>>from Menlo Park, California In the heart of Silicon Valley, it's the Cube covering cloud now. Awards 2020 Brought to you by Silicon Angle Media. Now here's Sonia category. >>Hi, and welcome to the Cube. I'm your host Sonia category, and we're on the ground at Facebook headquarters in Menlo Park, California covering Cloud now's top women entrepreneurs in Cloud Innovation Awards. >>Joining us today is Melon Yen, founder and partner of operator Collective Madeleine, Welcome to the Cube. Thank you so much. So tell us a little bit about your background. >>So Operator Collective is actually my fourth organization that been apart of starting, and all of them have had an aspect of it that had a strong community to it. And so that was one of the reasons why, um, as you hear about in a second, I could put together this kind of crazy idea for a fund that looks like no other. >>Um, So what inspired you to start this company? And how did you navigate getting funding? >>Sure. So? So, because that operator collective is my fourth company. The 1st 1 was actually a nonprofit. The 2nd 1 was a venture backed company that we took from 0 to 100 million in public in less than three years, and the 3rd 1 was something called Faster, which is the world's largest B two b B two b community for SAS Softwares of service, the company that was a venture backed startup that we took from 0 to 100 million in public in less than three years. Even though I helped launch it, I didn't actually officially joined as an employee until about 18 months in, and by that time it's employees 65 I noticed a number of things, which is there were largely homogenous group of people who were there before me, all really great people. But you tend to know people like you and the hyper growth stages of startups. You tend to turn around and say, Who can I get? And so you and you turn to the people that you know, And so you end up with companies that look like yourself and so spent a lot of time looking at what was going on in the venture world, which is that in the area that I focus on, which is enterprise and software enterprise software. It is over 90% male in terms of veces as well as founders and the world revolves around in the venture world revolves around veces and founders. And so I looked around and said, Well, where the operators, the people who build and grow and scale up these companies, they're largely not. They're not efficiently and effectively part of this ecosystem and then second, where the women and people of color And so but as I started to dig in more and talk to people, what I realized was that the VCs and founders actually wanted to bring in the operators. They wanted to bring in the people with different backgrounds, but the network's didn't naturally overlap. And so I thought, there's got to be a way to bring them in, because I know the operators and the operators also want to participate. But the system isn't optimized to make it efficient or friendly are comfortable for them to be able to participate. So that's why I decided to put operator collective together. >>Wow, So you are key noting today for cloud. Now, um, what has this experience been like? And what is the main message you want to give to the award winners and to the cloud now community. >>So it's incredibly inspiring to be with all of the women who are being honored tonight as well as, frankly, the organizers. The organization itself Cloud now is incredibly impactful. And so one of the reasons I was so excited to be asked is a number of the women who were being honored. I either know or have heard of. And the recognition is something that is very important because we need to tell the stories and recognize these people who are not. Maybe the usual suspects, the ones who maybe not our everyday names. And so I was super excited to be here. >>So you were talking about how it's about 90% male in the VC and founder community, Um, in one of your articles, which are amazing, by the way you said, Don't let the excuse of cultural fit be a vehicle for perpetuating sameness, and I thought that was so profound. So, um, are you still seeing this notion of cultural fit being a huge issue and if so, what can be done? Teoh mitigate it? Yeah, I think there's >>more awareness now of the fact that if you hire for cultural fit, you'll end up with 65 people who are exactly like you. And that's not optimizing for a successful company because right there studies that show that diverse teams outperform out innovate, homogeneous teams. But what's also interesting is the same study says that, but homogeneous teams are more certain that they've gotten to the right answer, even if they've got into the answer less less often than the diverse teams. And so when you have people who are just like you, then everyone agrees with each other than you don't realize that. Maybe there's another way of looking at something and so cultural fit is is a warning sign. I think to say that. Okay, well, there just like me, I'm very comfortable sometimes. Being uncomfortable is good. >>That's a great message. I think it's really hard to to say like, Oh, I'm okay with being comfortable. Um, so in, in in in one of your other articles, you bring up this idea of, um, don't check all the boxes, but rather fill in the gaps. So can you explain more about that? >>Yeah. So the idea behind that is, if you look for only the typical candidates. The ones who maybe think of a startup founder went to Stanford. Where's the hoodie? Right? Did computer science then that's fine. There are plenty of those people who have been successful, but you're ignoring all the people who didn't. And so, in fact, I'm the beneficiary of people who were willing to not just check all the boxes because I >>didn't >>check any of the boxes. If you look at, if you look at my background, I should not have been able to raise. Is the first time fund and a first time fund manager to be able to raise a $50 million fund because I'm a um Ah, let's see, I'm a solo GP, right? So, General partner who hasn't been a VC before with the first time fund, I don't have the traditional venture background. My previous background was I was an intellectual property attorney. Um, then help start a company as a result of that and then and then also when you check the boxes, 40% of the seas went to Stanford or Harvard, and when you look at the numbers, I didn't check all the boxes, but precisely because I didn't check all the boxes, I was able to actually look at this differently and say, Hey, that's not the model that that I want to build. And frankly, if I tried to build the same model that everyone else did, my background so doesn't look like anything. I wouldn't have been successful. And by taking it and saying, Look, I'm gonna build a model that's totally different from the ground up that allowed me to build a platform in a community that looked like no one else is as a result of that was able to raise money from institutional investors, for instance, which very rarely back first time funds. And so, by not checking all the boxes, um, I was able to build a model, but by other people also saying, Look, she doesn't check any of our typical boxes. But we >>would like this >>idea because it's so different than everyone else is. We will. We are now, you know, part of the fund >>and sometimes different is good, and it's what's what's needed? Absolutely. Um, so speaking of that, um, in terms of operator collective, what workplace environment are you trying to strive for. >>So what we say is we seek to back founders from all backgrounds who believe you share are believed that culture, diversity and operational excellence are a key part of building truly great companies. So we strive to be inclusive way. We strive to have a variety of backgrounds. We use a lot of the tools that of the companies, because we focus only on enterprise and B two B software and technology and infrastructure. And so we also try to use a lot of those tools. So we are mostly women team and we are distributed team. We largely work out of our homes and we work a lot on Zoom and we all a lot of us have kids too, and so what we do is we adjust the schedule so we can do drop off in the morning. We work like crazy, right? We work long hours, but we also do it so that people can can take their kids to doctor's appointments or pick up their kids at the end of the day. But we what was important to me was that we created environment that worked with our busy lives, and it wasn't that we were trying to take, take take these incredibly talented women and make it fit into just the corporate norm. Because you can have an incredibly successful work relationship. I mean, you can have an incredibly successful, um career if you don't have to sacrifice everything else in your life for it, >>right? Right. And that balance is so important. Um, so what advice would you give to aspiring female entrepreneurs who maybe have, ah, not so technical background or who are struggling to navigate in this male dominated industry. >>So one of the things >>I talked about in my keynote today was was that you never get this right. You're never going to raise a fund. If if you do this, you're never gonna raise a fund. And so when you're starting a company, you will go when you talk to a lot of people as you should, because you will get lots of great information. Ah, lot of people are going to say, Well, you're never gonna have a You're never going to start a company if you don't have a technical co founder never going to start a company. If you're gonna try to do X and So while you some might say, Well, you should just ignore those people actually say, Don't ignore those people because they are saying that other people are going to think that too. But think of a way to counter that. And that actually help make the operator collective business model stronger. Because we said Okay, we know that's gonna be the mindset. Let's turn it around and actually make this a strength. And so, for female founders or any founders, what I would say is listen to a lot of people talk to a lot of people here what they have to say. Ultimately, trust your instinct. Trust your gut. And because you know what's best for the company that you're trying to build. >>Great words of advice. Melon. Thank you so much for being on the Cube. Thank you >>so much for having me. Absolutely. >>I'm Sonita Gari. Thanks for watching the Cube. Stay tuned for more. >>Yeah, yeah, yeah.

>>live from Boston, Massachusetts. It's the Q covering I. F s World Conference 2019. Brought to you by I. F. S. >>We're back at the Hynes Convention Center in Boston. This is a cube, the leader in live tech coverage. And this is our coverage of I f s World 2019 Matt Smith. This year. He's a global chief architect. Paul Dylan and I are happy to have you on Matt. Great >>pleasure to be here. Thanks very much. >>Filing. You're welcome. So business value engineering is a concept that you're a fan of on one that you've sort of promoted and evolved. What is business value? Engineering. >>So business value engineering is quite a common term in the industry, but here I affects it's a little different. Fundamentally, it's, ah, collaborative process that we use working with our customers on our partners to make sure that what we do with those customers delivers financial value to their business. So it's fundamentally about making sure what we deliver delivers value. >>So I wanna ask you a question about this because your philosophy is a company seems to be the Let the customer define value. Um, it's in their terms, not your terms, not trying to impose a value equation on them. At the same time, it's nice to be able to compare across companies or industries and firm level on DSO forth. So how do you reconcile that? Is it like balanced Scorecard is sort of pay you can tailor to yourself versus some kind of rigid methodology. How do you How do those two worlds meet in >>TV? Yes, so obviously, benchmarking across industry is really important. And there are lots of people that do that kind of work, and that's part of business value engineering. Fundamentally, it's about mutual collaboration. So it's not just about using the customers framework or that all their language is about agreeing the language. One of the challenges when you're trying to build a business relationship with with one or more parties is you have to have a common shared understanding, a common vision on a common value system so that when I say something to you, it means the same thing when you say it to me. And so part of that collaborative process requires that you worked together on business value, engineering facilitates that it's not just about producing a business case. It's really more about the process and steps that you go through to get to that business case that allows you to establish trust and understanding and clarity. >>How does this enter into the customer discussion? >>And so it enters as early as you can possibly make it. Answer rights? A. Right at the beginning, you asked the very first question, which is fundamentally, what are the business initiatives that you're trying to achieve with this potential change program? And then you have a deep discussion about what they mean. So you understand and they understand, and everybody really agrees firmly what we're trying to achieve before you get anywhere near solution. And it's really difficult as technical people. I've got a technical background to stop yourself from hearing a problem and going. I've got a solution for that on it puts that a more disciplined approach to make sure that you don't straight away go to solution to help. You really understand where you're going, how you're gonna get there and therefore what the financial benefits and metrics would be to do it. Who >>were >>the ideal stakeholders when you're doing a collaboration like this in terms of getting them involved in getting their >>implements. So you might expect the answer to be C level executives on Dove course. They're important from, ah, leadership in a direction perspective. But as it turns out from a human psychological behavior perspective, there are three personality types that are really, really suitable for this kind of engagement work that's focused around change. And if you find those three personality types and quite well understood types of people, they're the ones that tend to cause change. To happen more successfully doesn't mean there any more valuable than anybody else inside an organization, but the other right kinds of people to establish this sort of work with, and it's important you have the right number of those people in a change program. >>So change agents. So I would think like a PL manager here. She's controlling a big portion of the budget. Has thousands of people working for them would be important. Maybe not a sea level executive, but a line of business executive, the son of the field General. Could that be an example of a change agent? Not necessarily because they're trying to protect their turf, >>so not necessarily right When it comes to change, change is always hard in any company you've ever been in in all of our careers. Change is difficult, right? >>Wake up in the morning. >>Let's change. It s it's more about who were the people that lay the groundwork for that change that you follow. You listen to the influences. Now, of course, you'll have people that own the budget the financial controllers on Absolutely. They're important. Of course they are. But they may not be the personality type that causes change to happen. Business value engineering is about making sure you harness the right talent, the right skills, the right people at the right time. Thio help organizations realize the benefit off change. >>If you'll excuse me, this is not seem like a typical role for a software company to take on. Yeah, change management. What? How do you Why do you put yourself in that role? >>I think this is something that all software companies are gonna have to do. And you will see the subject of business value engineering in many software vendors. Now it's true. It's a fine line between being a business analyst and being a software vendor. they were a software provider. I think software providers that don't deliver the context on the value that they are trying to achieve with software they buy in the customers are poorer supplies because they're just trying to push technology on its fun. Technologists like myself enjoy the technology, and I'd buy technology all day long. But is it really the right thing to do? So I think it's about being morally right. You have to take the high ground and conduct that engagement in a way which in some cases, and this has certainly been true in my career, you do the business value work and you realize that you probably shouldn't do the project on. You have to have that that fortitude to say to the customer. This is actually not a great idea because the financial case doesn't support this. I think it is. Taking that moral high ground is a really important stance and software companies that do that generally those customers will come back to you in a future dark time when they've got a different problem. That perhaps does fit you. So I think it's about recognizing there's a both a short medium and a long term engagement with with with the customers that you have to maintain that >>in 2019. Given all the discussion on data digital transformation A. I cloud, I would think that data plays a crucial role in these discussions. So what role does data played? Companies understand the importance of data as it relates to the business value discussion. >>Absolutely. I think I think that data driven decision making is is pretty fundamental. A lot of people say the numbers don't lie. Maybe some statistics might be bent, but numbers don't really like, so you've got to be a capture numbers and make decisions based on those numbers. Eso One of the difficulties, though, is that for many, many years in many industries, we've been using very simple terminology and simple mathematical calculations to do these value calculations. Everybody's aware of Years ago, the software industry was awash with phrases like return on investment calculators, >>R o i N P V I R R. Even >>some of those numbers of valid right for >>a business case for sure, >>for sure, but just sticking with simple things like are always is not enough >>salad. If you treat the software as an asset. A zey expense? Essentially, >>Yeah, yeah, absolutely. But then it comes to the engagement's more than your software I like. I like Thio, I think, as a human being, the software is considerably less than half the game in any change program where you're trying to achieve value and the people they're human beings they're going to do with work are the ones that are going to generate the value. The software's a tool, and the years are very important tool. But it's a tool. So you have to think about how do you build teams that can collaborate around value, achieve the value, measure the value, capture that data but at the same time physically collaborate properly to do the work? >>So how have you apply this methodology for your customers? >>So we've done a number of things, so we've established practice inside. If s, we've made sure that every country has the capability to do business value engineering. We've hired some specialists, people who do this for a living. Andi, we are working with lots and lots of customers now on this as a Maur methodical disciplines approach. But we've also recognized that we needed to measure our existing customers benefits. So what you are existing customer base achieved with our software. So we commissioned Ah, pretty big and important study. And that was anonymous. We weren't involved other than inviting the company to go and do this work on, then unleashing them on our customer base for six months across all industries, all products on asking them to go and find out and measure what our customers really achieve with the software. >>So how was that anonymous? How it was in that you weren't doing the survey. >>We weren't doing the survey and any, um, numbers that came back. Where were anonymous? Dhe. So we couldn't say. Oh, it was this company that gave this feedback with these numbers. So it gave them a sense of freedom to be other express and share that data. >>And so you were specifically asking about the business impact of of I f s software throughout some kind of life cycle, like a before and an after? Yes, Exactly. Isn't it to be or what happened? Okay, so what'd you find >>so as a couple of surprises in the results, actually eso firstly >>tell us who did the study or is that >>yes, So the study. That's a good question, because the the choices are many. There are lots of analyst firms out there that you could use A ll do this sort of work and do it very well. The team that I worked with, we would personally had a previous relationship with I. D. C. Now we really liked I. D. C. And I've done some of this work previously with I D. C. Because they arm or they're an analyst. That has more statisticians as well as analysts. So they take a really very methodical mathematical approach. A scientist. I very much appreciated that. So we we picked them to do this work, and they take it really very, very seriously. And there were a lot of strict processes they have for how we are allowed to engage with them and talk to them during this process. On that rigor, I think, allows us to be comfortable with the numbers and for our customers to be comfortable with the numbers that they obtain because of this anonymity and the rigor they put behind. That's why we picked I. D. C. That work in terms of what we found out where they found on we now just see the report on our customers can go and see this report. We published it last week. So you're just gonna free download and look at the material from I. D. C. The first thing that was interesting about the study. It was human productivity focused. So not things like, how much inventory you hold in supply chain on. Was it reduced? It was more about how did the workers get on? What kind of mistakes did I made? L. A. Faster doing their work and more successful. And they looked at lots of different categories on the returns. The improvements ranged from just a 10% improvement. So not not a huge improvement all the way up to a 94% improvement in productivity. Human productivity. If you averaged it all out, it worked out just shy of of 19% 18 and a bit percent productivity improvement across all of the different teams from the finance function, the supply chain function, human resource functions, sales team, productivity function. So we saw a range. What was good was it pretty much didn't matter. Which category of customer or size of customer or industry. They all saw pretty similar productivity improvements, which means we can extrapolate the numbers. The second thing we saw, which was a surprise, a very pleasant surprise was that usually when you see these kinds of benefits studies, most of the value is in cost. Saving on only cost saving tends to be where asset management resource planning service management happens. Just under half of the value that the I. D. C study showed was net new revenue. The customers were finding that nearly half of the benefit was new money coming to the company. Top Line benefit. That's a little unusual. >>So let me pick. Probe Adept so productivity When I when you're saying productivity, I think revenue per employee has a simple list measure of productivity. But then you're saying there was incremental revenue, a swell independent. It first of all is is revenue per employee the right measure? Or was it more like Do we think's faster or sort of more generic measurements and specific to a task? Or was it kind of boil down to a revenue per employee? And and then how did that relate to the the incremental revenue. >>Yeah, so it was done by function by by team type. So if you look to finance and auditing and human resources and supply chain and so on so that the metrics on the you'll see in the white paper are specific to the team's specifically that role specific to that, >>right, You're not really big in insurance, but a claims adjuster could, you know, get more claims done exactly, or something like >>exactly example. So you'd find, for example, one of the statistics was around filled service engineering on how many jobs per day they couldn't do. It was reasonably specific, >>and they would attribute that directly to your software Direct. Now, as a result of installing I f s, how much would you increase your etcetera per day? >>That's why it took them six months to do the study. I mean, this is quite an in depth piece on >>how many customers that the interview. >>And so it was a cross on dhe. We gave them a challenge to do this. So it was a set of about 17 fairly large customers, which sounds like a small time. >>No, no, no, >>no. But when you do these kinds of studies, >>that's a totally legitimate number. And then thes air in depth surveys. Yeah, so it's not like it's not trivial. And and as well, revenue increases specific, too. The software. So that would have been what, like cohorts sales or service, you know, follow on sales things of that nature. >>Absolutely. And that's why we were so delighted with the report when it came back, because it was it was a really nice pleasant finding. So most companies that all the companies reported the revenue increase, but some are bigger than others. On average, it was a pretty sizable chunk, nearly half of all of the benefit. Um, and when we asked, I D C well, can you give us some kind of glimpse as to why we see such a large chunk of improved revenue? I. D. C. Said, Well, you're improving the productivity of the sales teams so they can quote faster. There's more accuracy and those quotes. The service quality is improved the speed and to get a product to market is faster, so their ability to respond to bids and tenders is better. So is actually a combination of lots of things speed error quality improvements that led to their ability to bid and win faster and better business net revenue. >>Did you attempt Thio factor in less tangible factors, such as customer satisfaction, that promoter score perceived value, customer perceived value. >>So the folk note that the focus of the study was human productivity on. And it's something that I d. C do particularly well on that that's what we gave them a target. Obviously, when we doing business value engineering, you then have to take way more than just that. Things like the benchmark dated find from a study like I. D. C. Have conducted where you take into account those soft factors on other factors outside of human productivity. So value engineering is way more than just human productivity, which is why it's an engagement model. It's something you have to do mutually together. That kind of transparency, really, is what most customers are now demanding. You know, I'm not buying technology unless I know what business outcome I'm going to obtain from this. It's just the way of the world these days. >>It could take away that so it's not just your software's not just operational impact in nature. It's more strategic. It has productivity impact, revenue impacts and obviously cost savings as well. Congratulations. That's good. How did we get this study >>out of people? You said customers can download it. Can anybody down? >>Anybody can download this U S So we've published it on our website. It's very easy to find on it. Sze freely available. We obviously have to comply with the I. D. C's. They owned the rights for the report because it was their material, but we've oversee purchased the rights to the other, distribute that material. We think it's super valuable for our customers. >>What a business model >>and super well, you know, And and if I was to write business case for it, I'd be delighted with the work that was done and I'd be happy with the outcome on. I'm sure our customers will make use of the information to be a benchmark, their own work and also hold my effects on our partners to account to help build business cases. >>Well, I you know, I know it's anonymous ized anonymous to protect the customer, but I bet you some of the customers would be willing to go public with some of this information. So hit him up. Bring him on the cube, you know, well distributed for free. If you want to charge for them. Reprint rights. Great to have you on. Thank >>you. Thank you. >>All right. Thank you for watching Paul Gill and I will be back with our next guest to wrap up I f s World 2019. You're watching the Cube from Boston?