>>live from Las Vegas. It's the Q covering you. I pat Forward America's 2019. Brought to you by you, I path Welcome >>back to Las Vegas. Everybody's is Day two of the Cubes coverage of you AI Path forward. Three. This is the third year of North American Conference, and second year the Cube is covered. This Anthony at Batista's here, Cuba. Lami was on last year from from Deloitte. He's a principal there, Anthony. Good to see again. >>Great to be here. Great. >>Yes. So it is. I mean, we've seen the growth of our P A. Generally you AI path, the whole automation were starting to talk about intelligent automation. A. I has its wings, and it's starting toe sore. But give us the update from a year ago. We talked about, you know, accelerating last year. I think it was you had a really good statements around looking, Yes, go on Fast is good, but you wanna accelerate the right things, you know, speeding up for bad processes. Paving the cow path, as I sometimes call it, is really not the way to go. But what's new? >>So I do think there's still some issues around getting programs t to scale and thinking about automation at scale, which has been a major theme here. The conference is still in front of us. People are still figuring out how the climate that curve well, I think is new is way Thought about automation before it was, it was a whore statement was that humans or automation is about going to replace the human on. I really think we've no lights. Always had a campaign about I t a. I that that we kicked off a couple of years ago and said, How do we have automation and humans interact with each other? And I don't just mean attended, attended bots, But how do we actually start to use automation as sort of the glue that hang together a much more rich experience to start to put the components there? So that leads us to the age of with, which is how we how we use technology along with humans, to change their role in there been some great talks. One of my partners earlier they was here with Walmart's, his client on. They talked about how they're redefining the HR processes at Wal Mart on that was That was a really good presentation because they changed the workers work. They didn't replace workers. >>So how was this concept of the age of with how is that different than attended? Boss, can you maybe talk about a possible use case or example? >>So if you think about a call center way, know who's coming in? We used to just look them up and say, Hey, do we know who's calling? Now we can say that we know is calling. Do they have a history with us? Way can use data, and that's another part of the width. Is Dave plus analytics with automation? And we could say, Well, what else do we know about this person to have a history of calling us? They have an open ticket. Have they had some issues or complaints in the past that we can deal with or get in front of on and basically start to put the intelligence in the front end? And that could be unattended, right? That could just be some screen pops around automation way start to introduce natural language. We start to introduce some advanced analytics, and that would be a simple, simple way of enhancing that process. >>So let me double click on that so normally what you would get this year in the other end of the line of the call center. And it's like, Hold on, I'm just reading the notes and you know, they're scanning these notes. It's like an eye test, you know, and they can't. They can't ever get to see. It's a faster for you to just explain. Let me tell you what what I'm imagining is in a different experience where this is happening in near real time, getting pop ups or some other messaging. Is that absolutely experience on how real is this today? >>This Israel. And you know, I I always like to say all them anything. All the main thing is easy if you just take the process, repave the cow path. But it's very real because the natural language components they work up front. Now you can ask some questions you could start to do pre searches on which materials might might help with that type of question. You also can train the process over time. So daily overtime. What's the call satisfaction? Did you actually complete what it was? The call got started about on how quickly you do that so you could train these models and start to use machine learning to actually improve that experience even further. So I think that's left again, back to the whip. It's adding these components. >>I like talking to folks with a consulting background because you know, when you're talking to the vendor community, they get very excited about our why and how you know, lack of disruption to install some software, right? And so that's one of the advantages, I guess, of our P A. As you can pop it into an existing process, good or bad, and get going right away. We've seen this time and time again in the industry. When you have when you have a big force people to change, you know it's slow When you can show Immediate Roo. I start to see these rocket ships at the same time as a consultant, you really want to have a bigger impact on business you don't want to just repeat in automate Bad process is. So how do you work with clients to sort of manage that that insatiable desire for quick R A y, and then the transformative components that. You know, I could maybe defend you from disruption or allow you to be an incumbent disruptor. >>So I think what's interesting is transformation. Use the word we were really good transformation program. So starting to say how that we think of automation first as we do a traditional transformation program is is very near and dear to us now. And instead of saying, Hey, we're gonna bolt the ear piece system and then figure out if we can get some improvement by automating later. We're saying, you know what? Let's sort of double go backwards. Maybe it's a little fashion, but what is this whole process look like? And can we put automation and launch not is a process improvement after lunch? So I think we think of these transformation programmes, But AARP programs for ready and they're doing at automation is now on the tip of the front end of the program rather than afterthought. Reporting used to be >>right, so I mean, >>you guys >>have to be technology agnostic in your business. I mean, we happen to be a U IE path conference, but there, you know, if our p a generally you iPad specifically, it's not a panacea for all problems. I mean, we've talked about a I we talked about other automation process automation capabilities. You've got existing systems. All this stuff has to work together. So so and people always say technology last people process first. You guys lived that, Um So how are you seeing automation evolved in in terms of adoption of the how people are dealing with existing systems and some of the other technologies that you're having to bring together. >>So I think the first thing is, the technology has to work. It has to be bulletproof, resilient. If you're going to put it in these processes and make it make it part of your work life reserving clients or that sort of thing. So first it needs to be bulletproof. That's becoming a given second. I'd like to think that's, well, architected more. Maura's. You bring in a I or other advanced components. You need thio. Be ready to have a changing ecosystem. You know, the best document processing right now might not be the best in six months. So starting to think of your automation solution is that the technical glue and this is allow you to swap out the trade components as you as you refined processes going forward or something new hits the market. So now we're working ecosystem, I think, for the r p a. Vendors that are having great success in a market like you have have they sort of give you that platform, and they give you the off ramps and the on ramps to integrate the other technologies. And like I said, I think that's table stakes in addition, being bulletproof. But the next piece of that is how we get various people involved in the value proposition of creating automation. So various tools and studios, some for the business user that might not be as technical, maybe self designed about it, eh? Process description level on, then maybe a more technical work bench for the technical body builder. So I'm starting to see that in the product suite and somebody announcements here this week. Hallie, we tailor the tools to different users and engage them in that process from one into the other. >>So you mentioned scaling before what the blockers, what's the challenges of scaling? Why's it seemed to be so hard? It's clearly an area of focus here at this event. >>So I think first of all, the technology is is still new to some areas. They're still back and forth with the business or I t led initiative. I think there are some scars and wounds over the last few years of automation where people might have gotten started on the wrong foot. There's even some reduced to learn from. So I think people are looking for the business case. They're getting more comfortable with it. So the job sizes, deal sizes, air getting bigger for the FDA vendors and for us. But I think it's just an evolution. And, like I said, there a lot of stubbed toes early on a nomination. >>What are >>some of the big mistakes that you've seen? People make >>people thinking that it's only a business tool, or only a technology tool or technology to the point that they get started on something that becomes either a real technology problem, a real business problem? Maybe you told the body out in the business, and you attach it to your ear piece system and you cause performance problems or you have security problems on. Then it becomes a real I t problem also seeing the reverse where you know, when I t group will start and say Let's do some automation And they pushed into some departments it might have a fully big business case, might now have good support, and it becomes a technology science project rather than delivery in the real value. >>I was tryingto a week sort of Think about analogies. Analogous ascendance sees in software. I use service now a little bit, but that was kind of a heavy lift. It started an I t. It was very clear. You know, I t You're seeing this massive rapid growth of you ai path fastest growing probably the fastest growing software segment in history and striking to me that we're just now starting to see Cloud come into the play here. If we just you iPad that big announced this week. It's got this new SAS capability, which you would think you would, you know, be born in the cloud. But people have explained why that is. Do you have concerns about the pace of growth and a company like you I path and its competitors their ability to sort of keep up and continue to deliver quality. I mean, a big part of what you guys do is sort of risk management. Well, so how do you manage that risk? >>So I think what you look for if you're going to be in the lion's partner, if you're going the work together and pursue things together first you have to have the basics. It has to be bulletproof. It has to work. When you hit bumps in the road, you have to have escalation pass. That makes sense. And there's growing pains in any firm, or any company that grows grows as quickly as you tap. On the other hand, the question is, your culture is the line. Do you know the fix problems? Do you put your customers first? I think that's what we look like. Look at in the lions, which is how we have a partner with. People have similar DNA about customers first, and you put everything else aside, roll your sleeves up and do the right thing. So that's what we look for in lines like This >>Way. Always talked about the buzzwords of digital transformation, which conferences like this, it is kind of buzzy, but when you talk to customers, they're actually going through digital transformations. And then a couple years ago, they started experimenting. They bought one of everything and they'd run things in parallel with, you know, legacy systems. But now they're starting to place their bets, saying, actually, we've got some use cases that are working. We're gonna double down on the stuff that, you know, we think works. Our p a in some cases fits there. We're gonna unplug some of the legacy stuff and try to deal with our technical debt. But I guess my question is, where do you see our P? A fitting in to that whole digital transformation? Major, I like to think of a matrix where you've got different sets of service is and you've got different industries that are tapping, you know, all data centric that that are tapping these new capabilities and formulating new businesses. News industries. That's how you see this disruption happening. And then the incumbent saying, Hey, we've got assets to we're gonna tap that same matrix and whether it's open source software or cloud or new security paradigms or data and analytics. So where do you see our P? A fitting into that matrix? >>So I think at the glue level. At the architectural level, it can be the orchestrator of the experience of taking a variety technologies integrating them, providing again on ramps and off ramps, doing with a human canoe, looking at screens, analyzing content so it could be the glue that orchestrates those processes orchestrates. Maybe some of the so it was used to be a void between legacy systems and new systems on darky A helps take all that away or level the playing field on. That s So that's has another set of eyes and ears for process integration, our technology integration. And I think that's what it's probably it's best place now. Are there good process tools there? Can we get, you know, community developments? A big discussion right now. I think some people have been successful at it, but it requires a lot of care and feeding and planning to have your community hand the rails or stay between the curbs and do useful things. So I think we're in the beginning of how far can we go with community development? I think the technology is really the glue. >>So community of elven terms of best practice sharing >>and users have developing their own bots. You know, what are the guardrails? Does the process? They're automating matter. Does it introduced a risk? Eyes going to perform. How do you make sure your bots are an evil that people are creating? It's a pretty powerful technology. >>Is their I p in there that you don't want it? We talked about this last year that you don't want to necessarily share with others. So, um, now your role used to have focused specifically in financial service is now you're more horizontal. But how does the light look at this opportunity? Is there is it an automation practice? Is it you cut across all industries with automation, or is it sort of broader than that? >>So my colleague here runs the offering, which is Do we have the people, the training, the tools that delivery centers in the know how to go out and do this kind of work? And we've scaled tremendously in the automation space. The second part is, how do we look to the Jason sees? So we work very closely with our colleagues in a I and ML when we say how we go do the next generation of this out of the gate, How we experiment, how we say, Do you want fries with that as we as we do some of this work. But then we look for the industry in the intersection, and that's where a firm like Lloyd we've got deep, deep industry expertise, way say, well, those intersections where we can go make something happen way come work with our partners are lions you know, partners in making making something happen at an industry specific level, or can we go solve a specific problem? So I think that's what we bring that unique. But we do it both ways. >>It's kind of off off the topic here, but I was talking about that matrix before and again. I'm envisioning technology, horizontal technologies and then vertical industries, and it used to be for decades if you were in it. And if you're in financial service is, you are pretty much stuck in financial service is you had a value chain that was specific to financialservices, and you knew it inside and out, whether it was product development or marketing or sales distribution, whatever it was. That same thing for automobiles on manufacturing, an education on and on and on, and you develop these industry areas of expertise and domain experts with in there. And you guys have built up a global powerhouse doing, But you're seeing a CZ digital. It's cos. Become digital. What's the difference in the business in a digital business? That's how they use data. Data is at the core, and you're now seeing organizations Company's tech company specifically traverse different industries. You're seeing Amazon, you know, in content you're seeing Apple and financialservices other companies getting into health care. >>How is >>that? First of all, you see that and what do you think it was driving that? And how does that affect your business? Or your clients asking youto help you traverse new new industries, get into new industries or defend against others? You know, these big tech companies tryingto with a duel, disruption agenda, trying to take him >>over, and the center of all that you mentioned a little. But the center of that is who the ultimate customers, and we'll experience that they want how they want that experience integrated, so it's not channel by channel anymore. It's which pieces fit together and how I want to buy things and how I want to be serviced. You're getting whole crossed economies around what the consumer wants, unable by technology. I think the other thing that plays into that is you start thinking of the Internet of things and how connected people are. And how do you use monetize and integrate data about particular people and how they want to be served to make that a better experience? I think the consumer ultimately is driving. A lot of that technology is in the billions. >>Yeah, is you think about that picture again. You'd like to use a metaphor of a matrix. I mean, I see our p a is just, you know, one piece of that. You know, there's so many others you mentioned. I o t We talk about a I all the time we talk about Blockchain. It's how you put those different capabilities together and apply them to your business. That really makes the difference. Not that RPG right now feels very tactical, but it's part of a much more strategic agenda. >>Absolutely on again. It could be the glue in an ecosystem of emerging technologies. I do see there's the eyes and ears. The fact that what you get out of the box from regular p. A vendor. Really? Integrate some really, really painful things. Looking at spreadsheets and thinking the guys with green visors column numbers. It's really good at that stuff as, ah, base task. >>Yeah, nothing wrong with tactical and quick. Roo, I So, Anthony, thanks very much for coming on The Cube. Really appreciate your time. >>Thank you. Great to be here >>to welcome. All right, Keep right, everybody. We're back with our next guest. Day two from you. I path forward in Las Vegas. You watching the cue?

>> Narrator: Live from Miami Beach, Florida, it's theCUBE. Covering UiPath Forward Americas. Brought to you by UiPath. >> Welcome back to Miami everybody. UiPathForward Americas. #UiPath. You're watching theCUBE, the leader in live tech coverage. Dave Vellante, here. For my co-host, Stu Miniman. Anthony Abbattista is here. He's a principal in robotics and intelligent automation at Deloitte; a big consultancy, SI. Anthony, thanks for coming on theCUBE >> Thanks for having me. It's great to be here. >> So, when the SIs and the consultancies lean in, you know it's a big business, you know it's strategic, and it's sort of, life changing, world changing. What's your role at Deloitte? And, then we'll get into what you see in the market space. >> So, my role now is, broadly, in intelligent automation and really scaling our practice, looking at what's next. And, if you think about automation, in and of itself, an RPA, if you're not careful, it can a race to the bottom, is our view. And just automating things, without a business case, without sustainability, without thinking about what's next, you know, is probably a race to the bottom from a results perspective. So, what we like to do is think about what intelligent components could we have, not just in technology, but around the business case. Around the actual implementations, and say, you know, how do we, just not take people out? How do we think about the future of work? What's the impact on industry? And, how can we make something more of that, and make this a sustainable part of the technology landscape, not just a "let's go take some bodies out." >> Yeah, so the race to the bottom, I'm inferring, would be the hollowing out of the employee base, without a plan to sort of retrain and redeploy people, and actually have business value. Just, pure cost cutting for automation for automation's sake, versus what? What do you advise your clients? >> Well, the race to the bottom also would include just doing automation for the sake of doing automation. And, you know my joke here with the theme of the conference of accelerate everything. Yeah, so I'm not sure that's exactly right. It's accelerate the right things. It's accelerate things that have the highest value. So, I do think the race to the bottom is, if you're not careful, you could just be doing automations, putting in bots, and I've seen a lot of programs start to fail or people start to question them if you don't have that longer view of automating the right things, and accelerating the right things. The second part of that is, there's context. There's interactions. And, without some of the advanced cognitive components, without text, without speech, without machine learning and getting smarter as you do this, It will be a race to the bottom if you're not doing these things. >> Yeah, I mean, Anthony, it's everything in business. If you start having meetings for meetings sake, they get out of hand. You know in the infrastructure space, we have sprawl of every single technology out there. Maybe, give us a little insight. What are you seeing as some of the real ways that companies get value out of this, help propel their business forward, help their employees be more fulfilled and not be doing drudgery work? >> So, that's a lot all in one question. I think first of all, this is not a technology or a business problem and this goes back to, you know, my 30, almost 35 years of working in technology. You still need business and technology alignment to make the real programs work. And, I know some vendors that have come out and said, "This is easy, just go build a bot." And business people can do this. And quickly, it becomes a technology problem if you're successful or if you're not successful, it becomes a technology problem. So, I do think, one thing I'm seeing is the best programs have business led and technology enabled, but the leadership is aligned around how to do these programs. The second piece is having a business case. If we're going to automate some things that are low hanging fruit, understanding the difference between that and where their places were taking in, leaning in to some good old fashioned process work, or asking the question, "Am I going to do best practice? "Am I going to get some industry "consultants in that know the difference "between good and great, or what I'm doing "and can maybe guide me there quickly?" I think people who are taking that approach and sort of, knowing why they're doing the program. If it's low-hanging fruit, that's fine, you might do some throw-aways. But, also having a long view of if I'm going to dig in, how do I get that value? How do I bring people in to help me get that value, and not just repave the cow path? >> So, take us through the business case. Maybe we can go through some examples, but what's the frame work look like? Obviously, you know, save money, make money. Okay, but you guys are going to get a lot more sophisticated than that. But, with something like this, I presume you don't want to initially boil the ocean. You want to have a long-term view, get some quick wins that are maybe you know, gain shares going forward. Maybe take us through a framework using some of the examples that you've worked with on clients. What does it look like? The business case? >> So, first there's the back-office business case, and I think those are the best understood. So, how do I automate financial processes, or HR processes? A lot of those are pretty easy to do on the industry agnostic basis for the most part. And those typically do have the can I close the books faster? Is there value in maybe, taking some people out or redeploying them? And I think those are pretty well understood across the various industries. >> So, expense reporting. You know, approval is an obvious one, right? Here's you pushing the button every time. Approved, approved, approved. Let's say reporting, gets to be a little, gets to be more interesting. So, you're compressing the time to reporting. Again, doing sort of, manual tasks. >> Does that have a value to the street or to your investors, or just to not elongating the whole process? >> Okay. In a company I worked in, we moved from a 10 day close, to a one day close. It took us seven years of working hard to do that. Now, people are thinking about continuous closes. You know, what do my books look like everyday? Can I do valuations in certain industries? So, I do think, that if there's business value to do that, again, these business cases are pretty well understood. I think where it gets interesting, is where you get to industry-specific business cases. So, if I'm running an insurance company, for example, can I improve customer sat and does it matter that I move the needles, as far as renewals? Again, can I improve customer sat by maybe, adjudicating a claim quickly? Getting you the check and not having it be a big hassle? If there's no bodily injury or something you have to dig into, can I use robotics and other technology to help have a happier customer, maybe save some costs, redesign the process, not have an inspector go out or an adjuster go look at things. So, I think technologies play together well. The other is creating capacity, in that same model. I have a client who really was about to go out and build some new buildings. Their business was growing very nicely, but they were about to undertake a major capital investment to build buildings and service their business the way they were doing it. They'd make money doing that, but they made more money by not building the building, and not hiring the 1000 or 1500 people that would fill it and said, "How can we use automation "to stave off that investment?" So, CAPEX, OPEX, now you start getting into some models that are not traditional. It's not just save some heads, but it's great capacity. >> I think I could probably count on one hand, I think so, yeah, the number of companies that have the capabilities of Deloitte, in terms of its global presence, its industry expertise. Other than that sort of cartel, if you will, how do you differentiate? >> So, one thing is very, deeply, technically competent, and one of the reasons I came back out of industry, and joined the firm was our bench in technology competency. So, we can go with the best of them, about sizing and scaling. Not just filling a school bus, but making size and scale with industry expertise in our technical people. So, I do think our technology bench is really strong because everybody has a love and business savvy. We like our business people to be tech savvy, and our tech people to be business savvy. And that's sort of part of the culture. I think the second piece is our ability to think from an industry perspective. Even if we're screwing some things in, we're going for a go-live. I think our continuous industry points of views, our deep knowledge, means we can bring an expert in at any time in any place to weigh in on some of the work we're doing. And, sometimes that happens, as a matter of course. It might be a technical project; go build 40, 50 bots. But, while we're there, we bring something more on a regular basis. I also think we don't just do work for the sake of doing work. We're very focused on the business case, sharing success. We've got some major automation projects, intelligent automation projects, that were at risk, and our fees, and we've got aligned rewards. So, I think that makes us different and, maybe worth a little more premium in the market. >> Yeah, so that's, I mean, often times, clients are afraid to sign up for those deals, because the business case could be so attractive, they could be writing a bit check. They want to keep the upside for themselves, and have more operating leverage. But, you've found that certainly, you're willing to take that risk because, you understand (laughs) the reward, and that's kind of cool. I mean, the payoff must be pretty good. Maybe better than normal in an engagement? >> Oh, it is. That's real interesting. We brought several of these to the door, and said, "How about we go into a risk sharing "or rewards sharing kind of situation?" And people said, "We're going to give you a lot of money if this works." And they've had exactly, you know, let's just move back to a fixed price, or a bond and scale project. So, we don't mind that either. >> Great negotiating tactic, right? (laughs) >> I want to go back to the industry discussion we were just having before. >> Sure. We saw in the big data world, one of the biggest challenges was when you looked at deployment, everything was custom. It wasn't very repeatable. I was at the Microsoft show two weeks ago, and they said, for AI, they're going to great industry specific groups to be able to really focus on AI, IOT and the like. In this space, for the robotic automation, are there certain industries that you're seeing ahead of the curve in this? Are there things that, you know, is it going to be very industry specific? You said, you know, that HR is very generalized. Give us little more color if you can. >> So, it's interesting you mentioned big data because, I think the best automation is driven with data and analytics and feedback in the background. So, I think the best industries are the ones that are most promising in places where there is a massive amount of data that we can apply automation and intelligent automation to. So, a couple of stand outs: healthcare, life sciences, massive amounts of data, a massive data channel, and, they're used to working with data and investing in data and automation. You can pretty quickly close the loop. The second is financial services. We're using automation to run more models, to handle more calls, to handle more interactions. Then, certainly in consumer focus things. Can we have a good experience in a retail channel or customer support channel by using automation? Again, sometimes people are happier interacting with a bot, or an intelligent agent than they are ... >> Do those bots pass the Turing test yet? >> Excuse me? >> Do they pass the Turing test? >> Some of them are getting close, right? But, I still think there's some work to do there. (laughs) >> So, some of the mistakes people made, I'm inferring from your comments, people don't have a plan, they don't have the business case, they don't have the business technology alignment. What are the big mistakes that You know, what are we missing here that people should try to avoid? >> Well, I think alignment, and then the sponsorship, right? Having that business case and not getting lost on the way. Or, we get x-million dollars into a program, and somebody starts sniping at it. I also think booking the benefits and having your CFO or some operator on board who is actually booking the benefits, whether they're take-outs, redeployments, or even customer sat or other things. If you're going to push the needle, somebody needs to measure it. >> And then, advice. Let's flip it around and sort of positive side, advice for people who want to get started. Obviously, it sounds like you've got to have the sponsorship. What? Pick something that's going to give a fast return? You want quick hits, is that right? >> Yeah, you want some early success. And, I'd say don't boil the ocean, to use your words before. Find some, but also understand the longer term picture, and don't get, again onto this. Let's go live, and let's pick the first 500. You know, pick 10, get going, have some success. I think, two years ago, we spent a lot of time on looking at technology, doing POCs. I think people are getting beyond that now. You can quickly say, "Alright, if we're going to do a POC, "let's make it real. "Let's not make it "a science project, but, let's get a real area, "where there's real sponsorship, and let's "go build the first 10 bots." >> So, I'd infer from that the POC, the investment, might be a little larger but the payback is going to be more substantive, and people are willing to take that chance. The economy's good, so why not? >> And, also, why spend two, or three months doing science projects, or more in some companies? >> And, when you do these early projects, are you narrowly focused on sort of a part of their organization or are you involving more constituencies and herding more cats, or does it sort of, just depend and both? >> I think what's typical is, if there's a business person or tech person thinking about this probably, typically might do a strategy piece of work that says, "Is there a business case at a high level?" Typical consulting. Then, are there ways that we could find sponsorship in an area and start somewhere? Now, assuming the big business case can be worked out, and you have some learning, start somewhere. But, I think the ones that try to start broadly, and do too much in too many areas, unless you are very careful, it might make no one happy and prove nothing to anyone. And, that could be a failure. But, we do have some customers where we've gone out and gotten in multiple areas; HR, finance, some of the back-office places, all at once. So, we're going to do a POC in each one. If they've got the discipline, and they want to work on those things at once, it just makes it into a program rather than a project. And, that's what we're good at doing. >> Yeah, okay. >> Anthony, any feedback you have on the go marketplace? How important is that to customers? We were wondering how much you know, co-creation will happen from the users, you know, that kind of dynamic? >> So, you know I worked in a place where all we had was our people, and their intellectual capital. so, I can say personally I'm suspicious of marketplaces and places you post your wares. And I don't think it's that easy. With that said, I do think there's opportunities to help each other. I sort of think of it as an open source opportunity or a way to show eminence and thought in the market. So, I think we'll participate cautiously in those kinds of environments. We like to see some structure around that. I think other vendors have similar marketplaces, not just in the RPA space, but in the technology space. But, I have to think, what's in recreating a false expectation if we put solutions there. So, I think it's good to be in the market, it's good to open source some things and play, but, I think we always want to be careful about that. And, I really like what I'm seeing from UiPath's marketplace, the way they're thinking about it, which is having certain levers. This is an internal marketplace. Can we have customers and people use it in a controlled environment, rather than just being a bazaar or a -- >> Stu: Free-for-all. >> Free-for-all. >> What is the relationship with UiPath? >> So, we've been working with UiPath probably for, since they started. Both as a customer, and with our customers. And we have various ... Our relationship is deep, you know? We sponsor events like this, we are a reseller, and we are working on formalizing some of that, potentially as an alliance partner in the future. But, our relationship is deep, hands on, going to clients, going to, you know, working together to serve our joint clients. >> Great Anthony. Love the independent perspective. You guys are always about, you know, technology's important, but the people side, the process side, the business outcome is really what you're all about. So, thanks very much for coming on theCUBE. >> Thank you. Great being here. >> Alright, keep it right there, everybody. Stu and I will be back, right after this short break. We are live UiPath Forward from Miami. You're watching theCUBE. (electronic music)