is moving downwards. Again, notice, in the same case, we have velocity perpendicular to the magnetic field. But now I want you to use your right hand rule. Think about which direction the force is going to be. And think about how that circular path is going to look like. This is going to be in three dimensions. So you'll have to visualize a little bit. So why don't you pause the video and visualize what will be the part taken by the particle? All right, hopefully you have tried. Let me bring in my beautiful right hand. And I'm going to orient my right hand this way. Again, notice, my forefingers must be pointing in the direction of the velocity. And I'm pointing in such a way that I'm going to curve my forefingers in the direction of the magnetic field. My magnetic field is like this. So now I'm going to curve like this. Can you see that? Here we go. Curve this way. And as a result, notice the thumb will point out of the screen. And so from what we learned over here, this means this particle is also going to go in a circle. But the center of that circle is going to be somewhere out of the screen. So can you visualize what that circle is going to look like? Let me get rid of this hand. So this particle is going to go somewhat like this. Let me draw. It's going to go this way. It's going to come out of the screen. Let's go like this. And again, it's going to go into the screen. It's going to go in a circle like this. It doesn't look like a circle, but that's what it is. So here's will be the center of that circle. So again, circular path particle will go in a circular path. So this is how you figure out the path taken. But now let's consider a more general case. Can let me draw over here. What if I have a magnetic field like this? And let's consider that same proton, charge particle, proton, whatever that is. But it's not perpendicular to the magnetic field. Let's say it's moving at an angle. Interesting. What's going to happen now? How do we figure this out? Well, the way I like to think about it is I already know that if the particle was going perpendicular, I know it's going to go in a circular path. So what I want to do is divide this velocity into two components. One that is perpendicular to the field and one that is parallel to the field. And look at what will be the path for each of the component. So we already know for the one that is perpendicular is going to be a circular path. Let's now figure out what happens to the path when the charge particle is moving parallel to the magnetic field. And again, we're going to do the same thing. We're going to first figure out what the direction of the force is. And then from that, we're going to figure out the path taken. And again, why don't you pause the video, use the Lorentz force, and think about this. What would be the force acting on a particle if it was going parallel to the magnetic field? Pause and try. All right, let's see. Because we're doing a cross product, remember that cross product becomes zero when vectors are parallel or anti-parallel to each other. So because this is going parallel to the magnetic field, it experiences no force. So this component will just go in the straight line with the same speed, unaffected. This component will try to make the particle go in a circle. So what's going to be the net effect? Well, one is trying to make it go in a circle. Another one is trying to make it go forward like this in the opposite direction. And so together you're going to have a circle that's going forward. Let me try and draw that. So together we're going to have a circle. Let's use blue, okay. A circle that is going forward. Something like this. In other words, this is going to be a helical motion. So in general, what we find, in general, what we find is particles tend to go in a helical path. And look at that helical path. The axis of the helical path is the magnetic field. Can you see that? And the circle, the plane of that circle is going to be perpendicular to the magnetic field just like what we found over here. All right, let's do one last example. What if we have magnetic field this way? And imagine there's now an electron. An electron is going in some random direction. Let's say an electron is going this way. Can you pause and figure out what would be the path taken by this electron? All right, let's see. We're going to do the same technique. I'm going to decompose this velocity into two parts. One perpendicular to the magnetic field, one parallel to the magnetic field. I know this parallel component tries to keep this electron going in the same direction. Let's see what the perpendicular component tries to do. Well, velocity is upwards. Magnetic field is towards the right. And so if you use your right hand rule, I hope you can do that yourself now. I don't have the picture of that available. But if you use your right hand rule, the force, the thumb would point inwards. But remember, this is an electron. And so if you have an electron, there'll be a negative charge over here. And so you have to flip the force. That means the force will act out of the screen. And so the center of that circle is also going to be out of the screen. And as a result, the way I visualize this, the circle is going to be like this. The electron will come out of the screen, go into the screen, come out of the screen. But at the same time, it's going to go forward. And so the net is going to be, the net motion will be a helical path that will look like this. This is not a great helix, but you get the point. This is how it's gonna go. All right, now let's see why we only get auroras at the poles. It's got something to do with the magnetic field of the earth. So it turns out that sometimes our sun, everybody's sun, it launches charged particles. And these charged particles, once they enter into the magnetic field, they get trapped. Because once they enter the magnetic field, they start following the field in a helical path like this. So they will start following the field like this in a helical path. And eventually they will follow all the way towards the poles and notice that's where they enter into the atmosphere. The same thing could happen on the other end as well. So if the charged particle gets trapped over here, it'll follow the field and enter into the atmosphere only at the poles because that's where the magnetic field starts and ends. And when these charged particles enter the atmosphere, they interact with the atmosphere causing these beautiful auroras. And that's why we only see them at the poles. Beautiful, isn't it?