>>Welcome to this cube conversation with 40 net. I'm your host. Lisa Martin, Derek Minky is back. He's the chief security insights and global threat alliances at 40 minutes, 40 guard labs, Derek. Welcome back to the program. >>Likewise, we've talked a lot this year. And of course, when I saw that there are, uh, you guys have predictions from 40 guard labs, global threat intelligence and research team about the cyber threat landscape for 2022. I thought it was going to be a lot to talk about with Derek here. So let's go ahead and dig. Right in. First of all, one of the things that caught my attention was the title of the press release about the predictions that was just revealed. The press release says 40 guard labs, predict cyber attacks aimed at everything from crypto wallets to satellite internet, nothing. There is no surface that is safe anymore. Talk to me about some of the key challenges that organizations in every industry are facing. >>Yeah, absolutely. So this is a, as you said, you, you had the keyword there surface, right? That, and that attack surface is, is open for attack. That's the attack surface that we talk about it is literally be pushed out from the edge to space, like a lot of these places that had no connection before, particularly in OT environments off grid, we're talking about, uh, you know, um, uh, critical infrastructure, oil and gas, as an example, there's a lot of these remote units that were living out there that relied on field engineers to go in and, uh, you know, plug into them. They were air gapped, those such low. Those are the things that are going to be accessible by Elio's low earth orbit satellites. And there are 4,000 of those out there right now. There's going to be over 30,000. We're talking Starlink, we're talking at least four or five other competitors entering this space, no pun intended. And, um, and that's a big deal because that it's a gateway. It opens the door for cyber criminals to be able to have accessibility to these networks. And so security has to come, you know, from, uh, friends of mine there, right. >>It absolutely does. We've got this fragmented perimeter tools that are siloed, the expand and very expanded attack surface, as you just mentioned, but some of the other targets, the 5g enabled edge, the core network, of course, the home environment where many of us still are. >>Yeah, yeah, definitely. So that home environment like the edge, it is a, uh, it's, it's the smart edge, right? So we have things called edge access Trojans. These are Trojans that will actually impact and infect edge devices. And if you think about these edge devices, we're talking things that have machine learning and, and auto automation built into them a lot of privilege because they're actually processing commands and acting on those commands in a lot of cases, right? Everything from smart office, smart home option, even until the OT environment that we're talking about. And that is a juicy target for attackers, right? Because these devices naturally have more privileged. They have APIs and connectivity to a lot of these things where they could definitely do some serious damage and be used as these pivot within the network from the edge. Right. And that's, that's a key point there. >>Let's talk about the digital wallet that we all walk around with. You know, we think out so easy, we can do quick, simple transactions with apple wallet, Google smart tab, Venmo, what have you, but that's another growing source of that, where we need to be concerned, right? >>Yeah. So I, I I've, I've worn my cyber security hat for over 20 years and 10 years ago, even we were talking all about online banking Trojans. That was a big threat, right? Because a lot of financial institutions, they hadn't late ruled out things like multifactor authentication. It was fairly easy to get someone's bank credentials go in siphoned fans out of an account. That's a lot harder nowadays. And so cyber criminals are shifting tactics to go after the low hanging fruit, which are these digital wallets and often cryptocurrency, right? We've actually seen this already in 40 guard labs. Some of this is already starting to happen right now. I expect this to happen a lot more in 20, 22 and beyond. And it's because, you know, these wallets are, um, hold a lot of whole lot of value right now, right. With the crypto. And they can be transferred easily without having to do a, like a, you know, EFT is a Meijer transfers and all those sorts of things that includes actually a lot of paperwork from the financial institutions. And, you know, we saw something where they were actually hijacking these wallets, right. Just intercepting a copy and paste command because it takes, you know, it's a 54 character address people aren't typing that in all the time. So when they're sending or receiving funds, they're asking what we've actually seen in malware today is they're taking that, intercepting it and replacing it with the attackers. Well, it's simple as that bypassing all the, you know, authentication measures and so forth. >>And is that happening for the rest of us that don't have a crypto wallet. So is that happening for folks with apple wallets? And is that a growing threat concern that people need to be? It is >>Absolutely. Yeah. So crypto wallets is, is the majority of overseeing, but yeah, no, no digital wallet is it's unpatched here. Absolutely. These are all valid targets and we are starting to see activity in. I am, >>I'm sure going after those stored credentials, that's probably low-hanging fruit for the attackers. Another thing that was interesting that the 2022 predictions threat landscape, uh, highlighted was the e-sports industry and the vulnerabilities there. Talk to me about that. That was something that I found surprising. I didn't realize it was a billion dollar revenue, a year industry, a lot of money, >>A lot of money, a lot of money. And these are our full-blown platforms that have been developed. This is a business, this isn't, you know, again, going back to what we've seen and we still do see the online gaming itself. We've seen Trojans written for that. And oftentimes it's just trying to get into, and user's gaming account so that they can steal virtual equipment and current, you know, there there's virtual currencies as well. So there was some monetization happening, but not on a grand scale. This is about a shift attackers going after a business, just like any organization, big business, right. To be able to hold that hostage effectively in terms of DDoSs threats, in terms of vulnerabilities, in terms of also, you know, crippling these systems with ransomware, like we've already seen starting to hit OT, this is just another big target. Right. Um, and if you think about it, these are live platforms that rely on low latency. So very quick connections, anything that interrupts that think about the Olympics, right on sports environment, it's a big deal to them. And there's a lot of revenue that could be lost in cybercriminals fully realizes. And this is why, you know, we're predicting that e-sports is going to be a, um, a big target for them moving forward. >>Got it. And tell, let's talk about what's going on with brands. So when you and I spoke a few months ago, I think it was ransomware was up nearly 11 X in the first half of a calendar year, 2021. What are you seeing from an evolution perspective, uh, in the actual ransomware, um, actions themselves as well as what the, what the cyber criminals are evolving to. >>Yeah. So to where it's aggressive, destructive, not good words, right. But, but this is what we're seeing with ransomware. Now, again, they're not just going after data as the currency, we're seeing, um, destructive capabilities put into ransomware, including wiper malware. So this used to be just in the realm of, uh, APTT nation state attacks. We saw that with should moon. We saw that with dark soil back in 2013, so destructive threats, but in the world of apt and nation state, now we're seeing this in cyber crime. We're seeing it with ransomware and this, I expect to be a full-blown tactic for cyber criminals simply because they have the, the threat, right. They've already leveraged a lot of extortion and double extortion schemes. We've talked about that. Now they're going to be onboarding this as a new threat, basically planting these time bombs. He's ticking time bombs, holding systems for, for, for ransom saying, and probably crippling a couple of, to show that they mean business and saying, unless you pay us within a day or two, we're going to take all of these systems offline. We're not just going to take them offline. We're going to destroy them, right. That's a big incentive for people to, to, to pay up. So they're really playing on that fear element. That's what I mean about aggressive, right? They're going to be really shifting tactics, >>Aggressive and destructive, or two things you don't want in a cybersecurity environment or to be called by your employer. Just wanted to point that out. Talk to me about wiper malware. Is this new emerging, or is this something that's seeing a resurgence because this came up at the Olympics in the summer, right? >>Absolutely. So a resurgence in, in a sort of different way. Right. So, as I said, we have seen it before, but it's been not too prevalent. It's been very, uh, it's, it's been a niche area for them, right. It's specifically for these very highly targeted attack. So yes, the Olympics, in fact, two times at the Olympics in Tokyo, but also in the last summer Olympics as well. We also saw it with, as I mentioned in South Korea at dark school in 2013, we saw it an OT environment with the moon as an example, but we're talking handfuls here. Uh, unfortunately we have blogged about three of these in the last month to month and a half. Right. And that, and you know, this is starting to be married with ransomware, which is particularly a very dangerous cause it's not just my wiper malware, but couple that with the ransom tactics. >>And that's what we're starting to see is this new, this resurgent. Yes. But a completely new form that's taking place. Uh, even to the point I think in the future that it could, it could severely a great, now what we're seeing is it's not too critical in a sense that it's not completely destroying the system. You can recover the system still we're talking to master boot records, those sorts of things, but in the future, I think they're going to be going after the formal firmware themselves, essentially turning some of these devices into paperweights and that's going to be a very big problem. >>Wow. That's a very scary thought that getting to the firmware and turning those devices into paperweights. One of the things also that the report talked about that that was really interesting. Was that more attacks against the supply chain and Linux, particularly talk to us about that. What did you find there? What does it mean? What's the threat for organizations? >>Yeah. So we're seeing a diversification in terms of the platforms that cyber criminals are going after. Again, it's that attack surface, um, lower hanging fruit in a sense, uh, because they've, you know, for a fully patched versions of windows, 10 windows 11, it's harder, right. For cyber criminals than it was five or 10 years ago to get into those systems. If we look at the, uh, just the prevalence, the amount of devices that are out there in IOT and OT environments, these are running on Linux, a lot of different flavors and forms of Linux, therefore this different security holes that come up with that. And that's, that's a big patch management issue as an example too. And so this is what we, you know, we've already seen it with them or I bought net and this was in our threat landscape report, or I was the number one threat that we saw. And that's a Linux-based bot net. Now, uh, Microsoft has rolled out something called WSL, which is a windows subsystem for Linux and windows 10 and windows 11, meaning that windows supports Linux now. So that all the code that's being written for botnets, for malware, all that stuff is able to run on, on new windows platforms effectively. So this is how they're trying to expand their, uh, attack surface. And, um, that ultimately gets into the supply chain because again, a lot of these devices in manufacturing and operational technology environments rely quite heavily actually on Linux. >>Well, and with all the supply chain issues that we've been facing during the pandemic, how can organizations protect themselves against this? >>Yeah. So this, this is a big thing, right? And we talked about also the weaponization of artificial intelligence, automation and all of these, there's a lot going on as you know, right from the threats a lot to get visibility on a lot, to be able to act quickly on that's a big key metric. There is how quick you can detect these and respond to them for that. You need good threat intelligence, of course, but you also truly need to enable, uh, uh, automation, things like SD wan, a mesh architecture as well, or having a security fabric that can actually integrate devices that talk to each other and can detect these threats and respond to them quickly. That's a very important piece because if you don't stop these attacks well, they're in that movement through the attack chain. So the kill chain concept we talk about, um, the risk is very high nowadays where, you know, everything we just talked about from a ransomware and destructive capabilities. So having those approaches is very important. Also having, um, you know, education and a workforce trained up is, is equally as important to, to be, you know, um, uh, to, to be aware of these threats. >>I'm glad you brought up that education piece and the training, and that's something that 49 is very dedicated to doing, but also brings up the cybersecurity skills gap. I know when I talked with Kenzie, uh, just a couple months ago at the, um, PGA tournament, it was talking about, you know, big investments in what 40 guard, 40, 40 net is doing to help reduce that gap. But the gap is still there. How do I teach teams not get overloaded with the expanding service? It seems like the surface, the surface has just, there is no limit anymore. So how does, how does it teams that are lean and small help themselves in the fact that the threat is landscape is, is expanding. The criminals are getting smarter or using AI intelligent automation, what our it teams do >>Like fire with fire. You got to use two of the same tools that they're using on their side, and you need to be able to use in your toolkit. We're talking about a security operation center perspective to have tools like, again, this comes to the threat intelligence to get visibility on these things. We're talking Simmons, sor uh, we have, you know, 40 AI out now, uh, deception products, all these sorts of things. These are all tools that need that, that, uh, can help, um, those people. So you don't have to have a, you know, uh, hire 40 or 50 people in your sock, right? It's more about how you can work together with the tools and technology to get, have escalation paths to do more people, process procedure, as we talk about to be able to educate and train on those, to be able to have incident response planning. >>So what do you do like, because inevitably you're going to be targeted, probably interacts where attack, what do you do? Um, playing out those scenarios, doing breach and attack simulation, all of those things that comes down to the skills gaps. So it's a lot about that education and awareness, not having to do that. The stuff that can be handled by automation and AI and, and training is you're absolutely right. We've dedicated a lot with our NSC program at 49. We also have our 40 net security academy. Uh, you know, we're integrating with those secondary so we can have the skillsets ready, uh, for, for new graduates. As an example, there's a lot of progress being made towards that. We've even created a new powered by 40 guard labs. There is a 40 guard labs play in our NSC seven as an example, it's, uh, you know, for, um, uh, threat hunting and offensive security as an example, understanding really how attackers are launching their, their campaigns and, um, all those things come together. But that's the good news actually, is that we've come a long way. We actually did our first machine learning and AI models over 10 years ago, Lisa, this isn't something new to us. So the technology has gone a long way. It's just a matter of how we can collaborate and obviously integrate with that for the, on the skills gap. >>And one more question on the actual threat landscape, were there any industries that came up in particular, as we talked about e-sports we talked about OT and any industries that came up in particular as, as really big hotspots that companies and organizations really need to be aware of. >>Yeah. So also, uh, this is part of OT about ICS critical infrastructure. That's a big one. Uh, absolutely there we're seeing, uh, also cyber-criminals offering more crime services now on dark web. So CAS, which is crime as a service, because it used to be a, again, a very specialized area that maybe only a handful of organized criminal organizations could actually, um, you know, launch attacks and, and impact to those targets where they're going after those targets. Now they're offering services right on to other coming cyber criminals, to be able to try to monetize that as well. Again, we're seeing this, we actually call it advanced persistent cybercrime APC instead of an apt, because they're trying to take cyber crime to these targets like ICS, critical infrastructure, um, healthcare as well is another one, again, usually in the realm of APMT, but now being targeted more by cybercriminals in ransomware, >>I've heard of ransomware as a service, is that a subcategory of crime as a service? >>Absolutely. Yeah. It is phishing as a service ransomware as, and service DDoSs as a service, but not as, as many of these subcategories, but a ransomware as a service. That's a, another big problem as well, because this is an affiliate model, right. Where they hire partners and pay them commission, uh, if they actually get payments of ransom, right? So they have literally a middle layer in this network that they're pushing out to scale their attacks, >>You know, and I think that's the last time we talked about ransomware, we talked about it's a matter of, and I talk to customers all the time who say, yes, it's a matter of when, not, if, is, is this the same sentiment? And you think for crime as a service in general, the attacks on e-sports on home networks, on, uh, internet satellites in space, is this just a matter of when, not if across the board? >>Well, yeah, absolutely. Um, you know, but the good news is it doesn't have to be a, you know, when it happens, it doesn't have to be a catastrophic situation. Again, that's the whole point about preparedness and planning and all the things I talked about, the filling the skills gap in education and having the proper, proper tools in place that will mitigate that risk. Right. And that's, and that's perfectly acceptable. And that's the way we should handle this from the industry, because we process we've talked about this, people are over a hundred billion threats a day in 40 guard labs. The volume is just going to continue to grow. It's very noisy out there. And there's a lot of automated threats, a lot of attempts knocking on organizations, doors, and networks, and, you know, um, phishing emails being sent out and all that. So it's something that we just need to be prepared for just like you do for a natural disaster planning and all these sorts of other things in the physical world. >>That's a good point. It doesn't have to be aggressive and destructive, but last question for you, how can, how is 4d guard helping companies in every industry get aggressive and disruptive against the threats? >>Yeah. Great, great, great question. So this is something I'm very passionate about, uh, as you know, uh, where, you know, we, we don't stop just with customer protection. Of course, that is as a security vendor, that's our, our primary and foremost objective is to protect and mitigate risk to the customers. That's how we're doing. You know, this is why we have 24 7, 365 operations at 40 guy labs. Then we're helping to find the latest and greatest on threat intelligence and hunting, but we don't stop there. We're actually working in the industry. Um, so I mentioned this before the cyber threat Alliance to, to collaborate and share intelligence on threats all the way down to disrupt cybercrime. This is what big target of ours is, how we can work together to disrupt cyber crime. Because unfortunately they've made a lot of money, a lot of profits, and we need to reduce that. We need to send a message back and fight that aggressiveness and we're we're on it, right? So we're working with Interpol or project gateway with the world economic forum, the partnership against cyber crime. It's a lot of initiatives with other, uh, you know, uh, the, uh, the who's who of cyber security in the industry to work together and tackle this collaboratively. Um, the good news is there's been some steps of success to that. There's a lot more, we're doing the scale of the efforts. >>Excellent. Well, Derek as always great and very informative conversation with you. I always look forward to these seeing what's going on with the threat landscape, the challenges, the increasing challenges, but also the good news, the opportunities in it, and what 40 guard is doing 40 left 40 net, excuse me, I can't speak today to help customers address that. And we always appreciate your insights and your time we look forward to talking to you and unveiling the next predictions in 2022. >>All right. Sounds good. Thanks, Lisa. >>My pleasure for Derek manky. I'm Lisa Martin. You're watching this cube conversation with 40 net. Thanks for watching.

(upbeat techno music) >> From around the globe, it's theCUBE. With digital coverage of Postgres Vision 2021. Brought to you by EBD. >> Hello everyone, this is David Vellante, for the CUBE. And we're here covering Postgres Vision 2021. The virtual version, thCUBE virtual, if you will. And welcome to our power-panel. Now in this session, we'll dig into database modernization. We want to better understand how and why customers are tapping open source to drive innovation. But at the same time, they've got to deliver the resiliency and enterprise capabilities that they're used to that are now necessary to support today's digital business requirements. And with me are three experts on these matters. Abdul Sheik, is Global CTO and President of Cintra. Young Il Cho, aka Charlie, is High Availability Cluster Sales Manager, at Daone CNS. And Alan Villalobos, is the Director of Development Partnerships, at IBM. Gentlemen, welcome to theCUBE. >> Thank you, Dave, nice to be here. >> Thank you, Dave. >> All right, let's talk trends and frame the problem. Abdul, I want to start with you? Cintra you're all about this topic. Accelerating innovation using EDB Postgres helping customers move to modern platforms. And doing so, you got to do it cost-effectively but what's driving these moves? What are the problems that you're seeing at the organizations that you serve? >> Oh, so let me quickly introduce, Abdul Sheik, CTO. I'll quickly introduce Cintra. So we are a multicloud and database architecture MSP. And we've been around for 25 plus years. Headquartered in New York and the UK. But as a global organization, we're serving our SMB customers as well as large enterprise customers. And the trends we're seeing certainly in this day and age is transformation and modernization. And what that means is, customers looking to get out of the legacy platforms, get out of the legacy data centers and really move towards a modern strategy with a lower cost base, while still retaining resiliency and freedom. Ultimately, in terms of where they're going. The key words that really I see driving this, number one is choice. They've been historically locked into vendors. With limited choice with a high cost base. So choice, freedom to choose in terms of what database technologies they apply to which workloads and certainly EDB and the work that has been done to closely marry what enterprise RD platforms offer with EDBs in a work that they've done in terms of filling those gaps and addressing where the resiliency monitoring performance and security requirements are, are certainly are required from an enterprise customer perspective. Choice is driving the move that we see and choice towards a lower cost platform that can be deployed anywhere. Both on-prem modernization customers are looking to retain on premise platforms or moving into any multi clouds whether it's an infrastructure cloud play or a platform cloud play. And certainly with EDBs offering in terms of, you know the latest cloud native offerings also very interesting. And lastly, aside from just cost and the freedom to choose where they deploy those platforms the SLA, the service level model where is the resiliency requirement where the which system is going to bronze, silver, gold? Which ones are the tier one revenue platform revenue generating platforms which are the lower, lower utility platforms. So a combination of choice, a combination of freedom to deploy anywhere and while still maintaining the resiliency and the service levels that the customers need to deliver to their businesses >> Abdul that was a beautiful setup. And, and we've got so much to talk about here because customers want to move from point A to point B but getting there and they, they need help. It's sometimes not trivial. So Charlie Daone is a consultancy. You've got a strong technical capabilities. What are you seeing in this space? You know, what are the major trends? Why are organizations considering that move? And what are some of the considerations there? >> Well, like in other country in South Korea or so our a lot of customers, banking's a manufacturing distributor. They are 90, over 90%. They are all are using Oracle DB and a rack system. But as the previous presenters pointed out, a lot of customers that are sick of the Oracle and they have to undergo the huge cost of a maintenance costs. They want to move away from this cost stress. And secondly, they can think about they're providing service to customer on their cloud base which is a private or the public. So we cannot imagine running on database, Oracle database running on the cloud the system that's not matches on this cloud. And first and second, and finally the customer what they want is the cost and they want to move away from the Oracle locking. They cannot be just a slave at Oracle for a long time and the premium for the new cloud the service for the customer. >> Great. Thank you for that. Oh, go ahead. Yeah. Did you have something else to add Charlie go ahead and please. >> No that's all. >> Okay, great. Yeah, Allen, welcome to theCUBE. You know, it's very interesting to us. IBM, you, you, of course, you're a big player in database. You have a lot of expertise here. And you partner with EDB, you're offering Postgres to customers, you know, what are you seeing? Charlie was talking about Oracle and RAC. I mean, the, the, the thing there is obviously, we talked about the maintenance costs but there's also a lot of high availability capabilities. That's something that IBM really understands well. Do you see this as largely a cloud migration trend? Is it more modernization? Interested in what's IBM's perspective on this? >> I think modernization is the right word. The points that the previous panelists brought up or are on point, right? You know, lower TCO or lower costs in general but that of agility and then availability for developers and data scientists as well. And then of course, you know, hybrid cloud, right? You know, you want to be able to deploy on prem or in the cloud, or both in a mixture of all of that. And I think, I think what ties it together is the customers are looking for insights, right? And, you know, especially in larger organizations there's a myriad of data sources that they're already working with. And, you know, we, you know we want to be able to play in that space. We want to give an offering that is based on Postgres and open source and be able to further what they're strong at at and kind of, you know on top of that, you know, a layer of, of of need that we see is, is seamless data governance across all of those different stores. >> All right, I'm going to go right to the heart of the hard problem here. So if, I mean, I want to, it's just that I want to get from point A to point B, I want to save money. I want to modernize, but if I'm the canary in the coal mine at the customer, I'm saying guys, migration scares me. How do I do that? What are the considerations? And what do I need to know that I don't know. So Abdul, maybe you could walk us through what are some of the concerns that customers have? How do you help mitigate those? Whether it's other application dependencies, you know freezing code, you know, getting, again from that point A to point B without risking my existing business processes how do you handle that? >> Yeah, certainly I think a customer needs to understand what the journey looks like to begin with. So we've actually developed our own methodology that we call Rocket Cloud, which is also part of our cloud modernization strategy that builds in and database modernization strategy built into it starts with an assessment in terms of current state discovery. Not all customers totally understand where they are today. So understanding where the database state is, you know where the risks lie what are the criticality of the various databases? What technologies are used, where we have RAC or we don't have RAC but we have data God, where we have encryption. And so on. That gives the customer a very good insight in terms of the current state, both commercially and technically that's a key point to understand how they're licensed today and what costs could be freed up to free the journey to effectively fund the journey. It's a big, big topic, but once we do that, we get an idea and we've actually developed a tool called rapid discovery. That's able to discover a largest stake without knowing the database list. We just put the scripts at the database servers themselves and it tells us exactly which databases are suited to be you know, effectively migrated to Postgres with in terms of the feature function usage in terms of how heavy they are, would store procedures in the database amount of business logic use of technologies like RAC data guard and how they convert over to to Postgres specifically. That ultimately gives us the ability to give that customer an assessment and that assessment in a short sharp few weeks and get the customer view of all of my hundreds of databases. Here are the subset of candidates for Postgres and specifically than we do the schemer advisor tool the actual assessment tool from EDB, which gives us a sense of how well the schema gets converted and how best to then also look at the stored procedure conversion as well. That gives the customer a full view of their architecture mapping their specific candidate databases and then a cost analysis in terms of what that migration looks like and how we migrate. We also run and maintain those platforms once we're on EDB. >> Thank you for that again, very clear but so you're not replacing, doing an organ transplant. You may, you're you're, you know, this is not I don't mean this as a pejorative, but you're kind of cherry picking those workloads that are appropriate for EDB and then moving those and then maybe, maybe through attrition or, you know over time, sun-setting those other, those other core pieces. >> Exactly. >> Charlie, let me ask you, so we talked about RAC, real application clusters, data guard. These are, you know kind of high profile Oracle capabilities. Can you, can you really replicate the kind of resiliency at lower costs with open source, with EDB Postgres and how do you do that? >> It's my turn? >> yes, please. >> Quite technically, again, I go on in depths and technically the RAC, RAC system is so-called is the best you know, best the tool to protect data and especially in the Unix system, but apart from the RAC by the some nice data replication solution we just stream the application and log shipping and something and then monitor Pam and, and EFM solution which is enterprise failover manager. So even though it be compared to Apple the Apple RAC versus with EDB solution, we can definitely say that RAC is more stable one, but after migration, whatever, we can overcome the, you know, drawbacks of the HA cluster system by providing the EDB tools. So whatever the customer feel that after a successful migration, utilizing the EDB high availability failable solution they can make of themselves at home. So that's, that's how we approach it with the customers. >> So, Alan, again, to me, IBM is fascinating here with your level of involvement because you're the, you guys are sort of historically the master of proprietary the mainframes, VCM, CICF, EB2, all that stuff. And then, you know IBM was the first I remember Steve Mills actually announced we're going to invest a billion dollars in open source with Linux. And that was a major industry milestone. And of course, the, the acquisition of red hat. So you've got now this open source mindset this open source culture. So we, you know, as it's all about recovery in, in database and enterprise database and all the acid properties in two phase commits, and we're talking about, you know the things that Charlie just talked about. So what's your perspective here? IBM knows a lot about this. How do you help customers get there? >> Yeah, well, I mean the main, the main thrust right now IBM has a offering called IBM cloud Pak for data which from here, which runs EDB, right? EDB, Postgres runs on top of cloud Pak for Data But the, you know I think going back to Abdul's points about, you know migrating whatever's needed and whatever can be migrated to Postgres and maybe migrating other things other places, we have data virtualization and autoSQL, right? So once you have migrated those parts of your database or those schemes that can be, having, you know a single point where you can query across them and by the way, being able to query across them you know, before, during and after migration as well. Right? So we're kind of have that seamless experience of layer of SQL. And now with autoSQL of spark SQL as well, as you're, as you're migrating and after is, I'd say, you know, key to this. >> What, what's the typical migration look like? I know I'm sorry, but it's a consultant question but thinking about the, you know, the average, in terms of timeframe, what are the teams look like? You know who are the stakeholders that I need to get involved? If I'm a customer to really make this a success? maybe Abdul, you could talk about that and Charlie and Alan can chime in. >> Well, I think, well, number one you knew the exact sponsors bought into it in terms of the business case, supporting the business case an architect has got a big picture understanding not only database technology but also infrastructure that they're coming from as well as the target cloud platforms and how you ensure that the infrastructure can deliver the performance. So the architect role is important, of course the core DBA that lives within the scope of the database understands the schema of the data model the business logic itself, and the application on it. That's key specifically around the application certification testing connectivity and the migration of the code. And specifically in terms of timeline just to touch on that quickly. I mean, in our experience so far and we're seeing the momentum really really take off the last 18 months, a small project with limited business logic within the database itself can we migrate it in a couple of months but typically with all the testing and rigor around that you typically say three months timeline a medium-sized complexity projects, a six month timeline and a large complex project could be anything from nine months and beyond, but it really comes down to how heavy the database is with business logic and the database and how much effort it will take to re-engineer effectively migrate that PLC code, business logic into EDB given the compatibility level between Oracle and EDB it's relatively certainly an easier path than any other target platform in terms of options. Yeah. Not perspective. That's certainly looks like the composition of a team and timeline >> Charlie or Alan, anything you guys would add. >> Yeah. So, so I think all those personas make sense. I think you might, on the consumer side of the consumer the consumer of the data side the data scientists often we see, you know during migrations and then obviously the dev ops, I think or any operations, right, have to be heavily involved. And then lastly, you know, you see more and more data steward role or data steward type persona, CDO office type type person coming in there make sure that, you know, whatever data governance that is already in place or wants to be in place after the migration is also part of the conversation. >> Why EDB? You know, there's a lot of databases out there you know, it's funny, I always say like, you know, 10, 15 years ago databases were kind of sort of a boring market, right? It was like, okay, you're going to work or whatever. And now it's exploded. You got open source databases, you got, you know not only sequel databases, you got graph databases you know, you get cloud databases, it's going crazy. Why EDB? You wonder if you guys could address that? >> Allan why don't you go first this time? I'll compliment your answers. >> Yeah. I mean, again, I think it goes back to, to the, the I guess varying needs and, and enterprises. Right. And I think that's, what's driven this explosion in databases, whether it's a document store like you're saying, or, or new types of RDBMS, the needs that we talked about at the beginning, like lower TCO, and the push to open source. But you know, the fact of the matter is that that yes, there is a myriad, an ecosystem of databases, pretty much any organization. And so, yeah, we want to tap into that. And why EDB? EDB has done a great job of taking Postgres and making it enterprise ready, you know, that's what they're, they're good at and that, you know fits very nicely with the IBM story obviously. And, and so, you know, and they've they've worked with us as well. They have an operator on, on the runs on red hat OpenShift. So that makes it portable as well but also part of the IBM cloud Pak for data story. And, and yeah, you know, we want to break down those silos. We realized that that need is there for all of these, you know, there's this ecosystem of databases. And so, you know, we're, we see our role as being that platform, whether it's red hat OpenShift, or IBM cloud Pak for data that, that unifies, and kind of gives you that single pane of glass across all of those sources. >> And Charlie, you're obviously all in, you've got EDB in your background. Why EDB for you? >> Before talking about EDB you asked about the previous question about how the migration was different from Oracle to EDB. We had a couple of success story in Korea telecom and some banking area, and it was easier. So EDB provide MTK tool as a people know but it was an appropriate, like a 90%. So we are the channel partner of the EDB for four years. So what we have done was to hire the Oracle expert. So we train Oracle export as as EDB expert at the same time so that they can approach customer and make it easy. So you have no worry about that. Just migrating EDB, Oracle to EDB. There is a no issue. Those telltales include all the tasks, you know Stratus test and trainee, and a POC that we there. So by investing that Oracle expert that we could overcome and persuade the customer to adopt EDB. So, why EDB? Simply I can say there, is there any database they can finally replaced Oracle in the world? Why is the, it's the interoperability between Oracle to EDB as the many experts pointed out there is no other DBE. They can, you know, 90, 90% in compatibility and intercooperability with EDB. That's why, of course, there's the somewhat, you know budget issues or maintenance issue cost the issue escape from Oracle lock-in. But I think the the number one reason was the interoperability and the compatibility with database itself, Oracle database. That was a reason, I guess >> Great Abdul we've talked about, we all know the, as is, you've got a high maintenance costs. You got a lot of tuning, and it's just a lot of complexity. What about the 2B maybe you could share with us sort of the outcome some of the outcomes you've seen what the business impact has been of some of these migrations? >> Sure. I mean, I'll give you a very simple example then just the idea of running Oracle on prem a lot of customer systems teams, for example will drive a virtualization VMware strategy. We know some of the challenges of running Oracle MBM where from a license perspective. So giving the business the ability where I want to go customer in the financial services market in New York, heavy virtualization strategy the ability for them to move away from Oracle on, you know expensive hardware on to Postgres EDB on virtualization just leverage existing skillsets, leveraging existing investment in terms of infrastructure, and also give them portability in AWS. The other clouds, you know, in terms of a migration. More from a business perspective as well, I would say about some of the Allan's points in terms of just freeing up the ability for data scientists and data consumers, to, you know, to consume some of that data from an Postgres perspective more accessibility spinning up environments quicker less latency in terms of the agility is another key word in terms of the tangible differences, the business, lower cost agility, and the freedom to deploy anywhere at the end of the day. Choices, I think the key word that we could come back to and knowing that we can do that to Charlie's point specifically around maintaining service levels. And as architects, we support some of the big, big names out there in terms of airlines, online, cosmetic retailers, financial services, trading applications, hedge funds, and they all want one thing as architect: for us to deliver that resiliency and stand behind them. And as the MSP we're accountable to ensure those systems are up and running and performing. So knowing that the EDB is provided the compatibility but also plugged the specific requirements around performance management, security availability that's fundamentally been key. >> [Dave I mean, having done a lot of TCO studies in this area, it's, it's it Oracle's different. You know, normally the biggest component of TCO is labor with Oracle. The biggest component of TCO is licensed and maintenance costs. So if you can virtualize and reduce those costs and of course, of course the Oracle will fight you and say we won't support it in a VMware environment. Of course, you know, they will, but, but you got to really, you got to battle. But, so here's my last question. So if I'm a customer in that state that you described you know, a lot of sort of Oracle sprawl a lot of databases out there, high maintenance costs, the whole lock-in thing. I got to choices. I, you know, a lot of choices out there. One is EDB. You guys have convinced me that you've got the expertise If I can partner with firms like yours, it's safer route. Okay, cool. My other choice is Oracle is going to, The Oracle sales reps is going to get me in a headlock and talk about exit data and how their Oracle cloud, and how it's, they've invested a lot there. And they have, and, I can pay by the drink all this sort of modern sort of discussion, you know, Oracle act like they invented it late to the game. And then here we are. So, so help me. What's the pitch as to, well, that's kind of compelling. It's maybe the safe bet they're there. They're working with my CIO, whatever. Why should I go with the open source route versus that route? It sounds kind of attractive to me, help me understand that each of you maybe take me through that. Abdul, why don't you start. >> Yeah. I'd say, you know, Oracle's being the defacto for so many years that people have just assumed and defaulted saying, high availability, RAC, DR. Data guard, you know, and I'll apply to any database need that I have. And at the end of the day customers have a three tier database requirement: the lowest, less critical, bronze level databases that really don't need RAC or a high availability, silver tier that are departmental solutions. That means some level of resiliency. And then you've got your gold revenue producing brand impact databases that are they're down. And certainly they won. You see no reason why the bronze and silver databases can be targeted towards EDB. Admittedly, we have some of our largest customers are running platforms, are running $5 million an hour e-commerce platform or airlines running large e-commerce platforms. And exit data certainly has a place. RAC has a place in those, in those scenarios. Were not saying that the EDB is a solution for everything in all scenarios, but apply the technology where it's appropriate where it's required and, you know, generally wherever Oracle has being the defacto and it's being applied across the estate, that's fundamentally what's changed. It doesn't have to be the only answer you have multiple choices now. EDB provides us with the ability to probably address, you know more than 50% of the databases' state, and comfortably cope with that and just apply that more expensive kind of gold tier one cost-based but also capability, you know from the highest requirements of performance and availability where it's appropriate. >> Yeah. Very pragmatic approach. Abdul, thank you for that. And Charlie. Charlie, what's your perspective? Give us your closing thoughts. >> Well, it has been, Oracle has been dominating in Asia in South Korea has market or over many years. So customers got tired of this, continuous spending money for the maintenance costs and there is no discount. There is no negotiation. So they want to move away from expensive stuff. And they were looking for a flexible platform with the easygoing and the high speed and performance open source database like a possibly as career. And now the EDB cannot replace a hundred percent of existing legacy worker, but 10%, 20% 50% as time goes on the trend that will continue. And it will be reaching some high point or replacing the existing Oracle system. And it can, it can also leading to good business chance to a channel partner and EDB steps and other related business in open source. >> Great. Thank you, Charlie and Allen, bring us home here. Give us your follow up >> I think my, co- panelists hit the nail on the head, right? It's a menu, right? That's as things become more diverse and as people make more choices and as everybody wants more agility, you have to provide, I mean, and so that, that's where that's coming in and I liked the way that Andul I kind of split it into gold silver and bronze. Yeah. And I think that that's where, we're going, right? I mean you should ask your developers right? Are your developers like pining to start up a new instance of Oracle every time you're starting a new project? Probably not reach for their Postgres right? And so, because of that, that's where this is coming from and that's not going to change. And, and yeah, that that ecosystem is going to continue to, to thrive. And there'll be lots of different flavors in the growing open source ecosystem. >> Yeah. I mean, open source absolutely is the underpinning you know, the, the bedrock of innovation, these days. Gentlemen, great power panel. Thanks so much for bringing your perspectives and best of luck in the future. >> Thank you, next time we'll try and match our backgrounds >> Next time. Well, we'll up our game. Okay. And thank you for watching everybody. This is Dave Volante for theCUBE. Stay tuned for more great coverage. Postgres vision, 21. Be right back. (upbeat techno music)

(upbeat techno music) >> From around the globe, it's theCUBE. With digital coverage of Postgres Vision 2021. Brought to you by enterprise Enterprise DB. >> Hello everyone, this is David Vellante, for the CUBE. And we're here covering Postgres Vision 2021. The virtual version, thCUBE virtual, if you will. And welcome to our power-panel. Now in this session, we'll dig into database modernization. We want to better understand how and why customers are tapping open source to drive innovation. But at the same time, they've got to deliver the resiliency and enterprise capabilities that they're used to that are now necessary to support today's digital business requirements. And with me are three experts on these matters. Abdul Sheik, is Global CTO and President of Cintra. Young Il Cho, aka Charlie, is High Availability Cluster Sales Manager, at Daone CNS. And Alan Villalobos, is the Director of Development Partnerships, at IBM. Gentlemen, welcome to theCUBE. >> Thank you, Dave, nice to be here. >> Thank you, Dave. >> All right, let's talk trends and frame the problem. Abdul, I want to start with you? Cintra you're all about this topic. Accelerating innovation using EDB Postgres helping customers move to modern platforms. And doing so, you got to do it cost-effectively but what's driving these moves? What are the problems that you're seeing at the organizations that you serve? >> Oh, so let me quickly introduce, Abdul Sheik, CTO. I'll quickly introduce Cintra. So we are a multicloud and database architecture MSP. And we've been around for 25 plus years. Headquartered in New York and the UK. But as a global organization, we're serving our SMB customers as well as large enterprise customers. And the trends we're seeing certainly in this day and age is transformation and modernization. And what that means is, customers looking to get out of the legacy platforms, get out of the legacy data centers and really move towards a modern strategy with a lower cost base, while still retaining resiliency and freedom. Ultimately, in terms of where they're going. The key words that really I see driving this, number one is choice. They've been historically locked into vendors. With limited choice with a high cost base. So choice, freedom to choose in terms of what database technologies they apply to which workloads and certainly EDB and the work that has been done to closely marry what enterprise RD platforms offer with EDBs in a work that they've done in terms of filling those gaps and addressing where the resiliency monitoring performance and security requirements are, are certainly are required from an enterprise customer perspective. Choice is driving the move that we see and choice towards a lower cost platform that can be deployed anywhere. Both on-prem modernization customers are looking to retain on premise platforms or moving into any multi clouds whether it's an infrastructure cloud play or a platform cloud play. And certainly with EDBs offering in terms of, you know the latest cloud native offerings also very interesting. And lastly, aside from just cost and the freedom to choose where they deploy those platforms the SLA, the service level model where is the resiliency requirement where the which system is going to bronze, silver, gold? Which ones are the tier one revenue platform revenue generating platforms which are the lower, lower utility platforms. So a combination of choice, a combination of freedom to deploy anywhere and while still maintaining the resiliency and the service levels that the customers need to deliver to their businesses >> Abdul that was a beautiful setup. And, and we've got so much to talk about here because customers want to move from point A to point B but getting there and they, they need help. It's sometimes not trivial. So Charlie Daone is a consultancy. You've got a strong technical capabilities. What are you seeing in this space? You know, what are the major trends? Why are organizations considering that move? And what are some of the considerations there? >> Well, like in other country in South Korea or so our a lot of customers, banking's a manufacturing distributor. They are 90, over 90%. They are all are using Oracle DB and a rack system. But as the previous presenters pointed out, a lot of customers that are sick of the Oracle and they have to undergo the huge cost of a maintenance costs. They want to move away from this cost stress. And secondly, they can think about they're providing service to customer on their cloud base which is a private or the public. So we cannot imagine running on database, Oracle database running on the cloud the system that's not matches on this cloud. And first and second, and finally the customer what they want is the cost and they want to move away from the Oracle locking. They cannot be just a slave at Oracle for a long time and the premium for the new cloud the service for the customer. >> Great. Thank you for that. Oh, go ahead. Yeah. Did you have something else to add Charlie go ahead and please. >> No that's all. >> Okay, great. Yeah, Allen, welcome to theCUBE. You know, it's very interesting to us. IBM, you, you, of course, you're a big player in database. You have a lot of expertise here. And you partner with EDB, you're offering Postgres to customers, you know, what are you seeing? Charlie was talking about Oracle and RAC. I mean, the, the, the thing there is obviously, we talked about the maintenance costs but there's also a lot of high availability capabilities. That's something that IBM really understands well. Do you see this as largely a cloud migration trend? Is it more modernization? Interested in what's IBM's perspective on this? >> I think modernization is the right word. The points that the previous panelists brought up or are on point, right? You know, lower TCO or lower costs in general but that of agility and then availability for developers and data scientists as well. And then of course, you know, hybrid cloud, right? You know, you want to be able to deploy on prem or in the cloud, or both in a mixture of all of that. And I think, I think what ties it together is the customers are looking for insights, right? And, you know, especially in larger organizations there's a myriad of data sources that they're already working with. And, you know, we, you know we want to be able to play in that space. We want to give an offering that is based on Postgres and open source and be able to further what they're strong at at and kind of, you know on top of that, you know, a layer of, of of need that we see is, is seamless data governance across all of those different stores. >> All right, I'm going to go right to the heart of the hard problem here. So if, I mean, I want to, it's just that I want to get from point A to point B, I want to save money. I want to modernize, but if I'm the canary in the coal mine at the customer, I'm saying guys, migration scares me. How do I do that? What are the considerations? And what do I need to know that I don't know. So Abdul, maybe you could walk us through what are some of the concerns that customers have? How do you help mitigate those? Whether it's other application dependencies, you know freezing code, you know, getting, again from that point A to point B without risking my existing business processes how do you handle that? >> Yeah, certainly I think a customer needs to understand what the journey looks like to begin with. So we've actually developed our own methodology that we call Rocket Cloud, which is also part of our cloud modernization strategy that builds in and database modernization strategy built into it starts with an assessment in terms of current state discovery. Not all customers totally understand where they are today. So understanding where the database state is, you know where the risks lie what are the criticality of the various databases? What technologies are used, where we have RAC or we don't have RAC but we have data God, where we have encryption. And so on. That gives the customer a very good insight in terms of the current state, both commercially and technically that's a key point to understand how they're licensed today and what costs could be freed up to free the journey to effectively fund the journey. It's a big, big topic, but once we do that, we get an idea and we've actually developed a tool called rapid discovery. That's able to discover a largest stake without knowing the database list. We just put the scripts at the database servers themselves and it tells us exactly which databases are suited to be you know, effectively migrated to Postgres with in terms of the feature function usage in terms of how heavy they are, would store procedures in the database amount of business logic use of technologies like RAC data guard and how they convert over to to Postgres specifically. That ultimately gives us the ability to give that customer an assessment and that assessment in a short sharp few weeks and get the customer view of all of my hundreds of databases. Here are the subset of candidates for Postgres and specifically than we do the schemer advisor tool the actual assessment tool from EDB, which gives us a sense of how well the schema gets converted and how best to then also look at the stored procedure conversion as well. That gives the customer a full view of their architecture mapping their specific candidate databases and then a cost analysis in terms of what that migration looks like and how we migrate. We also run and maintain those platforms once we're on EDB. >> Thank you for that again, very clear but so you're not replacing, doing an organ transplant. You may, you're you're, you know, this is not I don't mean this as a pejorative, but you're kind of cherry picking those workloads that are appropriate for EDB and then moving those and then maybe, maybe through attrition or, you know over time, sun-setting those other, those other core pieces. >> Exactly. >> Charlie, let me ask you, so we talked about RAC, real application clusters, data guard. These are, you know kind of high profile Oracle capabilities. Can you, can you really replicate the kind of resiliency at lower costs with open source, with EDB Postgres and how do you do that? >> It's my turn? >> yes, please. >> Quite technically, again, I go on in depths and technically the RAC, RAC system is so-called is the best you know, best the tool to protect data and especially in the Unix system, but apart from the RAC by the some nice data replication solution we just stream the application and log shipping and something and then monitor Pam and, and EFM solution which is enterprise failover manager. So even though it be compared to Apple the Apple RAC versus with EDB solution, we can definitely say that RAC is more stable one, but after migration, whatever, we can overcome the, you know, drawbacks of the HA cluster system by providing the EDB tools. So whatever the customer feel that after a successful migration, utilizing the EDB high availability failable solution they can make of themselves at home. So that's, that's how we approach it with the customers. >> So, Alan, again, to me, IBM is fascinating here with your level of involvement because you're the, you guys are sort of historically the master of proprietary the mainframes, VCM, CICF, EB2, all that stuff. And then, you know IBM was the first I remember Steve Mills actually announced we're going to invest a billion dollars in open source with Linux. And that was a major industry milestone. And of course, the, the acquisition of red hat. So you've got now this open source mindset this open source culture. So we, you know, as it's all about recovery in, in database and enterprise database and all the acid properties in two phase commits, and we're talking about, you know the things that Charlie just talked about. So what's your perspective here? IBM knows a lot about this. How do you help customers get there? >> Yeah, well, I mean the main, the main thrust right now IBM has a offering called IBM cloud Pak for data which from here, which runs EDB, right? EDB, Postgres runs on top of cloud Pak for Data But the, you know I think going back to Abdul's points about, you know migrating whatever's needed and whatever can be migrated to Postgres and maybe migrating other things other places, we have data virtualization and auto-sequel, right? So once you have migrated those parts of your database or those schemes that can be, having, you know a single point where you can query across them and by the way, being able to query across them you know, before, during and after migration as well. Right? So we're kind of have that seamless experience of layer of sequel. And now with auto sequel of sparks sequel as well, as you're, as you're migrating and after is, I'd say, you know, key to this. >> What, what's the typical migration look like? I know I'm sorry, but it's a consultant question but thinking about the, you know, the average, in terms of timeframe, what are the teams look like? You know who are the stakeholders that I need to get involved? If I'm a customer to really make this a success? maybe Abdul, you could talk about that and Charlie and Alan can chime in. >> Well, I think, well, number one you knew the exact sponsors bought into it in terms of the business case, supporting the business case an architect has got a big picture understanding not only database technology but also infrastructure that they're coming from as well as the target cloud platforms and how you ensure that the infrastructure can deliver the performance. So the architect role is important, of course the core DBA that lives within the scope of the database understands the schema of the data model the business logic itself, and the application on it. That's key specifically around the application certification testing connectivity and the migration of the code. And specifically in terms of timeline just to touch on that quickly. I mean, in our experience so far and we're seeing the momentum really really take off the last 18 months, a small project with limited business logic within the database itself can we migrate it in a couple of months but typically with all the testing and rigor around that you typically say three months timeline a medium-sized complexity projects, a six month timeline and a large complex project could be anything from nine months and beyond, but it really comes down to how heavy the database is with business logic and the database and how much effort it will take to re-engineer effectively migrate that PLC code, business logic into EDB given the compatibility level between Oracle and EDB it's relatively certainly an easier path than any other target platform in terms of options. Yeah. Not perspective. That's certainly looks like the composition of a team and timeline >> Charlie or Alan, anything you guys would add. >> Yeah. So, so I think all those personas make sense. I think you might, on the consumer side of the consumer the consumer of the data side the data scientists often we see, you know during migrations and then obviously the dev ops, I think or any operations, right, have to be heavily involved. And then lastly, you know, you see more and more data steward role or data steward type persona, CDO office type type person coming in there make sure that, you know, whatever data governance that is already in place or wants to be in place after the migration is also part of the conversation. >> Why EDB? You know, there's a lot of databases out there you know, it's funny, I always say like, you know, 10, 15 years ago databases were kind of sort of a boring market, right? It was like, okay, you're going to work or whatever. And now it's exploded. You got open source databases, you got, you know not only sequel databases, you got graph databases you know, you get cloud databases, it's going crazy. Why EDB? You wonder if you guys could address that? >> Allan why don't you go first this time? I'll compliment your answers. >> Yeah. I mean, again, I think it goes back to, to the, the I guess varying needs and, and enterprises. Right. And I think that's, what's driven this explosion in databases, whether it's a document store like you're saying, or, or new types of RDBMS, the needs that we talked about at the beginning, like lower TCO, and the push to open source. But you know, the fact of the matter is that that yes, there is a myriad, an ecosystem of databases, pretty much any organization. And so, yeah, we want to tap into that. And why EDB? EDB has done a great job of taking Postgres and making it enterprise ready, you know, that's what they're, they're good at and that, you know fits very nicely with the IBM story obviously. And, and so, you know, and they've they've worked with us as well. They have an operator on, on the runs on red hat OpenShift. So that makes it portable as well but also part of the IBM cloud Pak for data story. And, and yeah, you know, we want to break down those silos. We realized that that need is there for all of these, you know, there's this ecosystem of databases. And so, you know, we're, we see our role as being that platform, whether it's red hat OpenShift, or IBM cloud Pak for data that, that unifies, and kind of gives you that single pane of glass across all of those sources. >> And Charlie, you're obviously all in, you've got EDB in your background. Why EDB for you? >> Before talking about EDB you asked about the previous question about how the migration was different from Oracle to EDB. We had a couple of success story in Korea telecom and some banking area, and it was easier. So EDB provide MTK tool as a people know but it was an appropriate, like a 90%. So we are the channel partner of the EDB for four years. So what we have done was to hire the Oracle expert. So we train Oracle export as as EDB expert at the same time so that they can approach customer and make it easy. So you have no worry about that. Just migrating EDB, Oracle to EDB. There is a no issue. Those telltales include all the tasks, you know Stratus test and trainee, and a POC that we there. So by investing that Oracle expert that we could overcome and persuade the customer to adopt EDB. So, why EDB? Simply I can say there, is there any database they can finally replaced Oracle in the world? Why is the, it's the interoperability between Oracle to EDB as the many experts pointed out there is no other DBE. They can, you know, 90, 90% in compatibility and intercooperability with EDB. That's why, of course, there's the somewhat, you know budget issues or maintenance issue cost the issue escape from Oracle lock-in. But I think the the number one reason was the interoperability and the compatibility with database itself, Oracle database. That was a reason, I guess >> Great Abdul we've talked about, we all know the, as is, you've got a high maintenance costs. You got a lot of tuning, and it's just a lot of complexity. What about the 2B maybe you could share with us sort of the outcome some of the outcomes you've seen what the business impact has been of some of these migrations? >> Sure. I mean, I'll give you a very simple example then just the idea of running Oracle on prem a lot of customer systems teams, for example will drive a virtualization VMware strategy. We know some of the challenges of running Oracle MBM where from a license perspective. So giving the business the ability where I want to go customer in the financial services market in New York, heavy virtualization strategy the ability for them to move away from Oracle on, you know expensive hardware on to Postgres EDB on virtualization just leverage existing skillsets, leveraging existing investment in terms of infrastructure, and also give them portability in AWS. The other clouds, you know, in terms of a migration. More from a business perspective as well, I would say about some of the Allan's points in terms of just freeing up the ability for data scientists and data consumers, to, you know, to consume some of that data from an Postgres perspective more accessibility spinning up environments quicker less latency in terms of the agility is another key word in terms of the tangible differences, the business, lower cost agility, and the freedom to deploy anywhere at the end of the day. Choices, I think the key word that we could come back to and knowing that we can do that to Charlie's point specifically around maintaining service levels. And as architects, we support some of the big, big names out there in terms of airlines, online, cosmetic retailers, financial services, trading applications, hedge funds, and they all want one thing as architect: for us to deliver that resiliency and stand behind them. And as the MSP we're accountable to ensure those systems are up and running and performing. So knowing that the EDB is provided the compatibility but also plugged the specific requirements around performance management, security availability that's fundamentally been key. >> [Dave I mean, having done a lot of TCO studies in this area, it's, it's it Oracle's different. You know, normally the biggest component of TCO is labor with Oracle. The biggest component of TCO is licensed and maintenance costs. So if you can virtualize and reduce those costs and of course, of course the Oracle will fight you and say we won't support it in a VMware environment. Of course, you know, they will, but, but you got to really, you got to battle. But, so here's my last question. So if I'm a customer in that state that you described you know, a lot of sort of Oracle sprawl a lot of databases out there, high maintenance costs, the whole lock-in thing. I got to choices. I, you know, a lot of choices out there. One is EDB. You guys have convinced me that you've got the expertise If I can partner with firms like yours, it's safer route. Okay, cool. My other choice is Oracle is going to, The Oracle sales reps is going to get me in a headlock and talk about exit data and how their Oracle cloud, and how it's, they've invested a lot there. And they have, and, I can pay by the drink all this sort of modern sort of discussion, you know, Oracle act like they invented it late to the game. And then here we are. So, so help me. What's the pitch as to, well, that's kind of compelling. It's maybe the safe bet they're there. They're working with my CIO, whatever. Why should I go with the open source route versus that route? It sounds kind of attractive to me, help me understand that each of you maybe take me through that. Abdul, why don't you start. >> Yeah. I'd say, you know, Oracle's being the defacto for so many years that people have just assumed and defaulted saying, high availability, RAC, DR. Data guard, you know, and I'll apply to any database need that I have. And at the end of the day customers have a three tier database requirement: the lowest, less critical, bronze level databases that really don't need RAC or a high availability, silver tier that are departmental solutions. That means some level of resiliency. And then you've got your gold revenue producing brand impact databases that are they're down. And certainly they won. You see no reason why the bronze and silver databases can be targeted towards EDB. Admittedly, we have some of our largest customers are running platforms, are running $5 million an hour e-commerce platform or airlines running large e-commerce platforms. And exit data certainly has a place. RAC has a place in those, in those scenarios. Were not saying that the EDB is a solution for everything in all scenarios, but apply the technology where it's appropriate where it's required and, you know, generally wherever Oracle has being the defacto and it's being applied across the estate, that's fundamentally what's changed. It doesn't have to be the only answer you have multiple choices now. EDB provides us with the ability to probably address, you know more than 50% of the databases' state, and comfortably cope with that and just apply that more expensive kind of gold tier one cost-based but also capability, you know from the highest requirements of performance and availability where it's appropriate. >> Yeah. Very pragmatic approach. Abdul, thank you for that. And Charlie. Charlie, what's your perspective? Give us your closing thoughts. >> Well, it has been, Oracle has been dominating in Asia in South Korea has market or over many years. So customers got tired of this, continuous spending money for the maintenance costs and there is no discount. There is no negotiation. So they want to move away from expensive stuff. And they were looking for a flexible platform with the easygoing and the high speed and performance open source database like a possibly as career. And now the EDB cannot replace a hundred percent of existing legacy worker, but 10%, 20% 50% as time goes on the trend that will continue. And it will be reaching some high point or replacing the existing Oracle system. And it can, it can also leading to good business chance to a channel partner and EDB steps and other related business in open source. >> Great. Thank you, Charlie and Allen, bring us home here. Give us your follow up >> I think my, co- panelists hit the nail on the head, right? It's a menu, right? That's as things become more diverse and as people make more choices and as everybody wants more agility, you have to provide, I mean, and so that, that's where that's coming in and I liked the way that Andul I kind of split it into gold silver and bronze. Yeah. And I think that that's where, we're going, right? I mean you should ask your developers right? Are your developers like pining to start up a new instance of Oracle every time you're starting a new project? Probably not reach for their Postgres right? And so, because of that, that's where this is coming from and that's not going to change. And, and yeah, that that ecosystem is going to continue to, to thrive. And there'll be lots of different flavors in the growing open source ecosystem. >> Yeah. I mean, open source absolutely is the underpinning you know, the, the bedrock of innovation, these days. Gentlemen, great power panel. Thanks so much for bringing your perspectives and best of luck in the future. >> Thank you, next time we'll try and match our backgrounds >> Next time. Well, we'll up our game. Okay. And thank you for watching everybody. This is Dave Volante for theCUBE. Stay tuned for more great coverage. Postgres vision, 21. Be right back. (upbeat techno music)

>> From theCUBE studios in Palo Alto, in Boston bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE and ETR. This is Breaking Analysis with Dave Vellante >> The latest Arm Neoverse announcement further cements our opinion that it's architecture business model and ecosystem execution are defining a new era of computing and leaving Intel in it's dust. We believe the company and its partners have at least a two year lead on Intel and are currently in a far better position to capitalize on a major waves that are driving the technology industry and its innovation. To compete our view is that Intel needs a new strategy. Now, Pat Gelsinger is bringing that but they also need financial support from the US and the EU governments. Pat Gelsinger was just noted as asking or requesting from the EU government $9 billion, sorry, 8 billion euros in financial support. And very importantly, Intel needs a volume for its new Foundry business. And that is where Apple could be a key. Hello, everyone. And welcome to this week's weekly bond Cube insights powered by ETR. In this breaking analysis will explain why Apple could be the key to saving Intel and America's semiconductor industry leadership. We'll also further explore our scenario of the evolution of computing and what will happen to Intel if it can't catch up. Here's a hint it's not pretty. Let's start by looking at some of the key assumptions that we've made that are informing our scenarios. We've pointed out many times that we believe Arm wafer volumes are approaching 10 times those of x86 wafers. This means that manufacturers of Arm chips have a significant cost advantage over Intel. We've covered that extensively, but we repeat it because when we see news reports and analysis and print it's not a factor that anybody's highlighting. And this is probably the most important issue that Intel faces. And it's why we feel that Apple could be Intel's savior. We'll come back to that. We've projected that the chip shortage will last no less than three years, perhaps even longer. As we reported in a recent breaking analysis. Well, Moore's law is waning. The result of Moore's law, I.e the doubling of processor performance every 18 to 24 months is actually accelerating. We've observed and continue to project a quadrupling of performance every two years, breaking historical norms. Arm is attacking the enterprise and the data center. We see hyperscalers as the tip of their entry spear. AWS's graviton chip is the best example. Amazon and other cloud vendors that have engineering and software capabilities are making Arm-based chips capable of running general purpose applications. This is a huge threat to x86. And if Intel doesn't quickly we believe Arm will gain a 50% share of an enterprise semiconductor spend by 2030. We see the definition of Cloud expanding. Cloud is no longer a remote set of services, in the cloud, rather it's expanding to the edge where the edge could be a data center, a data closet, or a true edge device or system. And Arm is by far in our view in the best position to support the new workloads and computing models that are emerging as a result. Finally geopolitical forces are at play here. We believe the U S government will do, or at least should do everything possible to ensure that Intel and the U S chip industry regain its leadership position in the semiconductor business. If they don't the U S and Intel could fade to irrelevance. Let's look at this last point and make some comments on that. Here's a map of the South China sea in a way off in the Pacific we've superimposed a little pie chart. And we asked ourselves if you had a hundred points of strategic value to allocate, how much would you put in the semiconductor manufacturing bucket and how much would go to design? And our conclusion was 50, 50. Now it used to be because of Intel's dominance with x86 and its volume that the United States was number one in both strategic areas. But today that orange slice of the pie is dominated by TSMC. Thanks to Arm volumes. Now we've reported extensively on this and we don't want to dwell on it for too long but on all accounts cost, technology, volume. TSMC is the clear leader here. China's president Xi has a stated goal of unifying Taiwan by China's Centennial in 2049, will this tiny Island nation which dominates a critical part of the strategic semiconductor pie, go the way of Hong Kong and be subsumed into China. Well, military experts say it was very hard for China to take Taiwan by force, without heavy losses and some serious international repercussions. The US's military presence in the Philippines and Okinawa and Guam combined with support from Japan and South Korea would make it even more difficult. And certainly the Taiwanese people you would think would prefer their independence. But Taiwanese leadership, it ebbs and flows between those hardliners who really want to separate and want independence and those that are more sympathetic to China. Could China for example, use cyber warfare to over time control the narrative in Taiwan. Remember if you control the narrative you can control the meme. If you can crawl the meme you control the idea. If you control the idea, you control the belief system. And if you control the belief system you control the population without firing a shot. So is it possible that over the next 25 years China could weaponize propaganda and social media to reach its objectives with Taiwan? Maybe it's a long shot but if you're a senior strategist in the U S government would you want to leave that to chance? We don't think so. Let's park that for now and double click on one of our key findings. And that is the pace of semiconductor performance gains. As we first reported a few weeks ago. Well, Moore's law is moderating the outlook for cheap dense and efficient processing power has never been better. This slideshows two simple log lines. One is the traditional Moore's law curve. That's the one at the bottom. And the other is the current pace of system performance improvement that we're seeing measured in trillions of operations per second. Now, if you calculate the historical annual rate of processor performance improvement that we saw with x86, the math comes out to around 40% improvement per year. Now that rate is slowing. It's now down to around 30% annually. So we're not quite doubling every 24 months anymore with x86 and that's why people say Moore's law is dead. But if you look at the (indistinct) effects of packaging CPU's, GPU's, NPUs accelerators, DSPs and all the alternative processing power you can find in SOC system on chip and eventually system on package it's growing at more than a hundred percent per annum. And this means that the processing power is now quadrupling every 24 months. That's impressive. And the reason we're here is Arm. Arm has redefined the core process of model for a new era of computing. Arm made an announcement last week which really recycle some old content from last September, but it also put forth new proof points on adoption and performance. Arm laid out three components and its announcement. The first was Neoverse version one which is all about extending vector performance. This is critical for high performance computing HPC which at one point you thought that was a niche but it is the AI platform. AI workloads are not a niche. Second Arm announced the Neoverse and two platform based on the recently introduced Arm V9. We talked about that a lot in one of our earlier Breaking Analysis. This is going to performance boost of around 40%. Now the third was, it was called CMN-700 Arm maybe needs to work on some of its names, but Arm said this is the industry's most advanced mesh interconnect. This is the glue for the V1 and the N2 platforms. The importance is it allows for more efficient use and sharing of memory resources across components of the system package. We talked about this extensively in previous episodes the importance of that capability. Now let's share with you this wheel diagram underscores the completeness of the Arm platform. Arms approach is to enable flexibility across an open ecosystem, allowing for value add at many levels. Arm has built the architecture in design and allows an open ecosystem to provide the value added software. Now, very importantly, Arm has created the standards and specifications by which they can with certainty, certify that the Foundry can make the chips to a high quality standard, and importantly that all the applications are going to run properly. In other words, if you design an application, it will work across the ecosystem and maintain backwards compatibility with previous generations, like Intel has done for years but Arm as we'll see next is positioning not only for existing workloads but also the emerging high growth applications. To (indistinct) here's the Arm total available market as we see it, we think the end market spending value of just the chips going into these areas is $600 billion today. And it's going to grow to 1 trillion by 2030. In other words, we're allocating the value of the end market spend in these sectors to the marked up value of the Silicon as a percentage of the total spend. It's enormous. So the big areas are Hyperscale Clouds which we think is around 20% of this TAM and the HPC and AI workloads, which account for about 35% and the Edge will ultimately be the largest of all probably capturing 45%. And these are rough estimates and they'll ebb and flow and there's obviously some overlap but the bottom line is the market is huge and growing very rapidly. And you see that little red highlighted area that's enterprise IT. Traditional IT and that's the x86 market in context. So it's relatively small. What's happening is we're seeing a number of traditional IT vendors, packaging x86 boxes throwing them over the fence and saying, we're going after the Edge. And what they're doing is saying, okay the edge is this aggregation point for all these end point devices. We think the real opportunity at the Edge is for AI inferencing. That, that is where most of the activity and most of the spending is going to be. And we think Arm is going to dominate that market. And this brings up another challenge for Intel. So we've made the point a zillion times that PC volumes peaked in 2011. And we saw that as problematic for Intel for the cost reasons that we've beat into your head. And lo and behold PC volumes, they actually grew last year thanks to COVID and we'll continue to grow it seems for a year or so. Here's some ETR data that underscores that fact. This chart shows the net score. Remember that's spending momentum it's the breakdown for Dell's laptop business. The green means spending is accelerating and the red is decelerating. And the blue line is net score that spending momentum. And the trend is up and to the right now, as we've said this is great news for Dell and HP and Lenovo and Apple for its laptops, all the laptops sellers but it's not necessarily great news for Intel. Why? I mean, it's okay. But what it does is it shifts Intel's product mix toward lower margin, PC chips and it squeezes Intel's gross margins. So the CFO has to explain that margin contraction to wall street. Imagine that the business that got Intel to its monopoly status is growing faster than the high margin server business. And that's pulling margins down. So as we said, Intel is fighting a war on multiple fronts. It's battling AMD in the core x86 business both PCs and servers. It's watching Arm mop up in mobile. It's trying to figure out how to reinvent itself and change its culture to allow more flexibility into its designs. And it's spinning up a Foundry business to compete with TSMC. So it's got to fund all this while at the same time propping up at stock with buybacks Intel last summer announced that it was accelerating it's $10 billion stock buyback program, $10 billion. Buy stock back, or build a Foundry which do you think is more important for the future of Intel and the us semiconductor industry? So Intel, it's got to protect its past while building his future and placating wall street all at the same time. And here's where it gets even more dicey. Intel's got to protect its high-end x86 business. It is the cash cow and funds their operation. Who's Intel's biggest customer Dell, HP, Facebook, Google Amazon? Well, let's just say Amazon is a big customer. Can we agree on that? And we know AWS is biggest revenue generator is EC2. And EC2 was powered by microprocessors made from Intel and others. We found this slide in the Arm Neoverse deck and it caught our attention. The data comes from a data platform called lifter insights. The charts show, the rapid growth of AWS is graviton chips which are they're custom designed chips based on Arm of course. The blue is that graviton and the black vendor A presumably is Intel and the gray is assumed to be AMD. The eye popper is the 2020 pie chart. The instant deployments, nearly 50% are graviton. So if you're Pat Gelsinger, you better be all over AWS. You don't want to lose this customer and you're going to do everything in your power to keep them. But the trend is not your friend in this account. Now the story gets even gnarlier and here's the killer chart. It shows the ISV ecosystem platforms that run on graviton too, because AWS has such good engineering and controls its own stack. It can build Arm-based chips that run software designed to run on general purpose x86 systems. Yes, it's true. The ISV, they got to do some work, but large ISV they have a huge incentives because they want to ride the AWS wave. Certainly the user doesn't know or care but AWS cares because it's driving costs and energy consumption down and performance up. Lower cost, higher performance. Sounds like something Amazon wants to consistently deliver, right? And the ISV portfolio that runs on our base graviton and it's just going to continue to grow. And by the way, it's not just Amazon. It's Alibaba, it's Oracle, it's Marvell. It's 10 cents. The list keeps growing Arm, trotted out a number of names. And I would expect over time it's going to be Facebook and Google and Microsoft. If they're not, are you there? Now the last piece of the Arm architecture story that we want to share is the progress that they're making and compare that to x86. This chart shows how Arm is innovating and let's start with the first line under platform capabilities. Number of cores supported per die or, or system. Now die is what ends up as a chip on a small piece of Silicon. Think of the die as circuit diagram of the chip if you will, and these circuits they're fabricated on wafers using photo lithography. The wafers then cut up into many pieces each one, having a chip. Each of these pieces is the chip. And two chips make up a system. The key here is that Arm is quadrupling the number of cores instead of increasing thread counts. It's giving you cores. Cores are better than threads because threads are shared and cores are independent and much easier to virtualize. This is particularly important in situations where you want to be as efficient as possible sharing massive resources like the Cloud. Now, as you can see in the right hand side of the chart under the orange Arm is dramatically increasing the amount of capabilities compared to previous generations. And one of the other highlights to us is that last line that CCIX and CXL support again Arm maybe needs to name these better. These refer to Arms and memory sharing capabilities within and between processors. This allows CPU's GPU's NPS, et cetera to share resources very often efficiently especially compared to the way x86 works where everything is currently controlled by the x86 processor. CCIX and CXL support on the other hand will allow designers to program the system and share memory wherever they want within the system directly and not have to go through the overhead of a central processor, which owns the memory. So for example, if there's a CPU, GPU, NPU the CPU can say to the GPU, give me your results at a specified location and signal me when you're done. So when the GPU is finished calculating and sending the results, the GPU just signals the operation is complete. Versus having to ping the CPU constantly, which is overhead intensive. Now composability in that chart means the system it's a fixed. Rather you can programmatically change the characteristics of the system on the fly. For example, if the NPU is idle you can allocate more resources to other parts of the system. Now, Intel is doing this too in the future but we think Arm is way ahead. At least by two years this is also huge for Nvidia, which today relies on x86. A major problem for Nvidia has been coherent memory management because the utilization of its GPU is appallingly low and it can't be easily optimized. Last week, Nvidia announced it's intent to provide an AI capability for the data center without x86 I.e using Arm-based processors. So Nvidia another big Intel customer is also moving to Arm. And if it's successful acquiring Arm which is still a long shot this trend is only going to accelerate. But the bottom line is if Intel can't move fast enough to stem the momentum of Arm we believe Arm will capture 50% of the enterprise semiconductor spending by 2030. So how does Intel continue to lead? Well, it's not going to be easy. Remember we said, Intel, can't go it alone. And we posited that the company would have to initiate a joint venture structure. We propose a triumvirate of Intel, IBM with its power of 10 and memory aggregation and memory architecture And Samsung with its volume manufacturing expertise on the premise that it coveted in on US soil presence. Now upon further review we're not sure the Samsung is willing to give up and contribute its IP to this venture. It's put a lot of money and a lot of emphasis on infrastructure in South Korea. And furthermore, we're not convinced that Arvind Krishna who we believe ultimately made the call to Jettisons. Jettison IBM's micro electronics business wants to put his efforts back into manufacturing semi-conductors. So we have this conundrum. Intel is fighting AMD, which is already at seven nanometer. Intel has a fall behind in process manufacturing which is strategically important to the United States it's military and the nation's competitiveness. Intel's behind the curve on cost and architecture and is losing key customers in the most important market segments. And it's way behind on volume. The critical piece of the pie that nobody ever talks about. Intel must become more price and performance competitive with x86 and bring in new composable designs that maintain x86 competitive. And give the ability to allow customers and designers to add and customize GPU's, NPUs, accelerators et cetera. All while launching a successful Foundry business. So we think there's another possibility to this thought exercise. Apple is currently reliant on TSMC and is pushing them hard toward five nanometer, in fact sucking up a lot of that volume and TSMC is maybe not servicing some other customers as well as it's servicing Apple because it's a bit destructive, it is distracted and you have this chip shortage. So Apple because of its size gets the lion's share of the attention but Apple needs a trusted onshore supplier. Sure TSMC is adding manufacturing capacity in the US and Arizona. But back to our precarious scenario in the South China sea. Will the U S government and Apple sit back and hope for the best or will they hope for the best and plan for the worst? Let's face it. If China gains control of TSMC, it could block access to the latest and greatest process technology. Apple just announced that it's investing billions of dollars in semiconductor technology across the US. The US government is pressuring big tech. What about an Apple Intel joint venture? Apple brings the volume, it's Cloud, it's Cloud, sorry. It's money it's design leadership, all that to the table. And they could partner with Intel. It gives Intel the Foundry business and a guaranteed volume stream. And maybe the U S government gives Apple a little bit of breathing room and the whole big up big breakup, big tech narrative. And even though it's not necessarily specifically targeting Apple but maybe the US government needs to think twice before it attacks big tech and thinks about the long-term strategic ramifications. Wouldn't that be ironic? Apple dumps Intel in favor of Arm for the M1 and then incubates, and essentially saves Intel with a pipeline of Foundry business. Now back to IBM in this scenario, we've put a question mark on the slide because maybe IBM just gets in the way and why not? A nice clean partnership between Intel and Apple? Who knows? Maybe Gelsinger can even negotiate this without giving up any equity to Apple, but Apple could be a key ingredient to a cocktail of a new strategy under Pat Gelsinger leadership. Gobs of cash from the US and EU governments and volume from Apple. Wow, still a long shot, but one worth pursuing because as we've written, Intel is too strategic to fail. Okay, well, what do you think? You can DM me @dvellante or email me at david.vellante@siliconangle.com or comment on my LinkedIn post. Remember, these episodes are all available as podcasts so please subscribe wherever you listen. I publish weekly on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. And don't forget to check out etr.plus for all the survey analysis. And I want to thank my colleague, David Floyer for his collaboration on this and other related episodes. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE insights powered by ETR. Thanks for watching, be well, and we'll see you next time. (upbeat music)

>> From theCUBE Studios in Palo Alto in Boston, bringing you data-driven insights from theCUBE and ETR, this is Braking Analysis with Dave Vellante. >> Intel's big announcement this week underscores the threat that the United States faces from China. The US needs to lead in semiconductor design and manufacturing. And that lead is slipping because Intel has been fumbling the ball over the past several years, a mere two months into the job, new CEO Pat Gelsinger wasted no time in setting a new course for perhaps, the most strategically important American technology company. We believe that Gelsinger has only shown us part of his plan. This is the beginning of a long and highly complex journey. Despite Gelsinger's clear vision, his deep understanding of technology and execution ethos, in order to regain its number one position, Intel we believe we'll need to have help from partners, competitors and very importantly, the US government. Hello everyone and welcome to this week's Wikibon CUBE insights powered by ETR. In this breaking analysis we'll peel the onion Intel's announcement of this week and explain why we're perhaps not as sanguine as was Wall Street on Intel's prospects. And we'll lay out what we think needs to take place for Intel to once again, become top gun and for us to gain more confidence. By the way this is the first time we're broadcasting live with Braking Analysis. We're broadcasting on the CUBE handles on Twitch, Periscope and YouTube and going forward we'll do this regularly as a live program and we'll bring in the community perspective into the conversation through chat. Now you may recall that in January, we kind of dismissed analysis that said Intel didn't have to make any major strategic changes to its business when they brought on Pat Gelsinger. Rather we said the exact opposite. Our view at time was that the root of Intel's problems could be traced to the fact that it wasn't no longer the volume leader. Because mobile volumes dwarf those of x86. As such we said that Intel couldn't go up the learning curve for next gen technologies as fast as its competitors and it needed to shed its dogma of being highly vertically integrated. We said Intel needed to more heavily leverage outsourced foundries. But more specifically, we suggested that in order for Intel to regain its volume lead, it needed to, we said at the time, spin out its manufacturing, create a joint venture sure with a volume leader, leveraging Intel's US manufacturing presence. This, we still believe with some slight refreshes to our thinking based on what Gelsinger has announced. And we'll talk about that today. Now specifically there were three main pieces and a lot of details to Intel's announcement. Gelsinger made it clear that Intel is not giving up its IDM or integrated device manufacturing ethos. He called this IDM 2.0, which comprises Intel's internal manufacturing, leveraging external Foundries and creating a new business unit called Intel Foundry Services. It's okay. Gelsinger said, "We are not giving up on integrated manufacturing." However, we think this is somewhat nuanced. Clearly Intel can't, won't and shouldn't give up on IDM. However, we believe Intel is entering a new era where it's giving designers more choice. This was not explicitly stated. However we feel like Intel's internal manufacturing arm will have increased pressure to serve its designers in a more competitive manner. We've already seen this with Intel finally embracing EUV or extreme ultraviolet lithography. Gelsinger basically said that Intel didn't lean into EUV early on and that it created more complexity in its 10 nanometer process, which dominoed into seven nanometer and as you know the rest of the story and Intel's delays. But since mid last year, it's embraced the technology. Now as a point of reference, Samsung started applying EUV for its seven nanometer technology in 2018. And it began shipping in early 2020. So as you can see, it takes years to get this technology into volume production. The point is that Intel realizes it needs to be more competitive. And we suspect, it will give more freedom to designers to leverage outsource manufacturing. But Gelsinger clearly signaled that IDM is not going away. But the really big news is that Intel is setting up a new division with a separate PNL that's going to report directly to Pat. Essentially it's hanging out a shingle and saying, we're open for business to make your chips. Intel is building two new Fabs in Arizona and investing $20 billion as part of this initiative. Now well Intel has tried this before earlier last decade. Gelsinger says that this time we're serious and we're going to do it right. We'll come back to that. This organizational move while not a spin out or a joint venture, it's part of the recipe that we saw as necessary for Intel to be more competitive. Let's talk about why Intel is doing this. Look at lots has changed in the world of semiconductors. When you think about it back when Pat was at Intel in the '90s, Intel was the volume leader. It crushed the competition with x86. And the competition at the time was coming from risk chips. And when Apple changed the game with iPod and iPhone and iPad, the volume equation flipped to mobile. And that led to big changes in the industry. Specifically, the world started to separate design from manufacturing. We now see firms going from design to tape out in 12 months versus taking three years. A good example is Tesla and his deal with ARM and Samsung. And what's happened is Intel has gone from number one in Foundry in terms of clock speed, wafer density, volume, lowest cost, highest margin to falling behind. TSMC, Samsung and alternative processor competitors like NVIDIA. Volume is still the maker of kings in this business. That hasn't changed and it confers advantage in terms of cost, speed and efficiency. But ARM wafer volumes, we estimate are 10x those of x86. That's a big change since Pat left Intel more than a decade ago. There's also a major chip shortage today. But you know this time, it feels a little different than the typical semiconductor boom and bust cycles. Semiconductor consumption is entering a new era and new use cases emerging from automobiles to factories, to every imaginable device piece of equipment, infrastructure, silicon is everywhere. But the biggest threat of all is China. China wants to be self-sufficient in semiconductors by 2025. It's putting approximately $60 billion into new chip Fabs, and there's more to come. China wants to be the new economic leader of the world and semiconductors are critical to that goal. Now there are those poopoo the China threat. This recent article from Scott Foster lays out some really good information. But the one thing that caught our attention is a statement that China's semiconductor industry is nowhere near being a major competitor in the global market. Let alone an existential threat to the international order and the American way of life. I think Scotty is stuck in the engine room and can't see the forest of the trees, wake up. Sure. You can say China is way behind. Let's take an example. NAND. Today China is at about 64 3D layers whereas Micron they're at 172. By 2022 China's going to be at 128. Micron, it's going to be well over 200. So what's the big deal? We say talk to us in 2025 because we think China will be at parody. That's just one example. Now the type of thinking that says don't worry about China and semi's reminds me of the epic lecture series that Clay Christiansen gave as a visiting professor at Oxford University on the history of, and the economics of the steel industry. Now if you haven't watched this series, you should. Basically Christiansen took the audience through the dynamics of steel production. And he asked the question, "Who told the steel manufacturers that gross margin was the number one measure of profitability? Was it God?" he joked. His point was, when new entrance came into the market in the '70s, they were bottom feeders going after the low margin, low quality, easiest to make rebar sector. And the incumbents nearly pulled back and their mix shifted to higher margin products and their gross margins went up and life was good. Until they lost the next layer. And then the next, and then the next, until it was game over. Now, one of the things that got lost in Pat's big announcement on the 23rd of March was that Intel guided the street below consensus on revenue and earnings. But the stock went up the next day. Now when asked about gross margin in the Q&A segment of the announcement, yes, gross margin is a if not the key metric in semi's in terms of measuring profitability. When asked Intel CFO George Davis explained that with the uptick in PCs last year there was a product shift to the lower margin PC sector and that put pressure on gross margins. It was a product mix thing. And revenue because PC chips are less expensive than server chips was affected as were margins. Now we shared this chart in our last Intel update showing, spending momentum over time for Dell's laptop business from ETR. And you can see in the inset, the unit growth and the market data from IDC, yes, Dell's laptop business is growing, everybody's laptop business is growing. Thank you COVID. But you see the numbers from IDC, Gartner, et cetera. Now, as we pointed out last time, PC volumes had peaked in 2011 and that's when the long arm of rights law began to eat into Intel's dominance. Today ARM wafer production as we said is far greater than Intel's and well, you know the story. Here's the irony, the very bucket that conferred volume adventures to Intel PCs, yes, it had a slight uptick last year, which was great news for Dell. But according to Intel it pulled down its margins. The point is Intel is loving the high end of the market because it's higher margin and more profitable. I wonder what Clay Christensen would say to that. Now there's more to this story. Intel's CFO blame the supply constraints on Intel's revenue and profit pressures yet AMD's revenue and profits are booming. So RTSMCs. Only Intel can't seem to thrive when there's this massive chip shortage. Now let's get back to Pat's announcement. Intel is for sure, going forward investing $20 billion in two new US-based fabrication facilities. This chart shows Intel's investments in US R&D, US CapEx and the job growth that's created as a result, as well as R&D and CapEx investments in Ireland and Israel. Now we added the bar on the right hand side from a Wall Street journal article that compares TSMC CapEx in the dark green to that of Intel and the light green. You can see TSMC surpass the CapEx investment of Intel in 2015, and then Intel took the lead back again. And in 2017 was, hey it on in 2018. But last year TSMC took the lead, again. And appears to be widening that lead quite substantially. Leading us to our conclusion that this will not be enough. These moves by Intel will not be enough. They need to do more. And a big part of this announcement was partnerships and packaging. Okay. So here's where it gets interesting. Intel, as you may know was late to the party with SOC system on a chip. And it's going to use its packaging prowess to try and leap frog the competition. SOC bundles things like GPU, NPU, DSUs, accelerators caches on a single chip. So better use the real estate if you will. Now Intel wants to build system on package which will dis-aggregate memory from compute. Now remember today, memory is very poorly utilized. What Intel is going to do is to create a package with literally thousands of nodes comprising small processors, big processors, alternative processors, ARM processors, custom Silicon all sharing a pool of memory. This is a huge innovation and we'll come back to this in a moment. Now as part of the announcement, Intel trotted out some big name customers, prospects and even competitors that it wants to turn into prospects and customers. Amazon, Google, Satya Nadella gave a quick talk from Microsoft to Cisco. All those guys are designing their own chips as does Ericsson and look even Qualcomm is on the list, a competitor. Intel wants to earn the right to make chips for these firms. Now many on the list like Microsoft and Google they'd be happy to do so because they want more competition. And Qualcomm, well look if Intel can do a good job and be a strong second sourced, why not? Well, one reason is they compete aggressively with Intel but we don't like Intel so much but it's very possible. But the two most important partners on this slide are one IBM and two, the US government. Now many people were going to gloss over IBM in this announcement, but we think it's one of the most important pieces of the puzzle. Yes. IBM and semiconductors. IBM actually has some of the best semiconductor technology in the world. It's got great architecture and is two to three years ahead of Intel with POWER10. Yes, POWER. IBM is the world's leader in terms of dis-aggregating compute from memory with the ability to scale to thousands of nodes, sound familiar? IBM leads in power density, efficiency and it can put more stuff closer together. And it's looking now at a 20x increase in AI inference performance. We think Pat has been thinking about this for a while and he said, how can I leave leap frog system on chip. And we think he thought and said, I'll use our outstanding process manufacturing and I'll tap IBM as a partner for R&D and architectural chips to build the next generation of systems that are more flexible and performant than anything that's out there. Now look, this is super high end stuff. And guess who needs really high end massive supercomputing capabilities? Well, the US military. Pat said straight up, "We've talked to the government and we're honored to be competing for the government/military chips boundary." I mean, look Intel in my view was going to have to fall down into face not win this business. And by making the commitment to Foundry Services we think they will get a huge contract from the government, as large, perhaps as $10 billion or more to build a secure government Foundry and serve the military for decades to come. Now Pat was specifically asked in the Q&A section is this Foundry strategy that you're embarking on viable without the help of the US government? Kind of implying that it was a handout or a bailout. And Pat of course said all the right things. He said, "This is the right thing for Intel. Independent of the government, we haven't received any commitment or subsidies or anything like that from the US government." Okay, cool. But they have had conversations and I have no doubt, and Pat confirmed this, that those conversations were very, very positive that Intel should head in this direction. Well, we know what's happening here. The US government wants Intel to win. It needs Intel to win and its participation greatly increases the probability of success. But unfortunately, we still don't think it's enough for Intel to regain its number one position. Let's look at that in a little bit more detail. The headwinds for Intel are many. Look it can't just flick a switch and catch up on manufacturing leadership. It's going to take four years. And lots can change in that time. It tells market momentum as well as we pointed out earlier is headed in the wrong direction from a financial perspective. Moreover, where is the volume going to come from? It's going to take years for Intel to catch up for ARMS if it never can. And it's going to have to fight to win that business from its current competitors. Now I have no doubt. It will fight hard under Pat's excellent leadership. But the Foundry business is different. Consider this, Intel's annual CapEx expenditures, if you divide that by their yearly revenue it comes out to about 20% of revenue. TSMC spends 50% of its revenue each year on CapEx. This is a different animal, very service oriented. So look, we're not pounding the table saying Intel's worst days are over. We don't think they are. Now, there are some positives, I'm showing those in the right-hand side. Pat Gelsinger was born for this job. He proved that the other day, even though we already knew it. I have never seen him more excited and more clearheaded. And we agreed that the chip demand dynamic is going to have legs in this decade and beyond with Digital, Edge, AI and new use cases that are going to power that demand. And Intel is too strategic to fail. And the US government has huge incentives to make sure that it succeeds. But it's still not enough in our opinion because like the steel manufacturers Intel's real advantage today is increasingly in the high end high margin business. And without volume, China is going to win this battle. So we continue to believe that a new joint venture is going to emerge. Here's our prediction. We see a triumvirate emerging in a new joint venture that is led by Intel. It brings x86, that volume associated with that. It brings cash, manufacturing prowess, R&D. It brings global resources, so much more than we show in this chart. IBM as we laid out brings architecture, it's R&D, it's longstanding relationships. It's deal flow, it can funnel its business to the joint venture as can of course, parts of Intel. We see IBM getting a nice licensed deal from Intel and or the JV. And it has to get paid for its contribution and we think it'll also get a sweet deal and the manufacturing fees from this Intel Foundry. But it's still not enough to beat China. Intel needs volume. And that's where Samsung comes in. It has the volume with ARM, has the experience and a complete offering across products. We also think that South Korea is a more geographically appealing spot in the globe than Taiwan with its proximity to China. Not to mention that TSMC, it doesn't need Intel. It's already number one. Intel can get a better deal from number two, Samsung. And together these three we think, in this unique structure could give it a chance to become number one by the end of the decade or early in the 2030s. We think what's happening is our take, is that Intel is going to fight hard to win that government business, put itself in a stronger negotiating position and then cut a deal with some supplier. We think Samsung makes more sense than anybody else. Now finally, we want to leave you with some comments and some thoughts from the community. First, I want to thank David Foyer. His decade plus of work and knowledge of this industry along with this collaboration made this work possible. His fingerprints are all over this research in case you didn't notice. And next I want to share comments from two of my colleagues. The first is Serbjeet Johal. He sent this to me last night. He said, "We are not in our grandfather's compute era anymore. Compute is getting spread into every aspect of our economy and lives. The use of processors is getting more and more specialized and will intensify with the rise in edge computing, AI inference and new workloads." Yes, I totally agree with Sarbjeet. And that's the dynamic which Pat is betting and betting big. But the bottom line is summed up by my friend and former IDC mentor, Dave Moschella. He says, "This is all about China. History suggests that there are very few second acts, you know other than Microsoft and Apple. History also will say that the antitrust pressures that enabled AMD to thrive are the ones, the very ones that starved Intel's cash. Microsoft made the shift it's PC software cash cows proved impervious to competition. The irony is the same government that attacked Intel's monopoly now wants to be Intel's protector because of China. Perhaps it's a cautionary tale to those who want to break up big tech." Wow. What more can I add to that? Okay. That's it for now. Remember I publish each week on wikibon.com and siliconangle.com. These episodes are all available as podcasts. All you got to do is search for Braking Analysis podcasts and you can always connect with me on Twitter @dvellante or email me at david.vellante, siliconangle.com As always I appreciate the comments on LinkedIn and in clubhouse please follow me so that you're notified when we start a room and start riffing on these topics. And don't forget to check out etr.plus for all the survey data. This is Dave Vellante for theCUBE insights powered by ETR, be well, and we'll see you next time. (upbeat music)

(upbeat music) >> From ''theCUBE studios,'' in Palo Alto, in Boston, connecting with thought leaders all around the world. This is ''theCUBE Conversation.'' >> Hi, I'm John Walls. And as we're all aware, technology continues to evolve these days at an incredible pace and it's changing the way industries are doing their business all over the world and that's certainly true in telecommunications, CSPs all around the globe are developing plans on how to leverage the power of 5G technology and their network operations are certainly central to that mission. That is the genesis of ''IBM's Cloud for Telecommunications Service.'' That's a unified open hybrid architecture, that was recently launched and was developed to provide telecoms with the solutions they need to meet their very unique network demands and needs. I want us to talk more about that. I'm joined by Steve Canepa, who is the Global GM and Managing Director of the communication sector at IBM. Steve, good to see you today. >> Yeah, you too, John. >> And Jeffrey Hammond. So, he's the Principal Analyst and Vice President at Forrester. Jeffrey, thank you for your time as well today. Good to see you. >> Thanks a lot. It's great to be here. >> Yeah, Steve, let's just jump right in. First off, I mean, to me, the overarching question is, why telecom, I know that IBM has been very focused on providing these kinds of industries specific services, you've done very well in finance, now you're shifting over to telecom. What was the driver there? >> First, great to be with you today, John, and, you know, if we look at the marketplace, especially in 2020, I think the one thing that's, everyone can agree with, is that the rate and pace of change is just really accelerating and is a very, very dynamic marketplace. And so, if we look at the way both our personal lives are now guided by connectivity, and the use of multiple devices throughout the day, the same with our professional lives. So, connectivity really sits at the heart of how value and solutions are delivered and for businesses, this is becoming a critical issue. So, as we work with the telecommunication providers around the world, we're helping them transform their business to make it much more agile, to make it open and make them deliver new services much more quickly and to engage digitally with their clients to bring that kind of experience that we all expect now, so, that the rate pace of change, and the need for the telecommunications industry to bring new value, is really driving a tremendous opportunity for us to work with them. >> Jeffrey what's happening in the telecom space? That, I mean, these aren't just small trends, right? These are tectonic shifts that are going on in terms of their new capabilities and their needs. I'm sure this digital transformation has been driven in some part by COVID, but there are other forces going on here, I would assume too. What do you see from your analyst seat? >> Yeah, I look at it, you know, from a glass half full and a glass half empty approach. From a half empty approach, the shifts to remote work and remote learning, and from traditional retail channels, brick and mortar channels to digital ones, have really put a strain on the existing networking infrastructure, especially, at the Edge, but they've also demonstrated just how critical it is to get that right. You know, as an example, I'm actually talking to you today over my hotspot on my iPhone. So, I think a lot more about the performance of my local cell tower now than I ever did a year ago. and I want it to be as good as it can possibly be and give me as many capabilities as it can. From a glass half full perspective, the opportunities that a modernized network infrastructure gives us are, I think, more readily apparent than ever, you know, most of my wife's doctor's appointments have shifted to remote appointments and every time she calls up to connect, I kind of cringe in the other room and it's like, are they going to get video working? Are they going to get audio working? Are they actually going to have to shift to an old-style phone call to make this happen? Well, things like 5G really are poised to solve those kinds of challenges. They promise, 5G promises, exponential improvements in connectivity speed, capacity, and reductions in latency that are going to allow us to look at some really interesting workloads, IOT workloads, automation workloads, and a lot of Edge use cases. I think 5G sets the stage or Edge compute. Expanding Edge compute scenarios, make it possible to distribute data and services where businesses can best optimize their outcomes, whether it's IOT enabled assets, whether it's connected environments, whether it's personalization, whether it's rich content, AI, or even extended reality workloads. So, you might seem like, that's what a little over the horizon, but it's actually not that far away. And as companies gain the ability to manage and analyze and localize their data, and unlocks real-time insights in a way that they just haven't had before, it can drive expanded engagement and automation in close proximity to the end point devices and customers. And none of that happens without the telco providers and the infrastructure that they own being on board and providing the capabilities for developers like me to take advantage of the infrastructure that they've put in place. So, my perspective on it is, that transformation, that digital transformation, is not going to happen on its own. Someone's got to provision the infrastructure, someone's got to write the code, someone's got to get the services as close to my cell tower or to the Edge as possible and so, that's one of the reasons that when we ask decision makers in the telco space about their priorities from a business perspective, what they tell us is, one of their top three priorities is, we need to improve our ability to innovate and the other two are, we need to grow our revenue and we need to improve our product and services. What's going on from a software perspective in the telco space, is set to make all three of those possible, from my perspective. >> You know, Steve, Jeffrey just unpacked an awful lot there, did a really nice job of that. So, let's talk about first off, that telco relationship IBM's had, or has. You work with data, the 10 largest communication service providers in the world, and I'm sure you're on this journey with them, right? They've been telling you about their challenges and you recognize their needs. This is, you have had maybe some specific examples of that dialogue, that has progressed as your relationship has matured and you provide a different service to them. What are they telling you? What did they tell you say, '' This is where we have got to get better. We've got to get a little sharper, a little leaner.'' And then how did IBM respond to that? >> Yeah, I mean, critical to what Jeffrey just shared is under the covers. You know, 5G is going to take five times the cost that 4G took to deploy. So, if you're a telco, you have to get much more efficient. You have to drive a much more effective TCO into cost of deploying and managing and running that network architecture. When the network becomes a software defined platform, it opens up the opportunity to use open source, open technology, and to drive a tremendous ecosystem of innovation that you can then capture that value onto that open software network. And as the Edge emerged as compute and storage and connectivity, both to the Edge as Jeffrey described, then the opportunity to deliver B2B use cases to take advantage of the latency improvements with 5G, take advantage of the bandwidth capabilities that you have moving video and AI out to the Edge, so, you can create insights as a service. These are the underlying transformations that the telcos are making right now to capture this value. And in fact, we have an institute for business value on our website. You can see some of the surveys and analysis we've done but 84% of the telco clients say, you know, '' Improving the automation and the intelligence of this network platform becomes critical.'' So, from our standpoint, we see a tremendous opportunity to create an open architecture to allow the telcos to regain control of their architecture so that they can pick the solutions and services that work best for them to create value for their customers and then allows them to deploy them incredibly quickly. In fact, just this last week, we announced a milestone with Bharti, a project that we're doing in India, already has over 300 million subscribers. We've taken their ability to deploy their run environment, one of the core domains of the network, where you actually do the access over the cell towers. We've improved that from weeks down to a few days. In fact, our objective is to get to a few minutes. Applying that kind of automation dramatically improves the kind of service they can deliver. When we talk about relationships we have with Vodafone, AT$T, Verizon, about working with them on their mobile Edge compute platforms, it will allow them to extend their network. In fact, with our cloud announcement that you highlighted at the top, we announced a capability called the IBM Cloud Satellite and what IBM Cloud Satellite does is, it's built with Red Hat, so, it's open architecture, it takes advantage of the millions and millions of upstream developers, that are developing every single day to build a foundational shift architecture that allows us to deploy these services so quickly and we can move that capability right now to the Edge. What that means for a telco, is they can deploy those services wherever they want to deploy them, on their private infrastructure or on a public cloud, on a customer's premise, that gives them the flexibility. The automation allows them to do it smartly and very quickly and then in partnering with clients, they can create new end Edge services, things like, you know, manufacturing 4.0 you may have heard of or as you mentioned, advanced healthcare services. Every single industry is going to take advantage of these changes and we're really excited about the opportunity to work in combination with the telcos and speed the pace of innovation in the market. >> Jeffrey, I'd like to go back to the Bharti there. I was going to get into it a little bit later but Steve brought it up. This major Indian CSP, as you mentioned, 300 million subs, 400 million around the world. What does that say to you in terms of its commitment and its, the needs that are being addressed and how it's going to fundamentally change the way it is doing business as far as setting the pace in the telecom industry? >> Well, I think, one of the things that highlights it is, you know, this isn't just a U.S phenomenon or a European phenomenon. Indeed, in some cases we're seeing countries outside the U.S in advance, moving faster, Switzerland, as an example. We expect 90% of the population in Germany to be covered by 5G By 2025, we expect 90% of the population in South Korea to be covered by 2026, 160 million connections in in China as well. So, in some ways, what's happening in the telco world is mirroring what has happened in the public cloud world, which is the world's gone flat. And that's great from a developer perspective because that means that I don't have to learn specialized technologies or specialized services, in order to look at these network infrastructure platforms as part of the addressable surface that I have. That's one of the things that I think has always held the larger developer population back and has kept them from taking advantage of the telco networks. Is, they've always been bit of a black box to the vast majority of developers, you know, IP goes in, IP comes out but that's about all the control I have, unless I want to go and dig deep into those, you know, industry specific specifications. I was cleaning out my office last week because I'm in the process of moving and I came across my '' IMS Explained Handbook from 2006,'' and I remember going deep into that because, you know, we were told that that's going to make it so that IT infrastructure and telco infrastructure is going to converge and it did to a little bit, but not in a way that all the developers out there could really take advantage of telco infrastructure. And then I remember the next thing was like, well, '' Java Amiens on the front end with mobile clients, that's going to make everything different and we're going to be able to build apps everywhere.'' What ended up being was we would write once and test everywhere, across all the different devices that we had to support. And you know, what really drove you equity? Was the iPhone and apps that we could use HTML like technology or that we could use Java to build and it exploded. And we got millions of applications on the front end of the network. What I see potentially happening now, is the same thing on the backend infrastructure side, because the reality is for any developer that is trying to build modern applications, that's trying to take advantage of cloud native technologies, things start with containers and specifically, OCI compliant containers. That is the basis for how we think about building services and handing them off to operators to run them for us. And with what's going on here, by building on top of OpenShift, you take that, you know, essentially de facto standard of containers as the way that we communicate on the infrastructure side globally, from a software development perspective and you make that the entry point for developers into the modern telco outcome system. And so, basically, it means that if I want to push all the way out to the Edge and I want to get as close as I possibly can, as long as I can give you a container to execute that capability, I'm well on the way to making that a reality, that's a game changer in my opinion. >> Yeah, I was on. >> Just to pick it, just if I could, just to pick up on that because I think Jeffrey made a really important point. So, it's kind of like, in a way, an auntie to the ball here is this open architecture because it empowers the entire ecosystem and it allows the telcos to take advantage of enormous innovation that's happening in the marketplace. And that's why, you know, the 35 ecosystem partners that we announced when we announced the IBM Cloud for telco, that's why they're so important because it allows you to have choice. But the other piece, which he hinted at, I wanted to just underscore, is today, in it kind of the first wave of cloud, only about 20% of the applications move to cloud. They were mostly funny digital applications. In fact, we moved our funny digital applications as well into Watson, we have over 1.5 billion customers of telcos today around the world that can access Watson, through our various chatbot and call center or an agent assist solutions we've deployed. But the 80% of applications that haven't moved yet, haven't moved because it's tough to move them, because they're mission critical, they need, you know, regulatory controls, they have to have world-class security, they need to be able to provide data sovereignty as you're operating in different countries around the world and you have to make sure that you have the data in places that you need, these are the attributes, that kind of open up the opportunity for all these other workloads to move. And those are the exact kind of capabilities that we've built into the IBM Cloud for telco, so that we can enable telcos to move their applications into this environment safely, securely, and do it, as Jeffrey described, on an open architecture that gives them that agility and flexibility. And we're seeing it happen real time, you know, I'll just give you another quick example, Vodafone India, their CTO has said publicly and moving to this cloud architecture, he sees it as a universal cloud architecture, so, they're going to run not just their internal it workloads, not just their network services, their voice data and multimedia network services workloads, but also their B2B enterprise workloads, as Jeffrey was starting to describe. Those workloads that are going to move out to the Edge. And by being able to run on a common platform, he's said publicly that they're seeing an 80% improvement in their CapEx, a 50% improvement in their OPEX, and then 90% improvement in the cost to get productions and services deployed. So, the ability to embrace this open architecture and to have the underlying capabilities and attributes in a cloud platform that responds to the specific needs of telco and enterprise workloads, we think is a really powerful combination. >> Steve, the ecosystem, Jeffrey, you brought it up as well. So, I'd like, just to give you a moment to talk about that a little bit, not a small point, by any means you have nearly 40 partners lined up in this respect, from a hardware vendor, software vendors, SAS providers. I mean, it's a pretty impressive lineup and what kind of a statement is that in your, from your perspective, that you're making to the marketplace when you bring that kind of breadth and depth, that kind of bench, basically the game? >> From our view, it's exciting, and we're only getting started. I mean, we literally have not made the announcement, just a matter of a couple of months ago, and every day that passes, we have additional partners that see the power in joining this open architecture approach that we've put in place. The reason that it delivers such values for all the players, you know, one of the hallmarks of a platform approach is that for every player that joins the platform, it brings value to all the players on the cloud. So as we build this ecosystem and we take the leverage of the open source community, and we build on the power of OpenShift and containers, as Jeffrey was saying, we're creating momentum in the marketplace and back to my very first point I made, when the market's moving really quickly, you've got to be agile. And to be agile in today's market, you have to infuse automation at scale, you have to infuse security at scale and you have to infuse intelligence at scale. And that's exactly what we can help the telcos do, and do it in partnership with these enterprise clients. Instinctively >> One of the values of that is that, you know, we're seeing the larger trend in the cloud native space of folks that used to build packaged software services, is essentially taking advantage of these architectural capabilities and containerizing their applications as part of their future strategy. I mean, just two weeks ago, Salesforce basically said, we're reinvisioning Salesforce as a set of containerized workloads that we deliver, SAP is going in very much the same direction. So as you think about these business workloads, where you get data coming from the infrastructure and you want to go all the way back to the back office and you want to make sure that data gets updated in your supply chain management system, being able to do that with a consistent architecture makes these integration challenges just an order of magnitude easier. I actually want to drill in on that data point for a minute because I think that that's also key to understanding what's going on here, because, you know, during the early days of the public cloud and even WebDuo before that, one of the things that drove WebDuo was the idea that data is the new Intel inside and in some ways that was around centralized data because we had 40 or 50 years to get all the data into the data centers and into the, and then put it in the public cloud. But that's not what is happening today. So much of the new data is actually originating at the Edge and increasingly it needs to stay at the Edge if for no other reason than to make sure that the folks that are trying to use it well aren't running up huge ingestion costs, trying to move it all back to the public cloud providers, analyze it and then push it back out and do that within the realm of the laws of physics. So, you know, one of the big things that's driving the Edge is, in the move toward the Edge, and the interest in 5G is that allows us to do more with data where the data originates. So, as an example, a manufacturer that I've been working with that basically came across exactly that problem, as they stood up more and more connected devices, they were seeing their data ingestion volume spiking and kind of running ahead of their budgets for data ingestion but they were like, well, we can't just leave this data and discard it at the Edge, because what happens if it turns out to be valuable for the maintenance, preventative maintenance use cases that we want to run, or for the machine wear characteristics that we want to run. So, we need to find a way to get our models out close to the data so we don't have to bring it all back to the core. In retailing, personalization is something that a lot of folks are looking at right now and even clientelling and that's, again, another situation where you want to get the data close to where the customer actually lives from a geographic basis and into the hands of the person that's in the store but you don't want to necessarily have to go and install a lot of complex hardware in the retail outlet because then somebody has to manage, you know, those servers and manage all those capabilities. So, you know, in the case of the retailer that I was working with, what they wanted was to get that capability as close as possible to the store, but no closer. And the idea of essentially a virtual back office that they could stand up whenever they opened up a new retail outlet, or even had a franchisee open up an outlet, was an extremely powerful concept and that's the kind of thing that you can do when you're saying,'' Well it's just a set of containers and if I have a, you know, essentially a control plane that I deploy it to, then I can do that on top of that telco provider that they sign up to be a strategic services provider.'' There are lots of other interesting scenarios, tourism, if you think about, you know, the tourist economies that we have around the world and the data that, you know, mobile devices throw off that let us get anonymized information about who's coming, where they're going, what they're spending, how long they're staying, there's a huge set of data there that you can use to grow revenue. You know, other types of use cases, transportation? We see, you know, municipal governments kind of looking at how they can use anonymized data around commute patterns to impact their planning. That's all data that's coming from the the telco infrastructure. >> You know, when we're talking about these massive advantages, right, as this hybrid cloud approach about skill ones, build one's, easy management, efficient management, all of these things, Steve, I think we almost, we'd be derelict to duty if we didn't talk about security a little bit. Just ultimately at the end of the day, you've got to provide this as you pointed out, world-class secure environment. And so, in terms of the hybrid approach, what kind of considerations do you have to make that are special to that and that are being deployed and have been considered >> You know, that's a great point. One of the benefits to Comms from moving to an open architecture, is that you componentize the framework of that architecture, and you have suppliers supplying applications for the various different services that we just talked through. And the ability then to integrate security is essentially a foundational element to the entire Premack architecture. We've stayed very compliant with the Nanci framework architecture and the way that we've worked with the telcos and bringing forth a solution, because we specifically want them to have the choice but how is that choice being married with the kind of security you just talked about. And to Jeffrey's point, you know, when you move those applications out to the Edge and that data, you know, many of the analysts are saying now by 2025, as much as 75% of the data created in the world will happen at the Edge. So, this is a massive shift. And when that shift occurs, you have to have the security to make sure that you're going to take care of that data in the way that it should be and that meets all regulatory, you know, governance already rules and regulations. So, that becomes really critical. The other piece though, is just the amount of value that gets created. The reason that data is at the Edge is because now you can act on it at the Edge, you can extract insights and in fact, most of the analysts will say,'' In the next three years, we'll see $675 billion of new value created at the Edge with these kinds of applications.'' And going back on the manufacturing example, I mean, we're already working today with manufacturers and they already had, you know, hundreds of IOT sensors deployed in the factory and we have an Edge application manager that extends right out to the far Edge, if you will, right out onto that factory floor to help get intelligence from those devices. But now think about adding to that the AI capabilities, the video capabilities, watching that manufacturing line to make sure every product that comes off that line is absolutely perfect, Watching the employees to make sure they're staying in safety zones, you know, watching the actual equipment itself to make sure it is performing the way it's supposed to, maybe using an analytics and AI capabilities to predict, you know, issues that might arise before they even happen, so you can take preventative action. This kind of intelligence, you know, makes the business run smarter, faster, more effective. So, that's where we see tremendous service. So, it's not just the fact that data will be created and it will be higher fidelity data to include the analytics, AI, you don't include unstructured data like video data and image data, audio data, but the ability to then extract insights and value out of it. And this is why we believe the ecosystem we talked about earlier, our partnership with the telco's and the ability to bring ecosystem partners and they can add value is just a tremendous momentum that we're going to build. >> Well, the market opportunity is certainly great. As you pointed out, a lot of additional value yet to be created, significant value and obviously, a lot of money to be spent as well by telcos, by some estimates, a hundred billion plus, just by the year 2022 and getting this new software defined platforms up and running. So, congratulations to IBM for this launch and we wish you continued success, Steve, in that endeavor and thank you for your time and Jeffrey, thank you as well for your insights from Forester. >> Always a pleasure. (upbeat music)

>>from around the globe. It's the Cube with digital coverage of AWS reinvent 2020 sponsored by Intel and AWS. Yeah, welcome back to the cubes. Live coverage here for eight of us. Reinvent 2020. Virtual normally were on the show floor getting all of the interviews and talking about the top newsmakers and we have one of them here on the Cube were remote. I'm John for your host of the Cube. George Ellis Eros, GM and director of product manager for AWS. Talking about Wavelength George. Welcome to the remote Cube Cube. Virtual. Thanks for coming on. >>Good to be here. Thanks for having a John >>Eso Andy's Kino. One of the highlights last year, I pointed out that the five g thing is gonna be huge with the L A Wavelength Metro thing going on this year. Same thing. Mawr Proofpoint S'more expansion. Take us through what was announced this year. What's the big update on wavelength? >>Yes, so John Wavelength essentially brings a W services at the edge of the five G network, allowing our AWS customers and developers to reach their own end users and devices. Five devices with very low latency enabling a number off emerging applications ranging from industrial automation and I O. T. All the way to weigh AR VR smart cities, connected vehicles and much more this year we announced earlier in the year the general availability of wavelength in two locations one in the Bay Area and one in the Boston area. And since then we've seen we've been growing with Verizon or five D partner in the U. S. And and increasing that coverage in multiple off the larger U. S cities, including Miami and D. C in New York. And we launched Las Vegas yesterday at Andy's keynote with Verizon. We also announced that we are going toe to have a global footprint with K d D I in Japan launching a wavelength in Tokyo with SK detail SK Telecom in in South Korea or launching indigestion and with Vodafone in London >>so significant its expansion. Um, we used to call these points of presence back in the old days. I don't know what you call them now. I guess they're just zones like you calling them zones, but this really is gonna be a critical edge network, part of the edge, whether it's stadiums, metro area things and the density and the group is awesome. And everyone loves at about five gs. More of a business at less consumer. When you think about it, what has been some of the response as you guys had deployed mawr, What's the feedback? Um, can you take us through what the response has been? What's it been like? What have been some of the observations? >>Yeah, customers air really excited with the promise of five G and really excited to get their hands on these new capabilities that we're offering. Um, And they're telling us, you know, some consistent feedback that we're getting is that they're telling us that they love that they can use the same A W s, a P I S and tools and services that they used today in the region to get their hands on this new capabilities. So that's being pretty pretty consistent. Feedback these off use and the you know, Sometimes customers tell us that within a day they are able to deploy their applications in web. So that's a that's pretty consistent there. We've seen customers across a number of areas arranging, you know, from from manufacturing to healthcare to a ar and VR and broadcasting and live streaming all the way to smart cities and and connected vehicles. So a number of customers in these areas are using wavelength. Some of my favorite you know, examples are in in actually connected vehicles where you really can see that future materialized. You get, you know, customers like LG that are building the completely secularized vehicle, tow everything platform, and customers like safari that allow multiple devices to do, you know, talkto the Waveland, the closest Waveland Zone process. All of those device data streams at the edge. And then, um, it back. You know messages to the drivers, like for emergency situations, or even construct full dynamic maps for consumption off the off the vehicle themselves. >>I mean, it's absolutely awesome. And, you know, one of things that someone Dave Brown yesterday around the C two and the trend with smaller compute. You have the compute relationship at the edge to moving back and forth so I can see those dots connecting and looking forward to see how that plays out. Sure, and it will enable more capabilities. I do want to get your your thoughts, or you could just for the audience and our perspective just define the difference between wavelength and local zones because we know what regions are. Amazon regions are well understood all around the world. But now you have this new concept called locals owns part of wavelength, not part of wavelengths. Are they different technology? Can you just explain? Take him in to exclaim wavelength versus local zones how they work together? >>Yeah, So let me take a step back at AWS. Basically, what we're trying to do is we're trying to enable our customers to reach their end users with low latency and great performance, wherever those end users are and whatever network they're they're using to get connected, whether that's the five g mobile network with the Internet or in I o t Network. So we have a number of products that help our customers do that. And we expect, like, in months off other areas of the AWS platform, that customers are gonna pick and twos and mix and match and combine some of these products toe master use case. So when you're talking about wavelength and local zones, wavelength is about five g. There is obviously a lot off excitement as you said yourself about five g about the promise off those higher throughput. They're Lowell agencies. You know, the large number of devices supported and with wavelengths were enabling our customers toe to make the most of that. You know, of the five G technology and toe work on these emerging new use cases and applications that we talked about When it comes to local zones, we're talking more about extending AWS out two more locations. So if you think about you mentioned AWS regions, we have 24 regions in another five coming. Those are worldwide and enabled most of our customers to run their workloads. You know all of their workloads with low latency and adequate performance across the world. But we are hearing from customers that they want AWS in more locations. So local zones basically bring a W S extend those regions to more locations by bringing a W s closer to population I t and industrial centers. You know, l A is a great example of that. We launched the lay last year toe to local zones in L. A and toe toe a mainly at the media and entertainment customers that are, you know, in the L. A Metro, and we've seen customers like Netflix, for example, moving their artist workstations to the local zones. If they were to move that somewhere, you know, to the cloud somewhere further out the Laden's, he might have been too much for their ass artists work clothes and having some local AWS in the L. A. Metro allows them to finally move those workstation to the cloud while preserving that user experience. You know, interacting with the workstations that's happened. The cloud. >>So just like in conceptualizing is local zone, like a base station is in the metro point of physical location. Is it outpost on steroids? Been trying to get the feel for what it is >>you can think off regions consisting off availability zones. So these are, you know, data center clusters that deliver AWS services. So a local zone is much like an availability zone. But instead of being co located with the rest of the region, is in another locations that, for example, in L. A. Rather than being, you know, in in Virginia, let's say, um, they are internally. We use the same technology that we use for outpost, I suppose, is another great example of how AWS is getting closer to customers for on premises. Deployments were using much of the same technology that you you probably know as Nitro System and a number of other kind of technology that we've been working on for years, actually, toe make all this possible. >>You know, anyone who's been to a football game or any kind of stadium knows you got a great WiFi signal, but you get terrible bandwidth that is essentially kind of the back hall component for the telecom geeks out there. This is kind of what we're talking about here, right? We're talking about more of an expansionary at that edge on throughput, not just signal. So there's, you know, there's there's a wireless signal, and it's like really conductivity riel functionality for applications. >>Yeah, and many. Many of those use case that we're talking about are about, you know, immersive experiences for for end users. So with five t, you get that increasing throughput, you can get up to 10 GPS. You know, it is much higher with what you get 40. You also get lower latents is, but in order to really get make the most out of five G. You need to have the cloud services closer to the end user. So that's what Wavelength is doing is bringing all of those cloud services closer to the end user and combined with five G delivers on these on these applications. You know, um, a couple of customers are actually doing very, very, very exciting things on immersive application, our own immersive experiences. Um, why be VR is a customer that's working on wavelength today to deliver a full 3 60 video off sports events, and it's like you're there. They basically take all of those video streams. They process them in the waving zone and then put them back down to your to your VR headset. But don't you have seen those? We are headsets there, these bulky, awkward, big things because we can do a lot of the processing now at the edge rather than on the heads of itself. We are envisioning that these headsets will Will will string down to something that's indistinguishable potential from, you know, your glasses, making that user experience much better. >>Yeah, from anything from first responders toe large gatherings of people having immersive experiences, it's only gonna get better. Jorge. Thanks for coming on. The Cuban explaining wavelength graduates on the news and expansion. A lot more cities. Um, what's your take for reinvent while I got you? What's the big take away for you this year? Obviously. Virtual, but what's the big moment for you? >>Well, I think that the big moment for me is that we're continuing to, you know, to deliver for our customers. Obviously, a very difficult year for everyone and being able to, you know, with our help off our customers and our partners deliver on the reinvent promised this year as well. It is really impressed for >>me. All right. Great to have you on. Congratulations on local news. Great to see Andy pumping up wavelength. Ah, lot more work. We'll check in with you throughout the year. A lot to talk about. A lot of societal issues and certainly a lot of a lot of controversy as well as tech for good, great stuff. Thanks for coming. I appreciate it. >>Thanks for having me. Thanks. >>Okay, That's the cube. Virtual. I'm John for your host. Thanks for watching. We'll be back with more coverage from reinvent 2023 weeks of coverage. Walter Wall here in the Cube. Thanks for watching. Yeah,

>>from around the >>globe. It's the Cube with digital coverage of AWS reinvent 2020 sponsored by Intel and AWS. Yeah, >>Hi. We are the Cube live covering AWS reinvent 2020. I'm Lisa Martin, and I've got one of our cube alumni back with me. Mike Miller is here. General manager of A W s AI Devices at AWS. Mike, welcome back to the Cube. >>Hi, Lisa. Thank you so much for having me. It's really great to join you all again at this virtual reinvent. >>Yes, I think last year you were on set. We have always had to. That's at reinvent. And you you had the deep race, your car, and so we're obviously socially distance here. But talk to me about deepracer. What's going on? Some of the things that have gone on the last year that you're excited >>about. Yeah, I'd love to tell. Tell you a little bit about what's been happening. We've had a tremendous year. Obviously, Cove. It has restricted our ability to have our in person races. Eso we've really gone gone gangbusters with our virtual league. So we have monthly races for competitors that culminate in the championship. Um, at reinvent. So this year we've got over 100 competitors who have qualified and who are racing virtually with us this year at reinvent. They're participating in a series of knockout rounds that are being broadcast live on twitch over the next week. That will whittle the group down to AH Group of 32 which will have a Siris of single elimination brackets leading to eight finalists who will race Grand Prix style five laps, eight cars on the track at the same time and will crown the champion at the closing keynote on December 15th this year. >>Exciting? So you're bringing a reinforcement, learning together with with sports that so many of us have been missing during the pandemic. We talked to me a little bit about some of the things that air that you've improved with Deep Racer and some of the things that are coming next year. Yeah, >>absolutely so, First of all, Deep Racer not only has been interesting for individuals to participate in the league, but we continue to see great traction and adoption amongst big customers on dare, using Deep Racer for hands on learning for machine learning, and many of them are turning to Deep Racer to train their workforce in machine learning. So over 150 customers from the likes of Capital One Moody's, Accenture, DBS Bank, JPMorgan Chase, BMW and Toyota have held Deep Racer events for their workforces. And in fact, three of those customers Accenture, DBS Bank and J. P. Morgan Chase have each trained over 1000 employees in their organization because they're just super excited. And they find that deep racers away to drive that excitement and engagement across their customers. We even have Capital one expanded this to their families, so Capital One ran a deep raise. Their Kids Cup, a family friendly virtual competition this past year were over. 250 Children and 200 families got to get hands on with machine learning. >>So I envisioned some. You know, this being a big facilitator during the pandemic when there's been this massive shift to remote work has have you seen an uptick in it for companies that talking about training need to be ableto higher? Many, many more people remotely but also train them? Is deep Racer facilitator of that? Yeah, >>absolutely. Deep Racer has ah core component of the experience, which is all virtualized. So we have, ah, console and integration with other AWS services so that racers can participate using a three d racing simulator. They can actually see their car driving around a track in a three D world simulation. Um, we're also selling the physical devices. So you know, if participants want to get the one of those devices and translate what they've done in the virtual world to the real world, they can start doing that. And in fact, just this past year, we made our deep race or car available for purchase internationally through the Amazon Com website to help facilitate that. >>So how maney deep racers air out there? I'm just curious. >>Oh, thousands. Um, you know, And there what? What we've seen is some companies will purchase you, know them in bulk and use them for their internal leagues. Just like you know, JP Morgan Chase on DBS Bank. These folks have their own kind of tracks and racers that they'll use to facilitate both in person as well as the virtual racing. >>I'm curious with this shift to remote that we mentioned a minute ago. How are you seeing deepracer as a facilitator of engagement. You mentioned engagement. And that's one of the biggest challenges that so Maney teams develops. Processes have without being co located with each other deep Brister help with that. I mean, from an engagement perspective, I think >>so. What we've seen is that Deep Racer is just fun to get your hands on. And we really lower the learning curve for machine learning. And in particular, this branch called reinforcement Learning, which is where you train this agent through trial and error toe, learn how to do a new, complex task. Um, and what we've seen is that customers who have introduced Deep Racer, um, as an event for their employees have seen ah, very wide variety of employees. Skill sets, um, kind of get engaged. So you've got not just the hardcore deep data scientists or the M L engineers. You've got Web front end programmers. You even have some non technical folks who want to get their hands dirty. Onda learn about machine learning and Deep Racer really is a nice, gradual introduction to doing that. You can get engaged with it with very little kind of coding knowledge at all. >>So talk to me about some of the new services. And let's look at some specific use case customer use cases with each service. Yeah, >>absolutely. So just to set the context. You know, Amazon's got hundreds. A ws has hundreds of thousands of customers doing machine learning on AWS. No customers of all sizes are embedding machine learning into their no core business processes. And one of the things that we always do it Amazon is We're listening to customers. You know, 90 to 95% of our road maps are driven by customer feedback. And so, as we've been talking to these industrial manufacturing customers, they've been telling us, Hey, we've got data. We've got these processes that are happening in our industrial sites. Um, and we just need some help connecting the dots like, how do we really most effectively use machine learning to improve our processes in these industrial and manufacturing sites? And so we've come up with these five services. They're focused on industrial manufacturing customers, uh, two of the services air focused around, um, predictive maintenance and, uh, the other three services air focused on computer vision. Um, and so let's start with the predictive maintenance side. So we announced Amazon Monitor On and Amazon look out for equipment. So these services both enable predictive maintenance powered by machine learning in a way that doesn't require the customer to have any machine learning expertise. So Mono Tron is an end to end machine learning system with sensors, gateway and an ML service that can detect anomalies and predict when industrial equipment will require maintenance. I've actually got a couple examples here of the sensors in the gateway, so this is Amazon monitor on these little sensors. This little guy is a vibration and temperature sensor that's battery operated, and wireless connects to the gateway, which then transfers the data up to the M L Service in the cloud. And what happens is, um, the sensors can be connected to any rotating machinery like pump. Pour a fan or a compressor, and they will send data up to the machine learning cloud service, which will detect anomalies or sort of irregular kind of sensor readings and then alert via a mobile app. Just a tech or a maintenance technician at an industrial site to go have a look at their equipment and do some preventative maintenance. So um, it's super extreme line to end to end and easy for, you know, a company that has no machine learning expertise to take advantage of >>really helping them get on board quite quickly. Yeah, >>absolutely. It's simple tea set up. There's really very little configuration. It's just a matter of placing the sensors, pairing them up with the mobile app and you're off and running. >>Excellent. I like easy. So some of the other use cases? Yeah, absolutely. >>So So we've seen. So Amazon fulfillment centers actually have, um, enormous amounts of equipment you can imagine, you know, the size of an Amazon fulfillment center. 28 football fields, long miles of conveyor belts and Amazon fulfillment centers have started to use Amazon monitor on, uh, to monitor some of their conveyor belts. And we've got a filament center in Germany that has started using these 1000 sensors, and they've already been able to, you know, do predictive maintenance and prevent downtime, which is super costly, you know, for businesses, we've also got customers like Fender, you know, who makes guitars and amplifiers and musical equipment. Here in the US, they're adopting Amazon monitor on for their industrial machinery, um, to help prevent downtime, which again can cost them a great deal as they kind of hand manufacture these high end guitars. Then there's Amazon. Look out for equipment, which is one step further from Amazon monitor on Amazon. Look out for equipment. Um provides a way for customers to send their own sensor data to AWS in order to build and train a model that returns predictions for detecting abnormal equipment behavior. So here we have a customer, for example, like GP uh, E P s in South Korea, or I'm sorry, g S E P s in South Korea there in industrial conglomerate, and they've been collecting their own data. So they have their own sensors from industrial equipment for a decade. And they've been using just kind of rule basic rules based systems to try to gain insight into that data. Well, now they're using Amazon, look out for equipment to take all of their existing sensor data, have Amazon for equipment, automatically generate machine learning models on, then process the sensor data to know when they're abnormalities or when some predictive maintenance needs to occur. >>So you've got the capabilities of working with with customers and industry that that don't have any ML training to those that do have been using sensors. So really, everybody has an opportunity here to leverage this new Amazon technology, not only for predicted, but one of the things I'm hearing is contact list, being able to understand what's going on without having to have someone physically there unless there is an issue in contact. This is not one of the words of 2020 but I think it probably should be. >>Yeah, absolutely. And in fact, that that was some of the genesis of some of the next industrial services that we announced that are based on computer vision. What we saw on what we heard when talking to these customers is they have what we call human inspection processes or manual inspection processes that are required today for everything from, you know, monitoring you like workplace safety, too, you know, quality of goods coming off of a machinery line or monitoring their yard and sort of their, you know, truck entry and exit on their looking for computer vision toe automate a lot of these tasks. And so we just announced a couple new services that use computer vision to do that to automate these once previously manual inspection tasks. So let's start with a W A. W s Panorama uses computer vision toe improve those operations and workplace safety. AWS Panorama is, uh, comes in two flavors. There's an appliance, which is, ah, box like this. Um, it basically can go get installed on your network, and it will automatically discover and start processing the video feeds from existing cameras. So there's no additional capital expense to take a W s panorama and have it apply computer vision to the cameras that you've already got deployed, you know, So customers are are seeing that, um, you know, computer vision is valuable, but the reason they want to do this at the edge and put this computer vision on site is because sometimes they need to make very low Leighton see decisions where if you have, like a fast moving industrial process, you can use computer vision. But I don't really want to incur the cost of sending data to the cloud and back. I need to make a split second decision, so we need machine learning that happens on premise. Sometimes they don't want to stream high bandwidth video. Or they just don't have the bandwidth to get this video back to the cloud and sometimes their data governance or privacy restrictions that restrict the company's ability to send images or video from their site, um, off site to the cloud. And so this is why Panorama takes this machine learning and makes it happen right here on the edge for customers. So we've got customers like Cargill who uses or who is going to use Panorama to improve their yard management. They wanna use computer vision to detect the size of trucks that drive into their granaries and then automatically assign them to an appropriately sized loading dock. You've got a customer like Siemens Mobility who you know, works with municipalities on, you know, traffic on by other transport solutions. They're going to use AWS Panorama to take advantage of those existing kind of traffic cameras and build machine learning models that can, you know, improve congestion, allocate curbside space, optimize parking. We've also got retail customers. For instance, Parkland is a Canadian fuel station, um, and retailer, you know, like a little quick stop, and they want to use Panorama to do things like count the people coming in and out of their stores and do heat maps like, Where are people visiting my store so I can optimize retail promotions and product placement? >>That's fantastic. The number of use cases is just, I imagine if we had more time like you could keep going and going. But thank you so much for not only sharing what's going on with Deep Racer and the innovations, but also for show until even though we weren't in person at reinvent this year, Great to have you back on the Cube. Mike. We appreciate your time. Yeah, thanks, Lisa, for having me. I appreciate it for Mike Miller. I'm Lisa Martin. You're watching the cubes Live coverage of aws reinvent 2020.

>>From around the globe. It's the cube with digital coverage, a BizOps manifesto unveiled brought to you by biz ops coalition. >>Hey, welcome back everybody. Jeff Frick here with the cube. Welcome back to our ongoing coverage of the biz ops manifesto. Unveil. Something has been in the works for a little while. Today's the formal unveiling, and we're excited to have three of the core founding members of the manifesto authors of the manifesto. If you will, uh, joining us again, we've had them all on individually. Now we're going to have a great power panel. First up. We're gonna have Mitt Kirsten returning he's the founder and CEO of Tasktop mic. Good to see you again. Where are you dialing in from? >>Great to see you again, Jeff I'm dialing from Vancouver, >>We're Canada, Vancouver, Canada. One of my favorite cities in the whole wide world. Also we've got Tom Davenport come in from across the country. He's a distinguished professor and author from Babson college, Tom. Great to see you. And I think you said you're at a fun, exotic place on the East coast >>Realm of Memphis shoes. That's on Cape Cod. >>Great to see you again and also joining surge Lucio. He is the VP and general manager enterprise software division at Broadcom surge. Great to see you again, where are you coming in from? >>Uh, from Boston right next to Cape Cod. >>Terrific. So welcome back, everybody again. Congratulations on this day. I know it's been a lot of work to get here for this unveil, but let's just jump into it. The biz ops manifesto, what was the initial reason to do this? And how did you decide to do it in a kind of a coalition, a way bringing together a group of people versus just making it an internal company, uh, initiative that, you know, you can do better stuff within your own company, surge, why don't we start with you? >>Yeah, so, so I think we were at a really critical juncture, right? Many, um, large enterprises are basically struggling with their digital transformation. Um, in fact, um, many recognized that, uh, the, the business side, it collaboration has been, uh, one of the major impediments, uh, to drive that kind of transformation. That, and if we look at the industry today, many people are, whether we're talking about vendors or, um, you know, system integrators, consulting firms are talking about the same kind of concepts, but using very different language. And so we believe that bringing all these different players together, um, as part of the coalition and formalizing, uh, basically the core principles and values in a BizOps manifesto, we can really start to F could have a much bigger movement where we can all talk about kind of the same concepts and we can really start to provide, could have a much better support for large organizations to, to transform. Uh, so whether it is technology or services or, um, or training, I think that that's really the value of bringing all of these players together, right. >>And mic to you. Why did you get involved in this, in this effort? >>So I've been closely involved the agile movement since it started two decades with that manifesto. And I think we got a lot of improvement at the team level, and I think that was just no. Did we really need to improve at the business level? Every company is trying to become a software innovator, trying to make sure that they can pivot quickly and the changing market economy and what everyone's dealing with in terms of needing to deliver value to customers sooner. However, agile practices have really focused on these metrics, these measures and understanding processes that help teams be productive. Those things now need to be elevated to the business as a whole. And that just hasn't happened. Uh, organizations are actually failing because they're measuring activities and how they're becoming more agile, how teams are functioning, not how much quickly they're delivering value to the customer. So we need to now move past that. And that's exactly what the manifesto provides. Right, >>Right, right. And Tom, to you, you've been covering tech for a very long time. You've been looking at really hard challenges and a lot of work around analytics and data and data evolution. So there's a definitely a data angle here. I wonder if you could kind of share your perspective of what you got excited to, uh, to sign onto this manifesto. >>Sure. Well, I have, you know, for the past 15 or 20 years, I've been focusing on data and analytics and AI, but before that I was a process management guy and a knowledge management guy. And in general, I think, you know, we've just kind of optimize that to narrow a level, whether you're talking about agile or dev ops or ML ops, any of these kinds of ops oriented movements, we're making individual project, um, performance and productivity better, but we're not changing the business, uh, effectively enough. And that's the thing that appealed to me about the biz ops idea, that we're finally creating a closer connection between what we do with technology and how it changes the business and provides value to it. >>Great. Uh, surge back to you, right? I mean, people have been talking about digital transformation for a long time and it's been, you know, kind of trucking along and then covert hit and it was instant Lightswitch. Everyone's working from home. You've got a lot more reliance on your digital tools, digital communication, uh, both within your customer base and your partner base, but also then your employees when you're, if you could share how that really pushed this all along. Right? Because now suddenly the acceleration of digital transformation is higher. Even more importantly, you got much more critical decisions to make into what you do next. So kind of your portfolio management of projects has been elevated significantly when maybe revenues are down, uh, and you really have to, uh, to prioritize and get it right. >>Yeah. Maybe I'll just start by quoting Satina Nello basically recently said that they're speeding the two years of digital preservation just last two months in any many ways. That's true. Um, but yet when we look at large enterprises, they're still struggling with a kind of a changes in culture. They really need to drive to be able to disrupt themselves. And not surprisingly, you know, when we look at certain parts of the industry, you know, we see some things which are very disturbing, right? So about 40% of the personal loans today are being, uh, origin data it's by fintechs, uh, of a like of Sophie or, uh, or a lending club, right? Not to a traditional brick and mortar for BEC. And so the, well, there is kind of a much more of an appetite and it's a, it's more of a survival type of driver these days. >>Uh, the reality is that's in order for these large enterprises to truly transform and engage on this digital transformation, they need to start to really align the business nightie, you know, in many ways and make cover. Does agile really emerge from the core desire to truly improve software predictability between which we've really missed is all the way we start to aligning the software predictability to business predictability, and to be able to have continual sleep continuous improvement and measurement of business outcomes. So by aligning that of these, uh, discuss inward metrics, that's, it is typically being using to business outcomes. We think we can start to really ELP, uh, different stakeholders within the organization to collaborate. So I think there is more than ever. There's an imperative to acts now. Um, and, and resolves, I think is kind of the right approach to drive that kind of transformation. Right. >>I want to follow up on the culture comment, uh, with you, Tom, because you've talked before about kind of process flow and process flow throughout a whore and an organization. And, you know, we talk about people process and tech all the time. And I think the tech is the easy part compared to actually changing the people the way they think. And then the actual processes that they put in place. It's a much more difficult issue than just the tech issue to get this digital transformation in your organization. >>Yeah. You know, I've always found that the soft stuff about, you know, the culture of a behavior, the values is the hard stuff to change and more and more, we, we realized that to be successful with any kind of digital transformation you have to change people's behaviors and attitudes. Um, we haven't made as much progress in that area as we might have. I mean, I've done some surveys suggesting that most organizations still don't have data driven cultures. And in many cases there is a lower percentage of companies that say they have that then, um, did a few years ago. So we're kind of moving in the wrong direction, which means I think that we have to start explicitly addressing that, um, cultural, behavioral dimension and not just assuming that it will happen if we, if we build system, if we build it, they won't necessarily come. Right. >>Right. So I want to go to you Nick. Cause you know, we're talking about workflows and flow, um, and, and you've written about flow both in terms of, um, you know, moving things along a process and trying to find bottlenecks, identify bottlenecks, which is now even more important again, when these decisions are much more critical. Cause you have a lot less, uh, wiggle room in tough times, but you also talked about flow from the culture side and the people side. So I wonder if you can just share your thoughts on, you know, using flow as a way to think about things, to get the answers better. >>Yeah, absolutely. And I'll refer back to what Tom has said. If you're optimized, you need to optimize your system. You need to optimize how you innovate and how you deliver value to the business and the customer. Now, what we've noticed in the data, since that we've learned from customers, value streams, enterprise organizations, value streams, is that when it's taking six months at the end to deliver that value with the flow is that slow. You've got a bunch of unhappy developers, unhappy customers when you're innovating half so high performing organizations, we can measure third and 10 float time and dates. All of a sudden that feedback loop, the satisfaction your developer's measurably goes up. So not only do you have people context, switching glass, you're delivering so much more value to customers at a lower cost because you've optimized for flow rather than optimizing for these other approximate tricks that we use, which is how efficient is my agile team. How quickly can we deploy software? Those are important, but they do not provide the value of agility of fast learning of adaptability to the business. And that's exactly what the biz ops manifesto pushes your organization to do. You need to put in place this new operating model that's based on flow on the delivery of business value and on bringing value to market much more quickly than you were before. Right. >>I love that. And I'm going back to you, Tom, on that to follow up. Cause I think, I don't think people think enough about how they prioritize what they're optimizing for. Cause you know, if you're optimizing for a versus B, you know, you can have a very different product that you kick out and let you know. My favorite example is with Clayton Christianson and innovator's dilemma talking about the three inch hard drive. If you optimize it for power, you know, is one thing, if you optimize it for vibration is another thing and sure enough, you know, they missed it on the poem because it was the, it was the game console, which, which drove that whole business. So when you, when you're talking to customers and we think we hear it with cloud all the time, people optimizing for cost efficiency, instead of thinking about it as an innovation tool, how do you help them kind of rethink and really, you know, force them to, to look at the, at the prioritization and make sure they're prioritizing on the right thing is make just said, what are you optimizing for? >>Oh yeah. Um, you have one of the most important aspects of any decision or, um, attempt to resolve a problem in an organization is the framing process. And, um, you know, it's, it's a difficult aspect of the decision to frame it correctly in the first place. Um, there, it's not a technology issue. In many cases, it's largely a human issue, but if you frame that decision or that problem incorrectly to narrowly say, or you frame it as an either or situation where you could actually have some of both, um, it, it's very difficult for the, um, process to work out correctly. So in many cases that I think we need to think more at the beginning about how we bring this issue or this decision in the best way possible before we charge off and build a system to support it. You know, um, it's worth that extra time to think, think carefully about how the decision has been structured, right >>Surgery. I want to go back to you and talk about the human factors because as we just discussed, you can put it in great technology, but if the culture doesn't adopt it and people don't feel good about it, you know, it's not going to be successful and that's going to reflect poorly on the technology, even if it had nothing to do with it. And you know, when you look at the, the, the core values, uh, of the Bezos manifesto, you know, a big one is trust and collaboration, you know, learn, respond and pivot. I wonder if you can share your thoughts on, on trying to get that cultural shift, uh, so that you can have success with the people or excuse me, with the technology in the process and helping customers, you know, take this more trustworthy and kind of proactive, uh, position. >>So I think, I think at the ground level, it truly starts with the realization that we're all different. We come from different backgrounds. Um, oftentimes we tend to blame the data. It's not uncommon my experiments that we spend the first 30 minutes of any kind of one hour conversation to debate the validity of the data. Um, and so, um, one of the first kind of, uh, probably manifestations that we've had or revelations as we start to engage with our customers is spike, just exposing, uh, high-fidelity data sets to different stakeholders from their different lens. We start to enable these different stakeholders to not debate the data. That's really collaborate to find a solution. So in many ways, when, when, when we think about kind of the types of changes we're trying to, to truly affect around data driven decision making, it's all about bringing the data in context, in the context that is relevant and understandable for, for different stakeholders, whether we're talking about an operator or develop for a business analyst. >>So that's, that's the first thing. The second layer I think, is really to provide context to what people are doing in their specific cycle. And so I think one of the best examples I have is if you start to be able to align business KPI, whether you are counting, you know, sales per hour, or the engagements of your users on your mobile applications, whatever it is, you can start to connect that PKI to the business KPI, to the KPIs that developers might be looking at, whether it is the number of defects or a velocity or whatever, you know, metrics that they are used to to actually track you start to, to be able to actually contextualize in what we are the effecting, basically a metric that is really relevant in which we see is that DC is a much more systematic way to approach the transformation than say, you know, some organizations kind of creating, uh, some of these new products or services or initiatives, um, to, to drive engagements, right? >>So if you look at zoom, for instance, zoom giving away a it service to, uh, to education, he's all about, I mean, there's obviously a marketing aspect in therapists. It's fundamentally about trying to drive also the engagement of their own teams. And because now they're doing something for good and the organizations are trying to do that, but you only can do this kind of things in a limited way. And so you really want to start to rethink how you connect to, everybody's kind of a business objective fruit data, and now you start to get people to stare at the same data from their own lens and collaborate on all the data. Right, >>Right. That's a good, uh, Tom, I want to go back to you. You've been studying it for a long time, writing lots of books and getting into it. Um, why now, you know, what w why now are we finally aligning business objectives with, with it objectives? You know, why didn't this happen before? And, you know, what are the factors that are making now the time for this, this, this move with the, uh, with the biz ops? >>Well, and much of the past, it was sort of a back office related activity. And, you know, it was important for, um, uh, producing your paychecks and, uh, um, capturing the customer orders, but the business wasn't built around it now, every organization needs to be a software business, a data business, a digital business, the auntie has been raised considerably. And if you aren't making that connection between your business objectives and the technology that supports it, you run a pretty big risk of, you know, going out of business or losing out to competitors. Totally. So, um, and, uh, even if you're in a, an industry that hasn't historically been terribly, um, technology oriented customer expectations flow from, uh, you know, the digital native, um, companies that they work with to basically every industry. So you're compared against the best in the world. So we don't really have the luxury anymore of screwing up our it projects or building things that don't really work for the business. Um, it's mission critical that we do that well. Um, almost every time, I just want to follow up by that, Tom, >>In terms of the, you've talked extensively about kind of these evolutions of data and analytics from artismal stage to the big data stage, the data economy stage, the AI driven stage and what I find diff interesting that all those stages, you always put a start date. You never put an end date. Um, so you know, is the, is the big data I'm just going to use that generically a moment in time finally here, where we're, you know, off mahogany row with the data scientists, but actually can start to see the promise of delivering the right insight to the right person at the right time to make that decision. >>Well, I think it is true that in general, these previous stages never seemed to go away. The, um, the artisinal stuff is still being done, but we would like for less than less of it to be artisinal, we can't really afford for everything to be artisinal anymore. It's too labor and time consuming to do things that way. So we shift more and more of it to be done through automation and B to be done with a higher level of productivity. And, um, you know, at some point maybe we reached the stage where we don't do anything artisanally anymore. I'm not sure we're there yet, but, you know, we are, we are making progress. Right, >>Right. And Mick, back to you in terms of looking at agile, cause you're, you're such a, a student of agile when, when you look at the opportunity with ops, um, and taking the lessons from agile, you know, what's been the inhibitor to stop this in the past. And what are you so excited about? You know, taking this approach will enable. >>Yeah. I think both Sergeant Tom hit on this is that in agile what's happened is that we've been measuring tiny subsets of the value stream, right? We need to elevate the data's there. Developers are working on these tools that delivering features that the foundations for, for great culture are there. I spent two decades as a developer. And when I was really happy is when I was able to deliver value to customers, the quicker I was able to do that the fewer impediments are in my way, that quicker was deployed and running in the cloud, the happier I was, and that's exactly what's happening. If we can just get the right data, uh, elevated to the business, not just to the agile teams, but really these values of ours are to make sure that you've got these data driven decisions with meaningful data that's oriented around delivering value to customers. Not only these legacies that Tom touched on, which has cost center metrics from an ITK, from where, for it being a cost center and something that provided email and then back office systems. So we need to rapidly shift to those new, meaningful metrics that are customized business centric and make sure that every development the organization is focused on those as well as the business itself, that we're measuring value and that we're helping that value flow without interruptions. >>I love that mic. Cause if you don't measure it, you can't improve on it and you gotta, but you gotta be measuring the right thing. So gentlemen, uh, thank you again for, for your time. Congratulations on the, uh, on the unveil of the biz ops manifesto and together this coalition >>Of, of, uh, industry experts to get behind this. And, you know, there's probably never been a more important time than now to make sure that your prioritization is in the right spot and you're not wasting resources where you're not going to get the ROI. So, uh, congratulations again. And thank you for sharing your thoughts with us here on the cube. Alright, so we had surge, Tom and Mick I'm. Jeff, you're watching the cube, it's a biz ops manifesto and unveil. Thanks for watching. We'll see you next time >>From around the globe. It's the cube with digital coverage of BizOps manifesto, unveiled brought to you by biz ops coalition and welcome back Friday, Jeff Frick here with the cube we're in our Palo Alto studios. And we'd like to welcome you back to our continuing coverage of biz ops manifesto, unveil exciting day to really, uh, kind of bring this out into public. There's been a little bit of conversation, but today's really the official unveiling and we're excited to have our next guest to share a little bit more information on it. He's Patrick tickle. He's a chief product officer for planned view. Patrick. Great to see you. Yeah, it's great to be here. Thanks for the invite. So why the biz ops manifesto, why the biz optical edition now when you guys have been at it, it's relatively mature marketplace businesses. Good. What was missing? Why, why this, uh, why this coalition? >>Yeah, so, you know, again, why is, why is biz ops important and why is this something I'm, you know, I'm so excited about, but I think companies as well, right. Well, you know, in some ways or another, this is a topic that I've been talking to, you know, the market and our customers about for a long time. And it's, you know, I really applaud, you know, this whole movement, right. And, um, in resonates with me, because I think one of the fundamental flaws, frankly, of the way we've talked about technology and business literally for decades, uh, has been this idea of, uh, alignment. Those who know me, I occasionally get off on this little rant about the word alignment, right. But to me, the word alignment is, is actually indicative of the, of the, of the flaw in a lot of our organizations and biz ops is really, I think now trying to catalyze and expose that flaw. >>Right. Because, you know, I always say that, you know, you know, alignment implies silos, right. Instantaneously, as soon as you say there's alignment, there's, there's obviously somebody who's got a direction and other people that have to line up and that, that kind of siloed, uh, nature of organizations. And then frankly, the passive nature of it. Right. I think so many technology organizations are like, look, the business has the strategy you guys need to align. Right. And, and, you know, as a product leader, right. That's where I've been my whole career. Right. I can tell you that I never sit around. I almost never use the word alignment. Right. I mean, whether I never sit down and say, you know, the product management team has to get aligned with Deb, right. Or the dev team has to get aligned with the delivery and ops teams. I mean, what I say is, you know, are we on strategy, right? >>Like we've, we have a strategy as a, as a full end to end value stream. Right. And that there's no silos. And I mean, look, every on any given day we got to get better. Right. But the context, the context we operate is not about alignment. Right. It's about being on strategy. And I think I've talked to customers a lot about that, but when I first read the manifesto, I was like, Oh yeah, this is exactly. This is breaking down. Maybe trying to eliminate the word alignment, you know, from a lot of our organizations, because we literally start thinking about one strategy and how we go from strategy to delivery and have it be our strategy, not someone else's that we're all aligning to it. And it's a great way to catalyze that conversation. That I've, it's been in my mind for years, to be honest. Right. >>So, so much to unpack there. One of the things obviously, uh, stealing a lot from, from dev ops and the dev ops manifesto from 20 years ago. And as I look through some of the principles and I looked through some of the values, which are, you know, really nicely laid out here, you know, satisfy customers, do continuous delivery, uh, measure, output against real results. Um, the ones that, that jumps out though is really about, you know, change, change, right? Requirements should change frequently. They do change frequently, but I'm curious to get your take from a, from a software development point, it's easy to kind of understand, right. We're making this widget and our competitors, beta widget plus X, and now we need to change our plans and make sure that the plus X gets added to the plan. Maybe it wasn't in the plan, but you talked a lot about product strategy. So in this kind of continuous delivery world, how does that meld with, I'm actually trying to set a strategy, which implies the direction for a little bit further out on the horizon and to stay on that while at the same time, you're kind of doing this real time continual adjustments. Cause you're not working off a giant PRD or MRD anymore. >>Yeah, yeah, totally. Yeah. You know, one of the terms, you know, that we use internally a lot and even with my customers, our customers is we talked about this idea of rewiring, right. And I think, you know, it's kind of a, now an analogy for transformation. And I think a lot of us have to rewire the way we think about things. Right. And I think at Planview where we have a lot of customers who live in that, you know, who operationalize that traditional PPM world. Right. And are shifting to agile and transforming that rewire is super important. And, and to your point, right, it's, you've just, you've got to embrace this idea of, you know, just iterative getting better every day and iterating, iterating, iterating as to building annual plans or, you know, I get customers occasionally who asked me for two or three year roadmap. >>Right. And I literally looked at them and I go, there's no, there's no scenario where I can build a two or three year roadmap. Right. You, you, you think you want that, but that's not, that's not the way we run. Right. And I will tell you the biggest thing that for us, you know, that I think is matched the planning, uh, you know, patents is a word I like to use a lot. So the thing that we've like, uh, that we've done from a planning perspective, I think is matched impedance to continuous delivery is instituting the whole program, implement, you know, the program, increment planning, capabilities and methodologies, um, in the scaled agile world. Right. And over the last 18 months to two years, we really have now, you know, instrumented our company across three value streams. You know, we do quarterly PI program increment 10 week planning, you know, and that becomes, that becomes the Terra firma of how we plant. >>Right. And it's, what are we doing for the next 10 weeks? And we iterate within those 10 weeks, but we also know that 10 weeks from now, we're going to, we're going to adjust iterate again. Right. And that shifting of that planning model, you know, to being as cross-functional is that as that big room planning kind of model is, um, and also, uh, you know, on that shorter increment, when you get those two things in place, all sudden the impedance really starts to match up, uh, with continuous delivery and it changes, it changes the way you plan and it changes the way you work. Right? >>Yeah. Their thing. Right. So obviously a lot of these things are kind of process driven, both within the values, as well as the principles, but there's a whole lot, really about culture. And I just want to highlight a couple of the values, right? We already talked about business outcomes, um, trust and collaboration, uh, data driven decisions, and then learn, respond and pivot. Right. A lot of those are cultural as much as they are process. So again, is it the, is it the need to really kind of just put them down on paper and you know, I can't help, but think of, you know, the hammering up the, uh, the thing in the Lutheran church with their, with their manifesto, is it just good to get it down on paper? Because when you read these things, you're like, well, of course we should trust people. And of course we need an environment of collaboration and of course we want data driven decisions, but as we all know saying it and living, it are two very, very different things. >>Yeah. Good question. I mean, I think there's a lot of ways you bring that to life you're right. And just hanging up, you know, I think we've all been through the hanging up posters around your office, which these days, right. Unless you're going to hang a poster and everybody's home office. Right. You can't even, you can't even fake it that you think that might work. Right. So, um, you know, you really, I think we've attacked that in a variety of ways. Right. And you definitely have to, you know, you've got to make the shift to a team centric culture, right. Empowered teams, you know, that's a big deal. Right. You know, a lot of, a lot of the people that, you know, we lived in a world of quote unquote, where we were lived in a deep resource management world for a long, long time. >>And right. A lot of our customers still do that, but you know, kind of moving to that team centric world is, uh, is really important and core the trust. Um, I think training is super important, right. We've, you know, we've internally, right. We've trained hundreds employees over the last a year and a half on the fundamentals really of safe. Right. Not necessarily, you know, we've had, we've had teams delivering in scrum and the continuous delivery for, you know, for years, but the scaling aspect of it, uh, is where we've done a lot of training and investment. Um, and then, you know, I think, uh, leadership has to be bought in. Right. You know? And so when we pie plan, you know, myself and Cameron and the other members of our leadership, you know, we're NPI planning, you know, for, for four days. Right. I mean, it's, it's, you've got to walk the walk, you know, from top to bottom and you've got to train on the context. Right. And then you, and then, and, and then once you get through a few cycles where you've done a pivot, right. Or you brought a new team in, and it just works, it becomes kind of this virtuous circle where he'll go, man, this really works so much better than what we used to do. Right. >>Right. The other really key principle to this whole thing is, is aligning, you know, the business leaders and the business prioritization, um, so that you can get to good outcomes with the development and the delivery. Right. And we, we know again, and kind of classic dev ops to get the dev and the production people together. So they can, you know, quickly ship code that works. Um, but adding the business person on there really puts, puts a little extra responsibility that they, they understand the value of a particular feature or particular priority. Uh, they, they can make the, the, the trade offs and that they kind of understand the effort involved too. So, you know, bringing them into this continuous again, kind of this continuous development process, um, to make sure that things are better aligned and really better prioritize. Cause ultimately, you know, we don't live in an infinite resources situation and people got to make trade offs. They got to make decisions as to what goes and what doesn't go in for everything that goes. Right. I always say you pick one thing. Okay. That's 99 other things that couldn't go. So it's really important to have, you know, this, you said alignment of the business priorities as well as, you know, the execution within, within the development. >>Yeah. I think that, you know, uh, you know, I think it was probably close to two years ago. Forester started talking about the age of the customer, right. That, that was like their big theme at the time. Right. And I think to me what that, the age of the customer actually translates to and Mick, Mick and I are both big fans of this whole idea of the project and product shift, mixed book, you know, it was a great piece on a, you're talking about, you know, as part of the manifesto is one of the authors as well, but this shift from project to product, right? Like the age of the customer, in my opinion, the, the embodiment of that is the shift to a product mentality. Right. And, and the product mentality in my opinion, is what brings the business and technology teams together, right? >>Once you, once you're focused on a customer experience is delivered through a product or a service. That's when I that's, when I started to go with the alignment problem goes away, right. Because if you look at software companies, right, I mean, we run product management models yeah. With software development teams, customer success teams, right. That, you know, the software component of these products that people are building is obviously becoming bigger and bigger, you know, in an, in many ways, right. More and more organizations are trying to model themselves over as operationally like software companies. Right. Um, they obviously have lots of other components in their business than just software, but I think that whole model of customer experience equaling product, and then the software component of product, the product is the essence of what changes that alignment equation and brings business and teams together because all of a sudden, everyone knows what the customer's experiencing. Right. And, and that, that, that makes a lot of things very clear, very quickly. >>Right. I'm just curious how far along this was as a process before, before COBIT hit, right. Because serendipitous, whatever. Right. But the sudden, you know, light switch moment, everybody had to go work from home and in March 15th compared to now we're in October and this is going to be going on for a while. And it is a new normal and whatever that whatever's going to look like a year from now, or two years from now is TBD, you know, had you guys already started on this journey cause again, to sit down and actually declare this coalition and declare this manifesto is a lot different than just trying to do better within your own organization. >>Yeah. So we had started, uh, you know, w we definitely had started independently, you know, some, some, you know, I think people in the community know that, uh, we, we came together with a company called lean kit a handful of years ago, and I give John Terry actually one of the founders LeanKit immense credit for, you know, kind of spearheading our cultural change and not, and not because of, we were just gonna be, you know, bringing agile solutions to our customers, but because, you know, he believed that it was going to be a fundamentally better way for us to work. Right. And we kind of, you know, we started with John and built, you know, out of concentric circles of momentum and, and we've gotten to the place where now it's just part of who we are, but, but I do think that, you know, COVID has, you know, um, I think pre COVID a lot of companies, you know, would, would adopt, you know, the would adopt digital slash agile transformation. >>Um, traditional industries may have done it as a reaction to disruption. Right. You know, and in many cases, the disruption to these traditional industries was, I would say a product oriented company, right. That probably had a larger software component, and that disruption caused a competitive issue, uh, or a customer issue that caused companies and tried to respond by transforming. I think COVID, you know, all of a sudden flatten that out, right. We literally all got disrupted. Right. And so all of a sudden, every one of us is dealing with some degree of market uncertainty, customer uncertainty, uh, and also, you know, none of us were insulated from the need to be able to pivot faster, deliver incrementally, you know, and operate in a different, completely more agile way, uh, you know, post COVID. Right. Yeah. That's great. >>So again, a very, very, very timely, you know, a little bit of serendipity, a little bit of planning. And, you know, as, as with all important things, there's always a little bit of lock in, uh, and a lot of hard work involved. So a really interesting thank you for, for your leadership, Patrick. And, you know, it really makes a statement. I think when you have a bunch of leaderships across an industry coming together and putting their name on a piece of paper, uh, that's aligned around us some principles and some values, which again, if you read them who wouldn't want to get behind these, but if it takes, you know, something a little bit more formal, uh, to kind of move the ball down the field, and then I totally get it and a really great work. Thanks for, uh, thanks for doing it. >>Oh, absolutely. No. Like I said, the first time I read it, I was like, yep. Like you said, this is all, it's all makes complete sense, but just documenting it and saying it and talking about it moves the needle. I'll tell you as a company, you gotta, we're pushing really hard on, uh, you know, on our own internal strategy on diversity and inclusion. Right. And, and like, once we wrote the words down about what, you know, what we aspire to be from a diversity and inclusion perspective, it's the same thing. Everybody reads the words that goes, why wouldn't we do this? Right. But until you write it down and kind of have again, a manifesto or a Terra firma of what you're trying to accomplish, you know, then you can rally behind it. Right. As opposed to it being something that's, everybody's got their own version of the flavor. Right. And I think it's a very analogous, you know, kind of, uh, initiative. Right. And, uh, and it's happening, both of those things right. Are happening across the industry these days. Right. >>And measure it too. Right. And measure it, measure, measure, measure, get a baseline. Even if you don't like to measure, even if you don't like what the, even if you can argue against the math, behind the measurement, measure it. And at least you can measure it again and you can, and you've got some type of a comp and that is really the only way to, to move it forward. We're Patrick really enjoyed the conversation. Thanks for, uh, for taking a few minutes out of your day. >>It's great to be here. It's an awesome movement and we're glad to be a part of it. >>All right. Thanks. And if you want to check out the biz ops, Manifesta go to biz ops, manifesto.org, read it. You might want to sign it. It's there for you. And thanks for tuning in on this segment will continuing coverage of the biz op manifesto unveil you're on the cube. I'm Jeff, thanks for watching >>From around the globe. It's the cube with digital coverage of biz ops manifesto unveiled brought to you by biz ops coalition. >>Hey, welcome back, everybody Jeffrey here with the cube. We're coming to you from our Palo Alto studios. And welcome back to this event is the biz ops manifesto unveiling. So the biz ops manifesto and the biz ops coalition had been around for a little while, but today's the big day. That's kind of the big public unveiling, or we're excited to have some of the foundational people that, you know, have put their, put their name on the dotted, if you will, to support this initiative and talk about why that initiative is so important. And so the next guest we're excited to have is dr. Mick Kirsten. He is the founder and CEO of Tasktop mic. Great to see you coming in from Vancouver, Canada, I think, right? Yes. Great to be here, Jeff. Thank you. Absolutely. I hope your air is a little better out there. I know you had some of the worst air of all of us, a couple, a couple of weeks back. So hopefully things are, uh, are getting a little better and we get those fires under control. Yeah. >>Things have cleared up now. So yeah, it's good. It's good to be close to the U S and it's going to have the Arabic cleaner as well. >>Absolutely. So let's, let's jump into it. So you you've been an innovation guy forever starting way back in the day and Xerox park. I was so excited to do an event at Xerox park for the first time last year. I mean, that, that to me represents along with bell labs and, and some other, you know, kind of foundational innovation and technology centers, that's gotta be one of the greatest ones. So I just wonder if you could share some perspective of getting your start there at Xerox park, you know, some of the lessons you learned and what you've been able to kind of carry forward from those days. >>Yeah. I was fortunate to join Xerox park in the computer science lab there at a fairly early point in my career, and to be working on open source programming languages. So back then in the computer science lab, where some of the inventions around programming around software development games, such as object programming, and a lot of what we had around really modern programming levels constructs, those were the teams I had the fortunate of working with, and really our goal was. And of course, there's, as, as you noticed, there's just this DNA of innovation and excitement and innovation in the water. And really it was the model that was all about changing the way that we work was looking at for how we can make it 10 times easier to white coat. But this is back in 99. And we were looking at new ways of expressing, especially business concerns, especially ways of enabling people who are wanting to innovate for their business to express those concerns in code and make that 10 times easier than what that would take. >>So we create a new open source programming language, and we saw some benefits, but not quite quite what we expected. I then went and actually joined Charles Stephanie, that former to fucking from Microsoft who was responsible for, he actually got Microsoft word as a sparking into Microsoft and into the hands of bill Gates and that company that was behind the whole office suite and his vision. And then when I was trying to execute with, working for him was to make PowerPoint like a programming language to make everything completely visual. And I realized none of this was really working, that there was something else, fundamentally wrong programming languages, or new ways of building software. Like let's try and do with Charles around intentional programming. That was not enough. >>That was not enough. So, you know, the agile movement got started about 20 years ago, and we've seen the rise of dev ops and really this kind of embracing of, of, of sprints and, you know, getting away from MRDs and PRDs and these massive definitions of what we're going to build and long build cycles to this iterative process. And this has been going on for a little while. So what was still wrong? What was still missing? Why the biz ops coalition, why the biz ops manifesto? >>Yeah, so I basically think we nailed some of the things that the program language levels of teams can have effective languages deployed to soften to the cloud easily now, right? And at the kind of process and collaboration and planning level agile two decades, decades ago was formed. We were adopting and all the, all the teams I was involved with and it's really become a self problem. So agile tools, agile teams, agile ways of planning, uh, are now very mature. And the whole challenge is when organizations try to scale that. And so what I realized is that the way that agile was scaling across teams and really scaling from the technology part of the organization to the business was just completely flawed. The agile teams had one set of doing things, one set of metrics, one set of tools. And the way that the business was working was planning was investing in technology was just completely disconnected and using a whole different set of measures. Pretty >>Interesting. Cause I think it's pretty clear from the software development teams in terms of what they're trying to deliver. Cause they've got a feature set, right. And they've got bugs and it's easy to, it's easy to see what they deliver, but it sounds like what you're really honing in on is this disconnect on the business side, in terms of, you know, is it the right investment? You know, are we getting the right business ROI on this investment? Was that the right feature? Should we be building another feature or should we building a completely different product set? So it sounds like it's really a core piece of this is to get the right measurement tools, the right measurement data sets so that you can make the right decisions in terms of what you're investing, you know, limited resources. You can't, nobody has unlimited resources. And ultimately you have to decide what to do, which means you're also deciding what not to do. And it sounds like that's a really big piece of this, of this whole effort. >>Yeah. Jeff, that's exactly it, which is the way that the agile team measures their own way of working is very different from the way that you measure business outcomes. The business outcomes are in terms of how happy your customers are, but are you innovating fast enough to keep up with the pace of a rapidly changing economy, roughly changing market. And those are, those are all around the customer. And so what I learned on this long journey of supporting many organizations transformations and having them try to apply those principles of agile and dev ops, that those are not enough, those measures technical practices, uh, those measured sort of technical excellence of bringing code to the market. They don't actually measure business outcomes. And so I realized that it really was much more around having these entwined flow metrics that are customer centric and business centric and market centric where we need it to go. Right. >>So I want to shift gears a little bit and talk about your book because you're also a bestselling author from project to product and, and, and you, you brought up this concept in your book called the flow framework. And it's really interesting to me cause I know, you know, flow on one hand is kind of a workflow and a process flow and, and you know, that's how things get done and, and, and embrace the flow. On the other hand, you know, everyone now in, in a little higher level existential way is trying to get into the flow right into the workflow and, you know, not be interrupted and get into a state where you're kind of at your highest productivity, you know, kind of your highest comfort, which flow are you talking about in your book? Or is it a little bit of both? >>That's a great question. It's not one I get asked very often cause to me it's absolutely both. So that the thing that we want to get, that we've learned how to master individual flow, that there's this beautiful book by me, how you teaches me how he does a beautiful Ted talk by him as well about how we can take control of our own flow. So my question with the book with question replies, how can we bring that to entire teams and really entire organizations? How can we have everyone contributing to a customer outcome? And this is really what if you go to the biz ops manifesto, it says, I focus on outcomes on using data to drive whether we're delivering those outcomes rather than a focus on proxy metrics, such as, how quickly did we implement this feature? No, it's really how much value did the customer go to the future? >>And how quickly did you learn and how quickly did you use that data to drive to that next outcome? Really that with companies like Netflix and Amazon have mastered, how do we get that to every large organization, every it organization and make everyone be a software innovator. So it's to bring that, that concept of flow to these end to end value streams. And the fascinating thing is we've actually seen the data. We've been able to study a lot of value streams. We see when flow increases, when organizations deliver value to a customer faster, developers actually become more happy. So things like that and point out promoter scores, rise, and we've got empirical data for this. So that the beautiful thing to me is that we've actually been able to combine these two things and see the results and the data that you increase flow to the customer. Your developers are more, >>I love it. I love it, right, because we're all more, we're all happier when we're in the flow and we're all more productive when we're in the flow. So I, that is a great melding of, of two concepts, but let's jump into the, into the manifesto itself a little bit. And you know, I love that you took this approach really of having kind of four key values and then he gets 12 key principles. And I just want to read a couple of these values because when you read them, it sounds pretty brain dead. Right? Of course. Right. Of course you should focus on business outcomes. Of course you should have trust and collaboration. Of course you should have database decision making processes and not just intuition or, you know, whoever's the loudest person in the room, uh, and to learn and respond and pivot. But what's the value of actually just putting them on a piece of paper, because again, this is not this, these are all good, positive things, right? When somebody reads these to you or tells you these are sticks it on the wall, of course. But unfortunately of course isn't always enough. >>No. And I think what's happened is some of these core principles originally from the agile manifesto in two decades ago, uh, the whole dev ops movement of the last decade of flow feedback and continue learning has been key. But a lot of organizations, especially the ones undergoing digital transformations have actually gone a very different way, right? The way that they measure value, uh, in technology and innovation is through costs for many organizations. The way that they actually are looking at that they're moving to cloud is actually as a reduction in cost. Whereas the right way of looking at moving to cloud is how much more quickly can we get to the value to the customer? How quickly can we learn from that? And how quickly can we drive the next business outcome? So really the key thing is, is to move away from those old ways of doing things of funding projects and cost centers, to actually funding and investing in outcomes and measuring outcomes through these flow metrics, which in the end are your fast feedback and how quickly you're innovating for your customer. >>So these things do seem very obvious when you look at them. But the key thing is what you need to stop doing to focus on these. You need to actually have accurate realtime data of how much value you fund to the customer every week, every month, every quarter. And if you don't have that, your decisions are not driven on data. If you don't know what your bottleneck is. And this is something that in decades of manufacturing, a car manufacturers, other manufacturers, master, they always know where the bottom back in their production processes. You ask a random CIO when a global 500 company where their bottleneck is, and you won't get a clear answer because there's not that level of understanding. So have to actually follow these principles. You need to know exactly where you fall. And I guess because that's, what's making your developers miserable and frustrated, then having them context, which I'm trash. So the approach here is important and we have to stop doing these other things, >>Right? There's so much there to unpack. I love it. You know, especially the cloud conversation because so many people look at it wrong as, as, as a cost saving a device, as opposed to an innovation driver and they get stuck, they get stuck in the literal. And I, you know, I think at the same thing, always about Moore's law, right? You know, there's a lot of interesting real tech around Moore's law and the increasing power of microprocessors, but the real power, I think in Moore's laws is the attitudinal change in terms of working in a world where you know that you've got all this power and what you build and design. I think it's funny to your, your comment on the flow and the bottleneck, right? Cause, cause we know manufacturing, as soon as you fix one bottleneck, you move to your next one, right? You always move to your next point of failure. So if you're not fixing those things, you know, you're not, you're not increasing that speed down the line, unless you can identify where that bottleneck is or no matter how many improvements you make to the rest of the process, it's still going to get hung up on that one spot. >>That's exactly it. And you also make it sound so simple, but again, if you don't have the data driven visibility of where the bottom line is, and these bottlenecks are adjusted to say, it's just whack-a-mole right. So we need to understand is the bottleneck because our security reviews are taking too long and stopping us from getting value for the customer. If it's that automate that process. And then you move on to the next bottleneck, which might actually be that deploying yourself into the cloud was taking too long. But if you don't take that approach of going flow first, rather than again, that sort of cost reduction. First, you have to think of that approach of customer centricity and you only focused on optimizing costs. Your costs will increase and your flow will slow down. And this is just one of these fascinating things. Whereas if you focus on getting back to the customer and reducing your cycles on getting value, your flow time from six months to two weeks or two, one week or two event, as we see with, with tech giants, you actually can both lower your costs and get much more value that for us to get that learning loop going. >>So I think I've seen all of these cloud deployments and one of the things that's happened that delivered almost no value because there was such big bottlenecks upfront in the process and actually the hosting and the AP testing was not even possible with all of those inefficiencies. So that's why going float for us rather than costs where we started our project versus silky. >>I love that. And, and, and, and it, it begs repeating to that right within the subscription economy, you know, you're on the hook to deliver value every single month because they're paying you every single month. So if you're not on top of how you're delivering value, you're going to get sideways because it's not like, you know, they pay a big down payment and a small maintenance fee every month, but once you're in a subscription relationship, you know, you have to constantly be delivering value and upgrading that value because you're constantly taking money from the customer. So it's such a different kind of relationship than kind of the classic, you know, big bang with a maintenance agreement on the back end really important. Yeah. >>And I think in terms of industry shifts that that's it that's, what's catalyzed. This interesting shift is in this SAS and subscription economy. If you're not delivering more and more value to your customers, someone else's and they're winning the business, not you. So one way we know is to delight our customers with great user experiences. Well, that really is based on how many features you delivered or how much, how big, how many quality improvements or scalar performance improvements you delivered. So the problem is, and this is what the business manifesto, as well as the full frame of touch on is if you can't measure how much value you delivered to a customer, what are you measuring? You just backed again, measuring costs and that's not a measure of value. So we have to shift quickly away from measuring cost to measuring value, to survive in the subscription economy. >>We could go for days and days and days. I want to shift gears a little bit into data and, and, and a data driven, um, decision making a data driven organization cause right day has been talked about for a long time, the huge big data meme with, with Hadoop over, over several years and, and data warehouses and data lakes and data oceans and data swamps, and can go on and on and on. It's not that easy to do, right? And at the same time, the proliferation of data is growing exponentially. We're just around the corner from, from IOT and 5g. So now the accumulation of data at machine scale, again, this is going to overwhelm and one of the really interesting principles, uh, that I wanted to call out and get your take right, is today's organizations generate more data than humans can process. So informed decisions must be augmented by machine learning and artificial intelligence. I wonder if you can, again, you've got some great historical perspective, um, reflect on how hard it is to get the right data, to get the data in the right context, and then to deliver it to the decision makers and then trust the decision makers to actually make the data and move that down. You know, it's kind of this democratization process into more and more people and more and more frontline jobs making more and more of these little decisions every day. >>Yeah. I definitely think the front parts of what you said are where the promises of big data have completely fallen on their face into the swamps as, as you mentioned, because if you don't have the data in the right format, you've cannot connect collected at the right way. You want that way, the right way you can't use human or machine learning effectively. And there've been the number of data warehouses in a typical enterprise organization. And the sheer investment is tremendous, but the amount of intelligence being extracted from those is, is, is a very big problem. So the key thing that I've noticed is that if you can model your value streams, so yes, you understand how you're innovating, how you're measuring the delivery of value and how long that takes. What is your time to value these metrics like full time? You can actually use both the intelligence that you've got around the table and push that down as well, as far as getting to the organization, but you can actually start using that those models to understand and find patterns and detect bottlenecks that might be surprising, right? >>Well, you can detect interesting bottlenecks when you shift to work from home. We detected all sorts of interesting bottlenecks in our own organization that were not intuitive to me that had to do with, you know, more senior people being overloaded and creating bottlenecks where they didn't exist. Whereas we thought we were actually an organization that was very good at working from home because of our open source roots. So that data is highly complex. Software value streams are extremely complicated. And the only way to really get the proper analyst and data is to model it properly and then to leverage these machine learning and AI techniques that we have. But that front part of what you said is where organizations are just extremely immature in what I've seen, where they've got data from all their tools, but not modeled in the right way. Right, right. >>Right. Well, all right. So before I let you go, you know, let's say you get a business leader, he buys in, he reads the manifesto, he signs on the dotted line and he says, Mick, how do I get started? I want to be more aligned with, with the development teams. You know, I'm in a very competitive space. We need to be putting out new software features and engaging with our customers. I want to be more data-driven how do I get started? Well, you know, what's the biggest inhibitor for most people to get started and get some early wins, which we know is always the key to success in any kind of a new initiative. >>Right? So I think you can reach out to us through the website, uh, there's the manifesto, but the key thing is just to get you set up it's to get started and to get the key wins. So take a probably value stream that's mission critical. It could be your new mobile and web experiences or, or part of your cloud modernization platform or your analytics pipeline, but take that and actually apply these principles to it and measure the end to end flow of value. Make sure you have a value metric that everyone is on the same page on the people, on the development teams, the people in leadership all the way up to the CEO. And one of the, what I encourage you to start is actually that content flow time, right? That is the number one metric. That is how you measure it, whether you're getting the benefit of your cloud modernization, that is the one metric that Adrian Cockcroft. When the people I respect tremendously put into his cloud for CEOs, the metric, the one, the one way to measure innovation. So basically take these principles, deploy them on one product value stream, measure, sentiment, flow time, and then you'll actually be well on your path to transforming and to applying the concepts of agile and dev ops all the way to, to the business, to the way >>You're offering model. >>Well, Mick really great tips, really fun to catch up. I look forward to a time when we can actually sit across the table and, and get into this. Cause I just, I just love the perspective and, you know, you're very fortunate to have that foundational, that foundational base coming from Xerox park and they get, you know, it's, it's a very magical place with a magical history. So to, to incorporate that into, continue to spread that well, uh, you know, good for you through the book and through your company. So thanks for sharing your insight with us today. >>Thanks so much for having me, Jeff. >>All right. And go to the biz ops manifesto.org, read it, check it out. If you want to sign it, sign it. They'd love to have you do it. Stay with us for continuing coverage of the unveiling of the business manifesto on the cube. I'm Jeff. Rick. Thanks for watching. See you next time >>From around the globe. It's the cube with digital coverage of biz ops manifesto unveiled brought to you by biz ops coalition. >>Hey, welcome back everybody. Jeff Frick here with the cube come due from our Palo Alto studios today for a big, big reveal. We're excited to be here. It's the biz ops manifesto unveiling a thing's been in the works for awhile and we're excited to have our next guest. One of the, really the powers behind this whole effort. And he's joining us from Boston it's surge, Lucio, the vice president, and general manager enterprise software division at Broadcom surge. Great to see you. >>Hi, good to see you, Jeff. Glad to be here. >>So you've been in this business for a very long time. You've seen a lot of changes in technology. What is the biz ops manifesto? What is this coalition all about? Why do we need this today and in 2020? >>Yeah. So, so I've been in this business for close to 25 years, right? So about 20 years ago, the agile manifesto was created. And the goal of the agile manifesto was really to address the uncertainty around software development and the inability to predict the efforts to build software. And, uh, if you, if you roll that kind of 20 years later, and if you look at the current state of the industry, uh, the product, the project management Institute, estimates that we're wasting about a million dollars, every 20 seconds in digital transformation initiatives that do not deliver on business results. In fact, we were recently served a third of the, uh, a number of executives in partnership with Harvard business review and 77% of those executives think that one of the key challenges that they have is really at the collaboration between business and it, and that that's been kind of a case for, uh, almost 20 years now. >>Um, so the, the, the key challenge we're faced with is really that we need a new approach and many of the players in the industry, including ourselves, I've been using different terms, right? Some are being, are talking about value stream management. Some are talking about software delivery management. If you look at the site, reliability engineering movement, in many ways, it embodies a lot of these kind of concepts and principles. So we believed that it became really imperative for us to crystallize around, could have one concept. And so in many ways, the, uh, the BizOps concept and the business manifesto are bringing together a number of ideas, which have been emerging in the last five years or so, and, and defining the key values and principles to finally help these organizations truly transform and become digital businesses. And so the hope is that by joining our forces and defining public key principles and values, we can help the industry, uh, not just, uh, by, you know, providing them with support, but also, uh, tools and consulting that is required for them to truly achieve the kind of transformation that everybody's seeking. >>Right, right. So COVID now we're six months into it, approximately seven months into it. Um, a lot of pain, a lot of bad stuff still happening. We've got a ways to go, but one of the things that on the positive side, right, and you've seen all the memes and social media is, is a driver of digital transformation and a driver of change. Cause we had this light switch moment in the middle of March and there was no more planning. There was no more conversation. You've suddenly got remote workforces, everybody's working from home and you got to go, right. So the reliance on these tools increases dramatically, but I'm curious, you know, kind of short of, of the beginnings of this effort in short of kind of COVID, which, you know, came along unexpectedly. I mean, what were those inhibitors because we've been making software for a very long time, right? The software development community has, has adopted kind of rapid change and, and iterative, uh, delivery and, and sprints, what was holding back the connection with the business side to make sure that those investments were properly aligned with outcomes. >>Well, so, so you have to understand that it is, is kind of a its own silos. And traditionally it has been treated as a cost center within large organizations and not as a value center. And so as a result could have a traditional dynamic between it and the business is basically one of a kind of supplier up to kind of a business. Um, and you know, if you, if you go back to, uh, I think you'll unmask a few years ago, um, basically at this concept of the machines to build the machines and you went as far as saying that, uh, the machines or the production line is actually the product. So, um, meaning that the core of the innovation is really about, uh, building, could it be engine to deliver on the value? And so in many ways, you know, we have missed on this shift from, um, kind of it becoming this kind of value center within the enterprises. >>And, and he talks about culture. Now, culture is a, is a sum total of beavers. And the reality is that if you look at it, especially in the last decade, uh, we've agile with dev ops with, um, I bring infrastructures, uh, it's, it's way more volatile today than it was 10 years ago. And so the, when you start to look at the velocity of the data, the volume of data, the variety of data to analyze this system, um, it's, it's very challenging for it to actually even understand and optimize its own processes, let alone, um, to actually include business as sort of an integral part of kind of a delivery chain. And so it's both kind of a combination of, of culture, um, which is required as well as tools, right? To be able to start to bring together all these data together, and then given the volume variety of philosophy of the data, uh, we have to apply some core technologies, which have only really, truly emerged in the last five to 10 years around machine learning and analytics. And so it's really kind of a combination of those freaks, which are coming together today to really help organizations kind of get to the next level. Right, >>Right. So let's talk about the manifesto. Let's talk about, uh, the coalition, uh, the BizOps coalition. I just liked that you put down these really simple, you know, kind of straightforward core values. You guys have four core values that you're highlighting, you know, business outcomes, over individual projects and outputs, trust, and collaboration, oversight, load teams, and organizations, data driven decisions, what you just talked about, uh, you know, over opinions and judgment and learned, respond and pivot. I mean, surgery sounds like pretty basic stuff, right? I mean, aren't, isn't everyone working to these values already. And I think he touched on it on culture, right? Trust and collaboration, data driven decisions. I mean, these are fundamental ways that people must run their business today, or the person that's across the street, that's doing it. It's going to knock them out right off their blog. >>Yeah. So that's very true. But, uh, so I'll, I'll mention in our survey, we did, uh, I think about six months ago and it was in partnership with, uh, with, uh, an industry analyst and we serve at a, again, a number of it executives to understand how many we're tracking business outcomes I'm going to do with the software executives. It executives we're tracking business outcomes. And the, there were less than 15% of these executives were actually tracking the outcomes of a software delivery. And you see that every day. Right? So in my own teams, for instance, we've been adopting a lot of these core principles in the last year or so, and we've uncovered that 16% of our resources were basically aligned around initiatives, which are not strategic for us. Um, I take, you know, another example, for instance, one of our customers in the, uh, in the airline industry and Harvard, for instance, that a number of, uh, um, that they had software issues that led to people searching for flights and not returning any kind of availability. >>And yet, um, you know, the, it teams, whether it's operations, software environments were completely oblivious to that because they were completely blindsided to it. And so the connectivity between kind of the inwards metrics that RT is using, whether it's database time, cycle time, or whatever metric we use in it are typically completely divorced from the business metrics. And so at its core, it's really about starting to align the business metrics with what the, the software delivery chain, right? This, uh, the system, which is really a core differentiator for these organizations. It's about connecting those two things and, and starting to, um, infuse some of the agile culture and principles. Um, that's emerged from the software side into the business side. Um, of course the lean movement and other movements have started to change some of these dynamic on the, on the business side. And so I think this, this is the moment where we are starting to see kind of the imperative to transform. Now, you know, Covina obviously has been a key driver for that. The, um, the technology is right to start to be able to weave data together and really kind of, uh, also the cultural shifts, uh, Prue agile through dev ops through, uh, the SRE movement, uh frulein um, business transformation, all these things are coming together and that are really creating kind of the conditions for the BizOps manifesto to exist. >>So, uh, Clayton Christianson, great, uh, Harvard professor innovator's dilemma might still my all time favorite business books, you know, talks about how difficult it is for incumbents to react to, to disruptive change, right? Because they're always working on incremental change because that's what their customers are asking for. And there's a good ROI when you talk about, you know, companies not measuring the right thing. I mean, clearly it has some portion of their budget that has to go to keeping the lights on, right. That that's always the case, but hopefully that's an, an ever decreasing percentage of their total activity. So, you know, what should people be measuring? I mean, what are kind of the new metrics, um, in, in biz ops that drive people to be looking at the right things, measuring the right things and subsequently making the right decisions, investment decisions on whether they should do, you know, move project a along or project B. >>So there, there are only two things, right? So, so I think what you're talking about is portfolio management, investment management, right. And, um, which, which is a key challenge, right? Um, in my own experience, right? Uh, driving strategy or a large scale kind of software organization for years, um, it's very difficult to even get kind of a base data as to who is doing what, uh, um, I mean, some of our largest customers we're engaged with right now are simply trying to get a very simple answer, which is how many people do I have and that specific initiative at any point in time, and just tracking that information is extremely difficult. So, and again, back to a product project management Institute, um, there, they have estimated that on average, it organizations have anywhere between 10 to 20% of their resources focused on initiatives, which are not strategically aligned. >>So, so that's one dimensional portfolio management. I think the key aspect though, that we are, we're really keen on is really around kind of the alignment of a business metrics to the it metrics. Um, so I'll use kind of two simple examples, right? And my background is around quality and I've always believed that the fitness for purpose is really kind of a key, um, uh, philosophy if you will. And so if you start to think about quality as fitness for purpose, you start to look at it from a customer point of view, right. And fitness for purpose for a core banking application or mobile application are different, right? So the definition of a business value that you're trying to achieve is different. Um, and so the, and yeah, if you look at our, it, operations are operating there, we're using kind of a same type of, uh, kind of inward metrics, uh, like a database off time or a cycle time, or what is my point of velocity, right? >>And so the challenge really is this inward facing metrics that it is using, which are divorced from ultimately the outcome. And so, you know, if I'm, if I'm trying to build a poor banking application, my core metric is likely going to be uptight, right? If I'm trying to build a mobile application or maybe your social, a mobile app, it's probably going to be engagement. And so what you want is for everybody across it, to look at these metric and what are the metrics within the software delivery chain, which ultimately contribute to that business metric. And some cases cycle time may be completely irrelevant, right? Again, my core banking app, maybe I don't care about cycle time. And so it's really about aligning those metrics and be able to start to, um, Charles you mentioned, uh, around the, the, um, uh, around the disruption that we see is, or the investors is the dilemma now is really around the fact that many it organizations are essentially applying the same approaches of, for innovation, like for basically scrap work, then they would apply to kind of over more traditional projects. And so, you know, there's been a lot of talk about two-speed it, and yes, it exists, but in reality are really organizations, um, truly differentiating, um, all of the operate, their, their projects and products based on the outcomes that they're trying to achieve. And this is really where BizOps is trying to affect. >>I love that, you know, again, it doesn't seem like brain surgery, but focus on the outcomes, right. And it's horses for courses, as you said, this project, you know, what you're measuring and how you define success, isn't necessarily the same as, as on this other project. So let's talk about some of the principles we talked about the values, but, you know, I think it's interesting that, that, that the BizOps coalition, you know, just basically took the time to write these things down and they don't seem all that super insightful, but I guess you just got to get them down and have them on paper and have them in front of your face. But I want to talk about, you know, one of the key ones, which you just talked about, which is changing requirements, right. And working in a dynamic situation, which is really what's driven, you know, this, the software to change in software development, because, you know, if you're in a game app and your competitor comes out with a new blue sword, you got to come out with a new blue sword. >>So whether you had that on your Kanban wall or not. So it's, it's really this embracing of the speed of change and, and, and, and making that, you know, the rule, not the exception. I think that's a phenomenal one. And the other one you talked about is data, right? And that today's organizations generate more data than humans can process. So informed decisions must be generated by machine learning and AI, and, you know, in the, the big data thing with Hadoop, you know, started years ago, but we are seeing more and more that people are finally figuring it out, that it's not just big data, and it's not even generic machine learning or artificial intelligence, but it's applying those particular data sets and that particular types of algorithms to a specific problem, to your point, to try to actually reach an objective, whether that's, you know, increasing the, your average ticket or, you know, increasing your checkout rate with, with, with shopping carts that don't get left behind in these types of things. So it's a really different way to think about the world in the good old days, probably when you got started, when we had big, giant, you know, MRDs and PRDs and sat down and coded for two years and came out with a product release and hopefully not too many patches subsequently to that. >>It's interesting. Right. Um, again, back to one of these surveys that we did with, uh, with about 600, the ITA executives, and, uh, and, and we, we purposely designed those questions to be pretty open. Um, and, and one of them was really wrong requirements and, uh, and it was really a wrong, uh, kind of what do you, what is the best approach? What is your preferred approach towards requirements? And if I were to remember correctly, over 80% of the it executives set that the best approach they'll prefer to approach these core requirements to be completely defined before software development starts, let me pause there we're 20 years after the agile manifesto, right? And for 80% of these idea executives to basically claim that the best approach is for requirements to be fully baked before salt, before software development starts, basically shows that we still have a very major issue. >>And again, our hypothesis in working with many organizations is that the key challenge is really the boundary between business and it, which is still very much contract based. If you look at the business side, they basically are expecting for it deliver on time on budget, right. But what is the incentive for it to actually delivering on the business outcomes, right? How often is it measured on the business outcomes and not on an SLA or on a budget type criteria? And so that's really the fundamental shift that we need to, we really need to drive up as an industry. Um, and you know, we, we talk about kind of this, this imperative for organizations to operate that's one, and back to the, the, um, you know, various Doris dilemna the key difference between these larger organization is, is really kind of, uh, if you look at the amount of capital investment that they can put into pretty much anything, why are they losing compared to, um, you know, startups? What, why is it that, uh, more than 40% of, uh, personal loans today or issued not by your traditional brick and mortar banks, but by, um, startups? Well, the reason, yes, it's the traditional culture of doing incremental changes and not disrupting ourselves, which Christiansen covered the length, but it's also the inability to really fundamentally change kind of a dynamic picture. We can business it and, and, and partner right. To, to deliver on a specific business outcome. >>All right. I love that. That's a great, that's a great summary. And in fact, getting ready for this interview, I saw you mentioning another thing where, you know, the, the problem with the agile development is that you're actually now getting more silos. Cause you have all these autonomous people working, you know, kind of independently. So it's even a harder challenge for, for the business leaders to, to, as you said, to know, what's actually going on, but, but certainly I w I want to close, um, and talk about the coalition. Um, so clearly these are all great concepts. These are concepts you want to apply to your business every day. Why the coalition, why, you know, take these concepts out to a broader audience, including either your, your competition and the broader industry to say, Hey, we, as a group need to put a stamp of approval on these concepts, these values, these principles. >>So first I think we, we want, um, everybody to realize that we are all talking about the same things, the same concepts. I think we were all from our own different vantage point, realizing that things after change, and again, back to, you know, whether it's value stream management or site reliability engineering, or biz ops, we're all kind of using slightly different languages. Um, and so I think one of the important aspects of BizOps is for us, all of us, whether we're talking about, you know, consulting agile transformation experts, uh, whether we're talking about vendors, right, provides kind of tools and technologies or these large enterprises to transform for all of us to basically have kind of a reference that lets us speak around kind of, um, in a much more consistent way. The second aspect is for, to me is for, um, DS concepts to start to be embraced, not just by us or trying, or, you know, vendors, um, system integrators, consulting firms, educators, thought leaders, but also for some of our old customers to start to become evangelists of their own in the industry. >>So we, our, our objective with the coalition needs to be pretty, pretty broad. Um, and our hope is by, by starting to basically educate, um, our, our joint customers or partners, that we can start to really foster these behaviors and start to really change some of dynamics. So we're very pleased at if you look at, uh, some of the companies which have joined the, the, the, the manifesto. Um, so we have vendors such as desktop or advance, or, um, uh, PagerDuty for instance, or even planned view, uh, one of my direct competitors, um, but also thought leaders like Tom Davenport or, uh, or cap Gemini or, um, um, smaller firms like, uh, business agility, institutes, or agility elf. Um, and so our goal really is to start to bring together, uh, fall years, people would have been LP, large organizations, do digital transformation vendors. We're providing the technologies that many of these organizations use to deliver on this digital preservation and for all of us to start to provide the kind of, uh, education support and tools that the industry needs. Yeah, >>That's great surge. And, uh, you know, congratulations to you and the team. I know this has been going on for a while, putting all this together, getting people to sign onto the manifesto, putting the coalition together, and finally today getting to unveil it to the world in, in a little bit more of a public, uh, opportunity. So again, you know, really good values, really simple principles, something that, that, uh, shouldn't have to be written down, but it's nice cause it is, and now you can print it out and stick it on your wall. So thank you for, uh, for sharing this story and again, congrats to you and the team. >>Thank you. Thanks, Jeff. Appreciate it. >>Oh, my pleasure. Alrighty, surge. If you want to learn more about the BizOps manifest to go to biz ops manifesto.org, read it and you can sign it and you can stay here for more coverage. I'm the cube of the biz ops manifesto unveiled. Thanks for watching. See you next >>From around the globe. It's the cube with digital coverage of this ops manifesto unveiled brought to you by bill. >>Hey, welcome back, everybody Jeffrey here with the cube. Welcome back to our ongoing coverage of the biz ops manifesto unveiling. It's been in the works for awhile, but today's the day that it actually kind of come out to the, to the public. And we're excited to have a real industry luminary here to talk about what's going on, why this is important and share his perspective. And we're happy to have from Cape Cod, I believe is Tom Davenport. He is a distinguished author and professor at Babson college. We could go on, he's got a lot of great titles and, and really illuminary in the area of big data and analytics Thomas. Great to see you. >>Thanks Jeff. Happy to be here with you. >>Great. So let's just jump into it, you know, and getting ready for this. I came across your LinkedIn posts. I think you did earlier this summer in June and right off the bat, the first sentence just grabbed my attention. I'm always interested in new attempts to address longterm issues, uh, in how technology works within businesses, biz ops. What did you see in biz ops, uh, that, that kind of addresses one of these really big longterm problems? >>Well, yeah, but the longterm problem is that we've had a poor connection between business people and it people between business objectives and the, it solutions that address them. This has been going on, I think since the beginning of information technology and sadly it hasn't gone away. And so biz ops is a new attempt to deal with that issue with, you know, a new framework, eventually a broad set of solutions that increase the likelihood that we'll actually solve a business problem with an it capability. >>Right. You know, it's interesting to compare it with like dev ops, which I think a lot of people are probably familiar with, which was, you know, built around, uh, agile software development and a theory that we want to embrace change that that changes. Okay. Uh, and we want to be able to iterate quickly and incorporate that. And that's been happening in the software world for, for 20 plus years. What's taken so long to get that to the business side, because as the pace of change has changed on the software side, you know, that's a strategic issue in terms of execution on the business side that they need now to change priorities. And, you know, there's no PRDs and MRDs and big, giant strategic plans that sit on the shelf for five years. That's just not the way business works anymore. It took a long time to get here. >>Yeah, it did. And you know, there have been previous attempts to make a better connection between business and it, there was the so called alignment framework that a couple of friends of mine from Boston university developed, I think more than 20 years ago, but you know, now we have better technology for creating that linkage. And the, you know, the idea of kind of ops oriented frameworks is pretty pervasive now. So I think it's time for another serious attempt at it. Right. >>And do you think doing it this way, right. With the, with the biz ops coalition, you know, getting a collection of, of, of kind of likeminded individuals and companies together, and actually even having a manifesto, which we're making this declarative statement of, of principles and values, you think that's what it takes to kind of drive this kind of beyond the experiment and actually, you know, get it done and really start to see some results in, in, uh, in production in the field. >>I think certainly, um, no one vendor organization can pull this off single handedly. It does require a number of organizations collaborating and working together. So I think our coalition is a good idea and a manifesto is just a good way to kind of lay out what you see as the key principles of the idea. And that makes it much easier for everybody to understand and act on. >>I think it's just, it's really interesting having, you know, having them written down on paper and having it just be so clearly articulated both in terms of the, of the values as well as, as the, uh, the principles and the values, you know, business outcomes matter trust and collaboration, data driven decisions, which is the number three or four, and then learn, respond and pivot. It doesn't seem like those should have to be spelled out so clearly, but, but obviously it helps to have them there. You can stick them on the wall and kind of remember what your priorities are, but you're the data guy. You're the analytics guy, uh, and a big piece of this is data and analytics and moving to data-driven decisions. And principle number seven says, you know, today's organizations generate more data than humans can process and informed decisions can be augmented by machine learning and artificial intelligence right up your alley. You know, you've talked a number of times on kind of the mini stages of analytics. Um, and how has that's evolved over, over time, you know, as you think of analytics and machine learning, driving decisions beyond supporting decisions, but actually starting to make decisions in machine time. What's that, what's that thing for you? What does that make you, you know, start to think, wow, this is, this is going to be pretty significant. >>Yeah. Well, you know, this has been a longterm interest of mine. Um, the last generation of AI, I was very interested in expert systems. And then, um, I think, uh, more than 10 years ago, I wrote an article about automated decision-making using what was available then, which was rule-based approaches. Um, but you know, this addresses an issue that we've always had with analytics and AI. Um, you know, we, we tended to refer to those things as providing decision support. The problem is that if the decision maker didn't want their support, didn't want to use them in order to make a decision, they didn't provide any value. And so the nice thing about automating decisions, um, with now contemporary AI tools is that we can ensure that data and analytics get brought into the decision without any possible disconnection. Now, I think humans still have something to add here, and we often will need to examine how that decision is being made and maybe even have the ability to override it. But in general, I think at least for, you know, repetitive tactical decisions, um, involving a lot of data, we want most of those, I think to be at least recommended if not totally made by an algorithm or an AI based system, and that I believe would add to the quality and the precision and the accuracy of decisions and in most organizations, >>No, I think, I think you just answered my next question before I, before Hey, asked it, you know, we had dr. Robert Gates on a former secretary of defense on a few years back, and we were talking about machines and machines making decisions. And he said at that time, you know, the only weapon systems, uh, that actually had an automated trigger on it were on the North Korea and South Korea border. Um, everything else, as you said, had to go through a sub person before the final decision was made. And my question is, you know, what are kind of the attributes of the decision that enable us to more easily automated? And then how do you see that kind of morphing over time, both as the data to support that as well as our comfort level, um, enables us to turn more and more actual decisions over to the machine? >>Well, yeah, it's suggested we need, um, data and, um, the data that we have to kind of train our models has to be high quality and current. And we, we need to know the outcomes of that data. You know, um, most machine learning models, at least in business are supervised. And that means we need to have labeled outcomes in the, in the training data. But I, you know, um, the pandemic that we're living through is a good illustration of the fact that, that the data also have to be reflective of current reality. And, you know, one of the things that we're finding out quite frequently these days is that, um, the data that we have do not reflect, you know, what it's like to do business in a pandemic. Um, I wrote a little piece about this recently with Jeff cam at wake forest university, we called it data science quarantined, and we interviewed with somebody who said, you know, it's amazing what eight weeks of zeros will do to your demand forecast. We just don't really know what happens in a pandemic. Um, our models maybe have to be put on the shelf for a little while and until we can develop some new ones or we can get some other guidelines into making decisions. So I think that's one of the key things with automated decision making. We have to make sure that the data from the past and that's all we have of course, is a good guide to, you know, what's happening in the present and the future as far as we understand it. Yeah. >>I used to joke when we started this calendar year 2020, it was finally the year that we know everything with the benefit of hindsight, but it turned out 20, 20 a year. We found out we actually know nothing and everything thought we knew, but I wanna, I wanna follow up on that because you know, it did suddenly change everything, right? We got this light switch moment. Everybody's working from home now we're many, many months into it, and it's going to continue for a while. I saw your interview with Bernard Marr and you had a really interesting comment that now we have to deal with this change. We don't have a lot of data and you talked about hold fold or double down. And, and I can't think of a more, you know, kind of appropriate metaphor for driving the value of the BizOps when now your whole portfolio strategy, um, these to really be questioned and, and, you know, you have to be really, uh, well, uh, executing on what you are, holding, what you're folding and what you're doubling down with this completely new environment. >>Well, yeah, and I hope I did this in the interview. I would like to say that I came up with that term, but it actually came from a friend of mine. Who's a senior executive at Genpact. And, um, I, um, used it mostly to talk about AI and AI applications, but I think you could, you could use it much more broadly to talk about your entire sort of portfolio of digital projects. You need to think about, well, um, given some constraints on resources and a difficult economy for a while, which of our projects do we want to keep going on pretty much the way we were and which ones are not that necessary anymore? You see a lot of that in AI, because we had so many pilots, somebody told me, you know, we've got more pilots around here than O'Hare airport and AI. Um, and then, but the ones that involve double down they're even more important to you. They are, you know, a lot of organizations have found this out in the pandemic, on digital projects. It's more and more important for customers to be able to interact with you, um, digitally. And so you certainly wouldn't want to, um, cancel those projects or put them on hold. So you double down on them and get them done faster and better. >>Right, right. Uh, another, another thing that came up in my research that you quoted, um, was, was from Jeff Bezos, talking about the great bulk of what we do is quietly, but meaningfully improving core operations. You know, I think that is so core to this concept of not AI and machine learning and kind of the general sense, which, which gets way too much buzz, but really applied right. Applied to a specific problem. And that's where you start to see the value. And, you know, the, the BizOps, uh, manifesto is, is, is calling it out in this particular process. But I'd love to get your perspective as you know, you speak generally about this topic all the time, but how people should really be thinking about where are the applications where I can apply this technology to get direct business value. >>Yeah, well, you know, even talking about automated decisions, um, uh, the kind of once in a lifetime decisions, uh, the ones that, um, ag Lafley, the former CEO of Procter and gamble used to call the big swing decisions. You only get a few of those. He said in your tenure as CEO, those are probably not going to be the ones that you're automating in part because, um, you don't have much data about them. You're only making them a few times and in part, because, um, they really require that big picture thinking and the ability to kind of anticipate the future, that the best human decision makers, um, have. Um, but, um, in general, I think where they are, the projects that are working well are, you know, when I call the low hanging fruit ones, the, some people even report to it referred to it as boring AI. >>So, you know, sucking data out of a contract in order to compare it to a bill of lading for what arrived at your supply chain companies can save or make a lot of money with that kind of comparison. It's not the most exciting thing, but AI, as you suggested is really good at those narrow kinds of tasks. It's not so good at the, at the really big moonshots, like curing cancer or, you know, figuring out well what's the best stock or bond under all circumstances or even autonomous vehicles. Um, we, we made some great progress in that area, but everybody seems to agree that they're not going to be perfect for quite a while. And we really don't want to be driving around on them very much unless they're, you know, good and all kinds of weather and with all kinds of pedestrian traffic and you know, that sort of thing, right? That's funny you bring up contract management. >>I had a buddy years ago, they had a startup around contract management and was like, and this was way before we had the compute power today and cloud proliferation. I said, you know, how, how can you possibly build software around contract management? It's language, it's legal, ease. It's very specific. And he's like, Jeff, we just need to know where's the contract. And when does it expire? And who's the signatory. And he built a business on those, you know, very simple little facts that weren't being covered because their contracts contractor in people's drawers and files and homes, and Lord only knows. So it's really interesting, as you said, these kind of low hanging fruit opportunities where you can extract a lot of business value without trying to, you know, boil the ocean. >>Yeah. I mean, if you're Amazon, um, uh, Jeff Bezos thinks it's important to have some kind of billion dollar projects. And he even says it's important to have a billion dollar failure or two every year. But I think most organizations probably are better off being a little less aggressive and, you know, sticking to, um, what AI has been doing for a long time, which is, you know, making smarter decisions based on, based on data. >>Right? So Tom, I want to shift gears one more time before, before we let you go on on kind of a new topic for you, not really new, but you know, not, not a, the vast majority of, of your publications and that's the new way to work, you know, as, as the pandemic hit in mid March, right. And we had this light switch moment, everybody had to work from home and it was, you know, kind of crisis and get everybody set up. Well, you know, now we're five months, six months, seven months. A number of companies have said that people are not going to be going back to work for a while. And so we're going to continue on this for a while. And then even when it's not what it is now, it's not going to be what it was before. So, you know, I wonder, and I know you, you, uh, you teased, you're working on a new book, you know, some of your thoughts on, you know, kind of this new way to work and, and the human factors in this new, this new kind of reality that we're kind of evolving into, I guess. >>Yeah. I missed was an interest of mine. I think, um, back in the nineties, I wrote an article called, um, a coauthored, an article called two cheers for the virtual office. And, you know, it was just starting to emerge. Then some people were very excited about it. Some people were skeptical and, uh, we said two cheers rather than three cheers because clearly there's some shortcomings. And, you know, I keep seeing these pop up. It's great that we can work from our homes. It's great that we can accomplish most of what we need to do with a digital interface, but, um, you know, things like innovation and creativity and certainly, um, uh, a good, um, happy social life kind of requires some face to face contact every now and then. And so I, you know, I think we'll go back to an environment where there is some of that. >>Um, we'll have, um, times when people convene in one place so they can get to know each other face to face and learn from each other that way. And most of the time, I think it's a huge waste of people's time to commute into the office every day and to jump on airplanes, to, to, um, give every little, um, uh, sales call or give every little presentation. Uh, we just have to really narrow down what are the circumstances where face to face contact really matters. And when can we get by with, with digital, you know, I think one of the things in my current work I'm finding is that even when you have AI based decision making, you really need a good platform in which that all takes place. So in addition to these virtual platforms, we need to develop platforms that kind of structure the workflow for us and tell us what we should be doing next, then make automated decisions when necessary. And I think that ultimately is a big part of biz ops as well. It's not just the intelligence of an AI system, but it's the flow of work that kind of keeps things moving smoothly throughout your organization. >>Yeah. I think such, such a huge opportunity as you just said, cause I forget the stats on how often we're interrupted with notifications between email texts, Slack, a sauna, Salesforce, the list goes on and on. So, you know, to put an AI layer between the person and all these systems that are begging for attention, and you've written a book on the attention economy, which is a whole nother topic, we'll say for another day, you know, it really begs, it really begs for some assistance because you know, you just can't get him picked, you know, every two minutes and really get quality work done. It's just not, it's just not realistic. And you know what? I don't think that's a feature that we're looking for. I agree. Totally. Alright, Tom. Well, thank you so much for your time. Really enjoyed the conversation. I gotta dig into the library. It's very long. So I might start at the attention economy. I haven't read that one in to me. I think that's the fascinating thing in which we're living. So thank you for your time and, uh, great to see you. >>My pleasure, Jeff. Great to be here. >>All right. Take care. Alright. He's Tom I'm Jeff. You are watching the continuing coverage of the biz ops manifesto and Vale. Thanks for watching the cube. We'll see you next time.

>>From around the globe. It's the cube with digital coverage, a BizOps manifesto unveiled brought to you by biz ops coalition. >>Hey, welcome back everybody. Jeff Frick here with the cube. Welcome back to our ongoing coverage of the biz ops manifesto. Unveil. Something has been in the works for a little while. Today's the formal unveiling, and we're excited to have three of the core of founding members of the manifesto authors of the manifesto. If you will, uh, joining us again, we've had them all on individually. Now we're going to have a great power panel first up. We're gab Mitt, Kirsten returning he's the founder and CEO of Tasktop mic. Good to see you again. Where are you dialing in from? >>Great to see you again, Jeff I'm dialing from Vancouver, >>We're Canada, Vancouver, Canada. One of my favorite cities in the whole wide world. Also we've got Tom Davenport come in from across the country. He's a distinguished professor and author from Babson college, Tom. Great to see you. And I think you said you're at a fun, exotic place on the East coast >>Realm of Memphis shoe sits on Cape Cod. >>Great to see you again and also joining surge Lucio. He is the VP and general manager enterprise software division at Broadcom surge. Great to see you again, where are you coming in from? >>Uh, from Boston right next to kickoff. >>Terrific. So welcome back, everybody again. Congratulations on this day. I know it's, it's been a lot of work to get here for this unveil, but let's just jump into it. The biz ops manifesto, what was the initial reason to do this? And how did you decide to do it in a kind of a coalition, a way bringing together a group of people versus just making it an internal company, uh, initiative that, you know, you can do better stuff within your own company, surge, why don't we start with you? >>Yeah, so, so I think we were at a really critical juncture, right? Many, um, large enterprises are basically struggling with their digital transformation. Um, in fact, um, many recognize that, uh, the, the business side, it collaboration has been, uh, one of the major impediments, uh, to drive that kind of transformation. And if we look at the industry today, many people are, whether we're talking about vendors or, um, you know, system integrators, consulting firms are talking about the same kind of concepts, but using very different language. And so we believe that bringing all these different players together, um, as part of the coalition and formalizing, uh, basically the core principles and values in a BizOps manifesto, we can really start to F could have a much bigger movement where we can all talk about kind of the same concepts and we can really start to provide, could have a much better support for large organizations to transform. Uh, so whether it is technology or services or, um, we're training, I think that that's really the value of bringing all of these players together, right. >>And Nick to you, why did you get involved in this, in this effort? >>So Ben close and follow the agile movement since it started two decades ago with that manifesto. >>And I think we got a lot of improvement at the team level, and I think as satisfies noted, uh, we really need to improve at the business level. Every company is trying to become a software innovator, uh, trying to make sure that they can adapt quickly and the changing market economy and what everyone's dealing with in terms of needing to deliver the customer sooner. However, agile practices have really focused on these metrics, these measures and understanding processes that help teams be productive. Those things now need to be elevated to the business as a whole. And that just hasn't happened. Uh, organizations are actually failing because they're measuring activities and how they're becoming more agile, how teams are functioning, not how much quickly they're delivering value to the customer. So we need to now move past that. And that's exactly what the that's manifested provides. Right, >>Right, right. And Tom, to you, you've been covering tech for a very long time. You've been looking at really hard challenges and a lot of work around analytics and data and data evolution. So there's a definitely a data angle here. I wonder if you could kind of share your perspective of what you got excited to, uh, to sign onto this manifesto. >>Sure. Well, I have, you know, for the past 15 or 20 years, I've been focusing on data and analytics and AI, but before that I was a process management guy and a knowledge management guy. And in general, I think, you know, we've just kind of optimized that to narrow a level, whether you're talking about agile or dev ops or ML ops, any of these kinds of ops oriented movements, we're making individual project, um, performance and productivity better, but we're not changing the business, uh, effectively enough. And that's the thing that appealed to me about the biz ops idea that we're finally creating a closer connection between what we do with technology and how it changes the business and provides value to it. >>Great. Uh, surge back to you, right? I mean, people have been talking about digital transformation for a long time and it's been, you know, kind of trucking along and then covert hit and it was instant lights, which everyone's working from home. You've got a lot more reliance on your digital tools, digital communication, uh, both within your customer base and your partner base, but also then your employees when you're, if you could share how that really pushed this all along. Right? Because now suddenly the acceleration of digital transformation is higher. Even more importantly, you got much more critical decisions to make into what you do next. So kind of your portfolio management of projects has been elevated significantly when maybe revenues are down, uh, and you really have to, uh, to prioritize and get it right. >>Yeah. Maybe I'll just start by quoting Satina Nello basically recently said that they're speeding the two years of digital preservation just last two months in any many ways. That's true. Um, but, but yet when we look at large enterprises, they're >>Still struggling with the kind of a changes in culture that they really need to drive to be able to disrupt themselves. And not surprisingly, you know, when we look at certain parts of the industry, you know, we see some things which are very disturbing, right? So about 40% of the personal loans today, or being, uh, origin data it's by fintechs, uh, of a like of Sophie or, uh, or a lending club, right? Not to a traditional brick and mortar for BEC. And so the, well, there is kind of a much more of an appetite and it's a, it's more of a survival type of driver these days. Uh, the reality is that's in order for these large enterprises to truly transform and engage with this digital transformation, they need to start to really align the business. And it, you know, in many ways, uh, make covered that agile really emerged from the core desire to truly improve software predictability between which we've really missed is all that we, we start to aligning the software predictability to business predictability and to be able to have continual sleep continuous improvement and measurement of business outcomes. So by aligning kind of these, uh, kind of inward metrics, that's, it is typically being using to business outcomes. We think we can start to really ELP different stakeholders within the organization to collaborate. So I think there is more than ever. There's an imperative to act now. Um, and, and resolves, I think is kind of the right approach to drive that transformation. Right. >>I want to follow up on the culture comment, uh, with Utah, because you've talked before about kind of process flow and process flow throughout a whore and an organization. And, you know, we talk about people process and tech all the time. And I think the tech is the easy part compared to actually changing the people the way they think. And then the actual processes that they put in place. It's a much more difficult issue than just the tech issue to get this digital transformation in your organization. >>Yeah. You know, I've always found that the soft stuff about, you know, the culture of the behavior, the values is the hard stuff to change and more and more, we, we realized that to be successful with any kind of digital transformation you have to change people's behaviors and attitudes. Um, we haven't made as much progress in that area as we might have. I mean, I've done some surveys suggesting that, um, most organizations still don't have data-driven cultures. And in many cases there is a lower percentage of companies that say they have that then, um, did a few years ago. So we're kind of moving in the wrong direction, which means I think that we have to start explicitly addressing that, um, cultural, behavioral dimension and not just assuming that it will happen if we, if we build a system, >>If we build it, they won't necessarily come. Right. >>Right. So I want to go to, to you Nick cause you know, we're talking about workflows and flow, um, and, and you've written about flow both in terms of, um, you know, moving things along a process and trying to find bottlenecks, identify bottlenecks, which is now even more important again, when these decisions are much more critical. Cause you have a lot less, uh, wiggle room in tough times, but you also talked about flow from the culture side and the people side. So I wonder if you can just share your thoughts on, you know, using flow as a way to think about things, to get the answers better. >>Yeah, absolutely. And I'll refer back to what Tom has said. If you're optimized, you need to optimize your system. You need to optimize how you innovate and how you deliver value to the business and the customer. Now, what we've noticed in the data, since that we've learned from customers, value streams, enterprise organizations, value streams, is that when it's taking six months at the end to deliver that value with the flow is that slow. You've got a bunch of unhappy developers, unhappy customers when you're innovating house. So high performing organizations we can measure at antenna flow time and dates. All of a sudden that feedback loop, the satisfaction, your developers measurably, it goes up. So not only do you have people context, switching glass, you're delivering so much more value to customers at a lower cost because you've optimized for flow rather than optimizing for these, these other approximate tricks that we use, which is how efficient is my adult team. How quickly can we deploy software? Those are important, but they do not provide the value of agility of fast learning of adaptability to the business. And that's exactly what the biz ops manifesto pushes your organization to do. You need to put in place this new operating model that's based on flow on the delivery of business value and on bringing value to market much more quickly than you were before. Right. >>I love that. And I'm gonna back to you Tom, on that to follow up. Cause I think, I don't think people think enough about how they prioritize what they're optimizing for, because you know, if you're optimizing for a versus B, you know, you can have a very different product that, that you kick out. And, you know, my favorite example is with Clayton Christianson and innovator's dilemma talking about the three inch hard drive, if you optimize it for power, you know, is one thing, if you optimize it for vibration is another thing and sure enough, you know, they missed it on the poem because it was the, it was the game console, which, which drove that whole business. So when you're talking to customers and we think we hear it with cloud all the time, people optimizing for a cost efficiency, instead of thinking about it as an innovation tool, how do you help them kind of rethink and really, you know, force them to, to look at the, at the prioritization and make sure they're prioritizing on the right thing is make just that, what are you optimizing for? >>Oh yeah. Um, you have one of the most important aspects of any decision or attempt to resolve a problem in an organization is the framing process. And, um, you know, it's, it's a difficult aspect to have the decision to confirm it correctly in the first place. Um, there, it's not a technology issue. In many cases, it's largely a human issue, but if you frame >>That decision or that problem incorrectly to narrowly say, or you frame it as an either or situation where you could actually have some of both, um, it, it's very difficult for the, um, process to work out correctly. So in many cases, I think we need to think more at the beginning about how we bring this issue or this decision in the best way possible before we charge off and build a system to support it. You know, um, it's worth that extra time to think, think carefully about how the decision has been structured. Right, >>Sir, I want to go back to you and talk about the human factors because as we just discussed, you can put it in great technology, but if the culture doesn't adopt it and people don't feel good about it, you know, it's not going to be successful and that's going to reflect poorly on the technology, even if that had nothing to do with it. And you know, when you look at the, the, the, the core values, uh, of the Bezos manifesto, you know, a big one is trust and collaboration, you know, learn, respond, and pivot. Wonder if you can share your thoughts on, on trying to get that cultural shift, uh, so that you can have success with the people, or excuse me, with the technology in the process and helping customers, you know, take this more trustworthy and kind of proactive, uh, position. >>So I think, I think at the ground level, it truly starts with the realization that we're all different. We come from different backgrounds. Uh, oftentimes we tend to blame the data. It's not uncommon my experiments that we spend the first 30 minutes of any kind of one hour conversation to debate the validity of the data. Um, and so, um, one of the first kind of, uh, probably manifestations that we've had or revelations as we start to engage with our customers is spoke just exposing, uh, high-fidelity data sets to different stakeholders from their different lens. We start to enable these different stakeholders to not debate the data. That's really collaborate to find a solution. So in many ways, when, when, when we think about kind of the types of changes we're trying to, to truly affect around data driven decision making, he told about bringing the data in context and the context that is relevant and understandable for, for different stakeholders, whether we're talking about an operator or develop for a business analyst. >>So that's, that's the first thing. The second layer I think, is really to provide context to what people are doing in their specific silo. And so I think one of the best examples I have is if you start to be able to align business KPI, whether you are counting, you know, sales per hour, or the engagements of your users on your mobile applications, whatever it is, you can start to connect that PKI to business KPI, to the KPIs that developers might be looking at, whether it is all the number of defects or velocity or whatever over your metrics that you're used to, to actually track you start to be able to actually contextualize in what we are, the effecting, basically a metric of that that is really relevant. And then what we see is that this is a much more systematic way to approach the transformation than say, you know, some organizations kind of creating some of these new products or services or initiatives, um, to, to drive engagements, right? >>So if you look at zoom, for instance, zoom giving away a it service to, uh, to education, he's all about, I mean, there's obviously a marketing aspect in there, but it's, it's fundamentally about trying to drive also the engagement of their own teams. And because now they're doing something for good and many organizations are trying to do that, but you only can do this kind of things in the limited way. And so you really want to start to rethink how you connect to, everybody's kind of a business objective fruit data, and now you start to get people to stare at the same data from their own lens and collaborate on all the data. Right, >>Right. That's a good, uh, Tom, I want to go back to you. You've been studying it for a long time, writing lots of books and getting into it. Um, why now, you know, what, why, why now are we finally aligning business objectives with, with it objectives? You know, why didn't this happen before? And, you know, what are the factors that are making now the time for this, this, this move with the, uh, with the biz ops? >>Well, and much of a past, it was sort of a back office related activity. And, you know, it was important for, um, uh, producing your paychecks and, uh, capturing the customer orders, but the business wasn't built around it now, every organization needs to be a software business, a data business, a digital business, the auntie has been raised considerably. And if you aren't making that connection between your business objectives and the technology that supports it, you run a pretty big risk of, you know, going out of business or losing out to competitors. Totally. So, um, and even if you're in, uh, an industry that hasn't historically been terribly, um, technology oriented customer expectations flow from, uh, you know, the digital native, um, companies that they work with to basically every industry. So you're compared against the best in the world. So we don't really have the luxury anymore of screwing up our it projects or building things that don't really work for the business. Um, it's mission critical that we do that well. Um, almost every time, I just want to fall by that, Tom, >>In terms of the, you've talked extensively about kind of these evolutions of data and analytics from artismal stage to the big data stage, the data economy stage, the AI driven stage and what I find diff interesting that all those stages, you always put a start date, you never put an end date. Um, so you know, is the, is the big data I'm just going to use that generically a moment in time finally here where we're, you know, off mahogany row with the data scientists, but actually can start to see the promise of delivering the right insight to the right person at the right time to make that decision. >>Well, I think it is true that in general, these previous stages never seemed to go away. The, um, the artisinal stuff is still being done, but we would like for less and less of it to be artisinal, we can't really afford for everything to be artisinal anymore. It's too labor and, and time consuming to do things that way. So we shift more and more of it to be done through automation and B to be done with a higher level of productivity. And, um, you know, at some point maybe we reached the stage where we don't do anything artisanally anymore. I'm not sure we're there yet, but we are, we are making progress. Right. >>Right. And Mick, back to you in terms of looking at agile, cause you're, you're such a student of agile. When, when you look at the opportunity with biz ops and taking the lessons from agile, you know, what's been the inhibitor to stop this in the past. And what are you so excited about? You know, taking this approach will enable. >>Yeah. I think both search and Tom hit on this is that in agile what's happened is that we've been measuring tiny subsets of the value stream, right? We need to elevate the data's there. Developers are working on these tools that delivering features that the foundations for for great culture are there. I spent two decades as a developer. And when I was really happy is when I was able to deliver value to customers, the quicker I was able to do that the fewer impediments are in my way, that quicker was deployed and running in the cloud, the happier I was, and that's exactly what's happening. If we can just get the right data, uh, elevated to the business, not just to the agile teams, but really this, these values of ours are to make sure that you've got these data driven decisions with meaningful data that's oriented around delivering value to customers. Not only these legacies that Tom touched on, which has cost center metrics. So when, from where for it being a cost center and something that provided email and then back office systems. So we need to rapidly shift to those new, meaningful metrics that are customized business centric and make sure that every development the organization is focused on those as well as the business itself, that we're measuring value. And that will help you that value flow without interruptions. >>I love that mic. Cause if you don't measure it, you can't improve on it and you gotta, but you gotta be measuring the right thing. So gentlemen, uh, thank you again for, for your time. Uh, congratulations on the, uh, on the unveil of the biz ops manifesto and bringing together this coalition, uh, of, of, uh, industry experts to get behind this. And, you know, there's probably never been a more important time than now to make sure that your prioritization is in the right spot and you're not wasting resources where you're not going to get the ROI. So, uh, congratulations again. And thank you for sharing your thoughts with us here on the cube. >>Thank you. >>Alright, so we had surge Tom and Mick I'm. Jeff, you're watching the cube. It's a biz ops manifesto unveil. Thanks for watching. We'll see you next time >>From around the globe. It's the cube with digital coverage of biz ops manifesto unveiled brought to you by biz ops coalition. >>Hey, welcome back. Variety. Jeff Frick here with the cube. We're in our Palo Alto studios, and we'd like to welcome you back to our continuing coverage of biz ops manifesto unveil some exciting day to really, uh, kind of bring this out into public. There's been a little bit of conversation, but today's really the official unveiling and we're excited to have our next guest is share a little bit more information on it. He's Patrick tickle. He's a chief product officer for planned view. Patrick. Great to see you. >>Yeah, it's great to be here. Thanks for the invite. So why >>The biz ops manifesto, why the biz ops coalition now when you guys have been at it, it's relatively mature marketplace businesses. Good. What was missing? Why, why this, why this coalition? >>Yeah. So, you know, again, why is, why is biz ops important and why is this something that I'm, you know, I'm so excited about, but I think companies as well, right? Well, no, in some ways or another, this is a topic that I've been talking to the market and our customers about for a long time. And it's, you know, I really applaud this whole movement. Right. And, um, it resonates with me because I think one of the fundamental flaws, frankly, of the way we have talked about technology and business literally for decades, uh, has been this idea of, uh, alignment. Those who know me, I occasionally get off on this little rant about the word alignment, right. But to me, the word alignment is, is actually indicative of the, of the, of the flaw in a lot of our organizations and biz ops is really, I think now trying to catalyze and expose that flaw. >>Right. Because, you know, I always say that, you know, you know, alignment implies silos, right. Instantaneously, as soon as you say there's alignment, there's, there's obviously somebody who's got a direction and other people that have to line up and that kind of siloed, uh, nature of organizations then frankly, the passive nature of it. Right. I think so many technology organizations are like, look, the business has the strategy you guys need to align. Right. And, and, you know, as a product leader, right. That's where I've been my whole career. Right. I can tell you that I never sit around. I almost never use the word alignment. Right. I mean, whether, you know, I never sit down and say, you know, the product management team has to get aligned with dev, right. Or the dev team has to get aligned with the delivery and ops teams. I mean, what I say is, you know, are we on strategy, right? >>Like we've, we have a strategy as a, as a full end to end value stream. Right. And that there's no silos. And I mean, look, every on any given day we got to get better. Right. But the context, the context we operate is not about alignment. Right. It's about being on strategy. And I think I've talked to customers a lot about that, but when I first read the manifesto, I was like, Oh yeah, this is exactly. This is breaking down. Maybe trying to eliminate the word alignment, you know, from a lot of our organizations, because we literally start thinking about one strategy and how we go from strategy to delivery and have it be our strategy, not someone else's that we're all aligning to. And I, and it's a great way to catalyze that conversation that I've, it's been in my mind for years, to be honest. Right. >>So, so much to unpack there. One of the things obviously, uh, stealing a lot from, from dev ops and the dev ops manifesto from 20 years ago. And, and as I look through some of the principles and I looked through some of the values, which are, you know, really nicely laid out here, you know, satisfy customer, do continuous delivery, uh, measure, output against real results. Um, the ones that, that jumps out though is really about, you know, change, change, right? Requirements should change frequently. They do change frequently, but I'm curious to get your take from a, from a software development point, it's easy to kind of understand, right. We're making this widget and our competitors, beta widget plus X, and now we need to change our plans and make sure that the plus X gets added to the plan. Maybe it wasn't in the plan, but you talked a lot about product strategy. So in this kind of continuous delivery world, how does that meld with, I'm actually trying to set a strategy, which implies the direction for a little bit further out on the horizon and to stay on that while at the same time, you're kind of doing this real time continual adjustments because you're not working off a giant PRD or MRD anymore. >>Yeah, yeah, totally. Yeah. You know, one of the terms, you know, that we use internally a lot and even with my customers, our customers is we talk about this idea of rewiring, right. And I think, you know, it's kind of a, now an analogy for transformation. And I think a lot of us have to rewire the way we think about things. Right. And I think at Planview where we have a lot of customers who live in that, you know, who operationalize that traditional PPM world. Right. And are shifting to agile and transforming that rewire is super important. And, and to your point, right, it's, you've just, you've got to embrace this idea of, you know, just iterative getting better every day and iterating, iterating, iterating as opposed to building annual plans or, you know, I get customers occasionally who asked me for two or three year roadmap. >>Right. And I literally looked at them and I go, there's no, there's no scenario where I can build a two or three year roadmap. Right. You, you, you think you want that, but that's not, that's not the way we run. Right. And I will tell you the biggest thing that for us, you know, that I think is matched the planning, uh, you know, patents is a word I like to use a lot. So the thing that we've like, uh, that we've done from a planning perspective, I think is matched impedance to continuous delivery is instituting the whole program, implement, you know, the program, increment planning, capabilities, and methodologies, um, in the scaled agile world. Right. And over the last 18 months to two years, we really have now, you know, instrumented our company across three value streams. You know, we do quarterly PI program increment 10 week planning, you know, and that becomes, that becomes the Terra firma of how we plan. >>Right. And it's, what are we doing for the next 10 weeks? And we iterate within those 10 weeks, but we also know that 10 weeks from now, we're gonna, we're gonna adjust iterate again. Right. And that shifting of that planning model to, you know, to being as cross-functional is that as that big room planning kind of model is, um, and also, uh, you know, on that shorter increment, when you get those two things in place, also the impedance really starts to match up, uh, with continuous delivery and it changes, it changes the way you plan and it changes the way you work. Right? >>Yeah. Their thing. Right. So obviously a lot of these things are kind of process driven, both within the values, as well as the principles, but there's a whole lot, really about culture. And I just want to highlight a couple of the values, right? We already talked about business outcomes, um, trust and collaboration, uh, data driven decisions, and then learn, respond and pivot. Right. A lot of those are cultural as much as they are process. So again, is it the, is it the need to really kind of just put them down on paper and, you know, I can't help, but think of, you know, the hammer and up the, a, the thing in the Lutheran church with it, with their manifesto, is it just good to get it down on paper? Because when you read these things, you're like, well, of course we should trust people. And of course we need an environment of collaboration and of course we want data driven decisions, but as we all know saying it and living, it are two very, very different things. >>Yeah. Good question. I mean, I think there's a lot of ways to bring that to life you're right. And just hanging up, you know, I think we've all been through the hanging up posters around your office, which these days, right. Unless you're going to hang a poster in everybody's home office. Right. You can't even, you can't even fake it that you think that might work. Right. So, um, you know, you really, I think we've attacked that in a variety of ways. Right. And you definitely have to, you know, you've got to make the shift to a team centric culture, right. Empowered teams, you know, that's a big deal. Right. You know, a lot of, a lot of the people that, you know, we lived in a world of quote, unquote work. We lived in a deep resource management world for a long, long time, and right. >>A lot of our customers still do that, but, you know, kind of moving to that team centric world is, uh, is really important and core to the trust. Um, I think training is super important, right. I mean, we've, you know, we've internally, right. We've trained hundreds employees over the last a year and a half on the fundamentals really of safe. Right. Not necessarily, you know, we've had, we've had teams delivering in scrum and the continuous delivery for, you know, for years, but the scaling aspect of it, uh, is where we've done a lot of training investment. Um, and then, you know, I think a leadership has to be bought in. Right. You know? And so when we pie plan, you know, myself and Cameron and the other members of our leadership, you know, we're NPI planning, you know, for, for four days. Right. I mean, it's, it's, you've got to walk the walk, you know, from top to bottom and you've got to train on the context. Right. And then you, and then, and, and then once you get through a few cycles where you've done a pivot, right. Or you brought a new team in, and it just works, it becomes kind of this virtuous circle where he'll go, man, this really works so much better than what we used to do. Right. >>Right. The other really key principle to this whole thing is, is aligning, you know, the business leaders and the business prioritization, um, so that you can get to good outcomes with the development and the delivery. Right. And we know again, and kind of classic dev ops to get the dev and the production people together. So they can, you know, quickly ship code that works. Um, but adding the business person on there really puts, puts a little extra responsibility that they, they understand the value of a particular feature or particular priority. Uh, they, they can make the, the, the trade offs and that they kind of understand the effort involved too. So, you know, bringing them into this continuous again, kind of this continuous development process, um, to make sure that things are better aligned and really better prioritize. Cause ultimately, you know, we don't live in an infinite resources situation and people gotta make trade offs. They gotta make decisions as to what goes and what doesn't go in for everything that goes. Right. I always say you pick one thing. Okay. That's 99 other things that couldn't go. So it's really important to have, you know, this, you said alignment of the business priorities as well as, you know, the execution within, within the development. >>Yeah. I think that, you know, uh, you know, I think it was probably close to two years ago. Forester started talking about the age of the customer, right. That, that was like their big theme at the time. Right. And I think to me what that, the age of the customer actually translates to and Mick, Mick and I are both big fans of this whole idea of the project, the product shift, mixed book, you know, it was a great piece on a, you're talking to Mick, you know, as part of the manifesto is one of the authors as well, but this shift from project to product, right? Like the age of the customer, in my opinion, the, the, the embodiment of that is the shift to a product mentality. Right. And, and the product mentality in my opinion, is what brings the business and technology teams together, right? >>Once you, once you're focused on a customer experience, that's delivered through a product or a service that's when I that's, when I started to go with the alignment problem goes away, right. Because if you look at software companies, right, I mean, we run product management models, you know, with software development teams, customer success teams, right. That, you know, the software component of these products that people are building is obviously becoming bigger and bigger, you know, in an, in many ways, right. More and more organizations are trying to model themselves over as operationally like software companies. Right. Um, they obviously have lots of other components in their business than just software, but I think that whole model of customer experience equaling product, and then the software component of product, the product is the essence of what changes that alignment equation and brings business and teams together because all of a sudden, everyone knows what the customer's experiencing. Right. And, and that, that, that makes a lot of things very clear, very quickly. >>Right. I'm just curious how far along this was as a process before, before covert hit, right. Because serendipitous, whatever. Right. But th the sudden, you know, light switch moment, everybody had to go work from home and in March 15th compared to now, we're in October, and this is going to be going on for a while, and it is a new normal and whatever that whatever's going to look like a year from now, or two years from now is TBD, you know, had you guys already started on this journey cause again, to sit down and actually declare this coalition and declare this manifesto is a lot different than just trying to do better within your own organization. >>Yeah. So we had started, uh, you know, w we definitely had started independently, you know, some, some, you know, I think people in the community know that, uh, we, we came together with a company called lean kit a handful of years ago, and I give John Terry actually one of the founders leaned to immense credit for, you know, kind of spearheading our cultural change and not, and not because of, we were just going to be, you know, bringing agile solutions to our customers, but because, you know, he believed that it was going to be a fundamentally better way for us to work. Right. And we kind of, you know, when we started with John and built, you know, out of concentric circles of momentum and, and we've gotten to the place where now it's just part of who we are, but, but I do think that, you know, COVID has, you know, um, I think pre COVID a lot of companies, you know, would, would adopt, you know, the, you would adopt digital slash agile transformation. >>Um, traditional industries may have done it as a reaction to disruption. Right. You know, and in many cases, the disruption to these traditional industries was, I would say a product oriented company, right. That probably had a larger software component, and that disruption caused a competitive issue or a customer issue that caused companies and tried to respond by transforming. I think COVID, you know, all of a sudden flatten that out, right. We literally all got disrupted. Right. And, and so all of a sudden, every one of us is dealing with some degree of market uncertainty, customer uncertainty, uh, and also know none of us were insulated from the need to be able to pivot faster, deliver incrementally, you know, and operate in a different, completely more agile way, uh, you know, post COVID. Right. Yeah. That's great. >>So again, a very, very, very timely, you know, a little bit of serendipity, a little bit of, of planning. And, you know, as, as with all important things, there's always a little bit of luck and a lot of hard work involved. So a really interesting thank you for, for your leadership, Patrick. And, you know, it really makes a statement. I think when you have a bunch of leaderships across an industry coming together and putting their name on a piece of paper, uh, that's aligned around us some principles and some values, which again, if you read them who wouldn't want to get behind these, but if it takes, you know, something a little bit more formal, uh, to kind of move the ball down the field, and then I totally get it and a really great work. Thanks for, uh, thanks for doing it. >>Oh, absolutely. No. Like I said, the first time I read it, I was like, yeah, like you said, this is all, this all makes complete sense, but just documenting it and saying it and talking about it moves the needle. I'll tell you as a company, you gotta, we're pushing really hard on, uh, you know, on our own internal strategy on diversity inclusion. Right? And, and like, once we wrote the words down about what, you know, what we aspire to be from a diversity and inclusion perspective, it's the same thing. Everybody reads the words and goes, why wouldn't we do this? Right. But until you write it down and kind of have again, a manifesto or a Terrafirma of what you're trying to accomplish, you know, then you can rally behind it. Right. As opposed to it being something that's, everybody's got their own version of the flavor. Right. And I think it's a very analogous, you know, kind of, uh, initiative, right. And, uh, and this happening, both of those things, right. Are happening across the industry these days. Right. >>And measure it too. Right. And measure it, measure, measure, measure, get a baseline. Even if you don't like to measure, even if you don't like what the, even if you can argue against the math, behind the measurement, measure it, and at least you can measure it again and you can, and you've got some type of a comp and that is really the only way to, to move it forward. Well, Patrick really enjoyed the conversation. Thanks for, uh, for taking a few minutes out of your day. >>It's great to be here. It's an awesome movement and we're glad >>That'd be part of it. All right. Thanks. And if you want to check out the biz ops, Manifesta go to biz ops, manifesto.org, read it. You might want to sign it. It's there for you. And thanks for tuning in on this segment will continuing coverage of the biz op manifesto unveil here on the cube. I'm Jeff, thanks for watching >>From around the globe. It's the cube with digital coverage of biz ops manifesto unveiled brought to you by biz ops coalition. >>Hey, welcome back, everybody Jeffrey here with the cube. We're coming to you from our Palo Alto studios. And welcome back to this event is the biz ops manifesto unveiling. So the biz ops manifesto and the biz ops coalition had been around for a little while, but today's the big day. That's kind of the big public unveiling or excited to have some of the foundational people that, you know, have put their, put their name on the dotted, if you will, to support this initiative and talk about why that initiative is so important. And so the next guest we're excited to have is dr. Mick Kirsten. He is the founder and CEO of Tasktop mic. Great to see you coming in from Vancouver, Canada, I think, right? Yes. Thank you. Absolutely. I hope your air is a little better out there. I know you had some of the worst air of all of us, a couple, a couple of weeks back. So hopefully things are, uh, are getting a little better and we get those fires under control. Yeah. >>Things have cleared up now. So yeah, it's good. It's good to be close to the U S and it's going to have the Arabic cleaner as well. >>Absolutely. So let's, let's jump into it. So you you've been an innovation guy forever starting way back in the day and Xerox park. I was so excited to do an event at Xerox park for the first time last year. I mean, that, that to me represents along with bell labs and, and some other, you know, kind of foundational innovation and technology centers, that's gotta be one of the greatest ones. So I just wonder if you could share some perspective of getting your start there at Xerox park, you know, some of the lessons you learned and what you've been able to kind of carry forward from those days. >>Yeah. I was fortunate to join Xerox park in the computer science lab there at a very early point in my career, and to be working on open source programming languages. So back then in the computer science lab, where some of the inventions around programming around software development teams, such as object oriented programming, and a lot of what we had around really modern programming levels constructs, those were the teams I have the fortune of working with, and really our goal was. And of course there's as, as you know, uh, there's just this DNA of innovation and excitement and innovation in the water. And really it was the model back then was all about changing the way that we work, uh, was looking at for how we could make it 10 times easier to write code. But this is back in 99. And we were looking at new ways of expressing, especially business concerns, especially ways of enabling people who are, who want to innovate for their business to express those concerns in code and make that 10 times easier than what that would take. >>So we create a new open source programming language, and we saw some benefits, but not quite quite what we expected. I then went and actually joined Charles Stephanie, that former to fucking Microsoft who was responsible for, he actually got Microsoft word as a spark and into Microsoft and into the hands of bill Gates on that company. I was behind the whole office suite and his vision. And then when I was trying to execute with, working for him was to make PowerPoint like a programming language, make everything completely visual. And I realized none of this was really working in that there was something else, fundamentally wrong programming languages, or new ways of building software. Like let's try and do with Charles around intentional programming. That was not enough. >>That was not enough. So, you know, the agile movement got started about 20 years ago, and we've seen the rise of dev ops and really this kind of embracing of, of, of sprints and, you know, getting away from MRDs and PRDs and these massive definitions of what we're going to build and long build cycles to this iterative process. And this has been going on for a little while. So what was still wrong? What was still missing? Why the BizOps coalition, why the biz ops manifesto? >>Yeah, so I basically think we nailed some of the things that the program language levels of teams can have effective languages deployed soften to the cloud easily now, right? And at the kind of process and collaboration and planning level agile two decades, decades ago was formed. We were adopting and all the, all the teams I was involved with and it's really become a self problem. So agile tools, agile teams, agile ways of planning, uh, are now very mature. And the whole challenge is when organizations try to scale that. And so what I realized is that the way that agile was scaling across teams and really scaling from the technology part of organization to the business was just completely flawed. The agile teams had one set of doing things, one set of metrics, one set of tools. And the way that the business was working was planning was investing in technology was just completely disconnected and using a whole different set of advisors. >>Interesting. Cause I think it's pretty clear from the software development teams in terms of what they're trying to deliver. Cause they've got a feature set, right. And they've got bugs and it's easy to, it's easy to see what they deliver, but it sounds like what you're really honing in on is this disconnect on the business side, in terms of, you know, is it the right investment? You know, are we getting the right business ROI on this investment? Was that the right feature? Should we be building another feature or should we building a completely different product set? So it sounds like it's really a core piece of this is to get the right measurement tools, the right measurement data sets so that you can make the right decisions in terms of what you're investing, you know, limited resources. You can't, no one has unlimited resources and ultimately have to decide what to do, which means you're also deciding what not to do. And it sounds like that's a really big piece of this, of this whole effort. >>Yeah. Jeff, that's exactly it, which is the way that the agile team measures their own way of working is very different from the way that you measure business outcomes. The business outcomes are in terms of how happy your customers are, but are you innovating fast enough to keep up with the pace of a rapidly changing economy, rapidly changing market. And those are, those are all around the customer. And so what I learned on this long journey of supporting many organizations transformations and having them try to apply those principles of agile and dev ops, that those are not enough, those measures technical practices, those measured sort of technical excellence of bringing code to the market. They don't actually measure business outcomes. And so I realized that it really was much more around having these entwined flow metrics that are customer centric and business centric and market centric where we need it to go. Right. >>So I want to shift gears a little bit and talk about your book because you're also a bestselling author, a project, a product, and, and, and you, you brought up this concept in your book called the flow framework. And it's really interesting to me cause I know, you know, flow on one hand is kind of a workflow and a process flow and, and you know, that's how things get done and, and, and embrace the flow. On the other hand, you know, everyone now in, in a little higher level existential way is trying to get into the flow right into the workflow and, you know, not be interrupted and get into a state where you're kind of at your highest productivity, you know, kind of your highest comfort, which flow are you talking about in your book or is it a little bit about, >>Well, that's a great question. It's not what I get asked very often. Just to me, it's absolutely both. So that the thing that we want to get to, we've learned how to master individual flow. That is this beautiful book by me, how he teaches me how he does a beautiful Ted talk by him as well about how we can take control of our own flow. So my question with the book with project replies, how can we bring that to entire teams and really entire organizations? How can we have everyone contributing to a customer outcome? And this is really what if you go to the biz ops manifesto, it says, I focus on outcomes on using data to drive whether we're delivering those outcomes rather than a focus on proxy metrics, such as, how quickly did we implement this feature? No, it's really how much value did the customer go to the feature and how quickly did you learn and how quickly did you use that data to drive to that next outcome? >>Really that with companies like Netflix and Amazon have mastered, how do we get that to every large organization, every it organization and make everyone be a software innovator. So it's to bring that co that concept of flow to these entwined value streams. And the fascinating thing is we've actually seen the data. We've been able to study a lot of value streams. We see when flow increases, when organizations deliver value to a customer faster, developers actually become more happy. So things like the employee net promoter scores rise, and we've got empirical data for this. So the beautiful thing to me is that we've actually been able to combine these two things and see the results in the data that you increase flow to the customer. Your developers are more happy. >>I love it, right, because we're all more, we're all happier when we're in the flow and we're all more productive when we're in the flow. So I, that is a great melding of, of two concepts, but let's jump into the, into the manifesto itself a little bit. And, you know, I love that, you know, took this approach really of having kind of four key values and then he gets 12 key principles. And I just want to read a couple of these values because when you read them, it sounds pretty brain dead. Right? Of course. Right. Of course you should focus on business outcomes. Of course you should have trust and collaboration. Of course you should have database decision making processes and not just intuition or, you know, whoever's the loudest person in the room, uh, and to learn and respond and pivot. But what's the value of actually just putting them on a piece of paper, because again, this is not this, these are all good, positive things, right? When somebody reads these to you or tells you these are sticks it on the wall, of course. But unfortunately of course isn't always enough. >>No. And I think what's happened is some of these core principles originally from the agile manifesto two decades ago, uh, the whole dev ops movement of the last decade of flow feedback and continue learning has been key. But a lot of organizations, especially the ones that are undergoing digital transformations have actually gone a very different way, right? The way that they measure value in technology and innovation is through costs for many organizations. The way that they actually are looking at that they're moving to cloud is actually as a reduction in cost. Whereas the right way of looking at moving to cloud is how much more quickly can we get to the value to the customer? How quickly can we learn from that? And how quickly can we drive the next business outcome? So really the key thing is, is to move away from those old ways of doing things, a funny projects and cost centers, uh, to actually funding and investing in outcomes and measuring outcomes through these flow metrics, which in the end are your fast feedback and how quickly you're innovating for your customer. >>So these things do seem, you know, very obvious when you look at them. But the key thing is what you need to stop doing to focus on these. You need to actually have accurate realtime data of how much value your phone to the customer every week, every month, every quarter. And if you don't have that, your decisions are not driven on data. If you don't know what your boggling like is, and this is something that in decades of manufacturing, a car manufacturers, other manufacturers, master, they always know where the bottom back in their production processes. You ask a random CIO when a global 500 company where their bottleneck is, and you won't get a clear answer because there's not that level of understanding. So let's, you actually follow these principles. You need to know exactly where you fall. And I guess because that's, what's making your developers miserable and frustrated around having them context, which on thrash. So it, the approach here is important and we have to stop doing these other things, >>Right? There's so much there to unpack. I love it. You know, especially the cloud conversation, because so many people look at it wrong as, as, as a cost saving device, as opposed to an innovation driver and they get stuck, they get stuck in the literal and the, and you know, I think at the same thing, always about Moore's law, right? You know, there's a lot of interesting real tech around Moore's law and the increasing power of microprocessors, but the real power, I think in Moore's laws is the attitudinal change in terms of working in a world where you know that you've got all this power and what you build and design. I think it's funny to your, your comment on the flow and the bottleneck, right? Cause, cause we know manufacturing, as soon as you fix one bottleneck, you move to your next one, right? You always move to your next point of failure. So if you're not fixing those things, you know, you're not, you're not increasing that speed down the line, unless you can identify where that bottleneck is or no matter how many improvements you make to the rest of the process, it's still going to get hung up on that one spot. >>That's exactly it. And you also make it sound so simple, but again, if you don't have the data driven visibility of where that bottom line is, and these bottlenecks are adjusted to say defense just whack them. All right. So we need to understand is the bottleneck because our security reviews are taking too long and stopping us from getting value for the customer. If it's that automate that process. And then you move on to the next bottleneck, which might actually be that deploying yourself into the cloud. It's taking too long. But if you don't take that approach of going flow first, rather than again, that sort of cost reduction. First, you have to think of the approach of customer centricity and you only focused on optimizing costs. Your costs will increase and your flow will slow down. And this is just one of these fascinating things. >>Whereas if you focus on getting closer to the customer and reducing your cycles out on getting value, your flow time from six months to two weeks or two, one week or two event, as we see with the tech giants, you actually can both lower your costs and get much more value for us to get that learning loop going. So I think I've, I've seen all these cloud deployments and one of the things happened that delivered almost no value because there was such big bottlenecks upfront in the process and actually the hosting and the AP testing was not even possible with all of those inefficiencies. So that's why going float us rather than costs when we started our project versus silky. >>I love that. And, and, and, and it, it begs repeating to that right within the subscription economy, you know, you're on the hook to deliver value every single month because they're paying you every single month. So if you're not on top of how you're delivering value, you're going to get sideways because it's not like they pay a big down payment and a small maintenance fee every month. But once you're in a subscription relationship, you know, you have to constantly be delivering value and upgrading that value because you're constantly taking money from the customer. So it's such a different kind of relationship than kind of the classic, you know, big bang with a maintenance agreement on the back end really important. Yeah. >>And I think in terms of industry shifts that that's, it that's, what's catalyzed. This industry shift is in this SAS and subscription economy. If you're not delivering more and more value to your customers, someone else's, and they're winning the business, not you. So, one way we know is to delight our customers with great user experience as well. That really is based on how many features you delivered or how much, how much, how many quality improvements or scalar performance improvements we delivered. So the problem is, and this is what the business manifesto, as well as the flow frame of touch on is if you can't measure how much value you deliver to a customer, what are you measuring? You just backed again, measuring costs, and that's not a measure of value. So we have to shift quickly away from measuring costs to measuring value, to survive. And in the subscription economy, >>We could go for days and days and days. I want to shift gears a little bit into data and, and a data driven decision making a data driven organization cause right day has been talked about for a long time, the huge big data meme with, with Hadoop over, over several years and, and data warehouses and data lakes and data oceans and data swamps. And you can go on and on and on. It's not that easy to do, right? And at the same time, the proliferation of data is growing exponentially. We're just around the corner from, from IOT and five G. So now the accumulation of data at machine scale, again, is this gonna overwhelm? And one of the really interesting principles, uh, that I wanted to call out and get your take right, is today's organizations generate more data than humans can process. So informed decisions must be augmented by machine learning and artificial intelligence. I wonder if you can, again, you've got some great historical perspective, um, reflect on how hard it is to get the right data, to get the data in the right context, and then to deliver it to the decision makers and then trust the decision makers to actually make the data and move that down. You know, it's kind of this democratization process into more and more people and more and more frontline jobs making more and more of these little decisions every day. >>Yeah. I definitely think the front parts of what you said are where the promises of big data have completely fallen on their face into the swamps as, as you mentioned, because if you don't have the data in the right format, you've cannot connect, collected that the right way you want it, that way, the right way you can't use human or machine learning on it effectively. And there've been the number of data where, how has this in a typical enterprise organization and the sheer investment is tremendous, but the amount of intelligence being extracted from those is, is, is a very big problem. So the key thing that I've noticed is that if you can model your value streams, so you actually understand how you're innovating, how you're measuring the delivery of value and how long that takes, what is your time to value through these metrics like full time? >>You can actually use both the intelligence that you've got around the table and push that down as well, as far as getting to the organization, but you can actually start using that those models to understand and find patterns and detect bottlenecks that might be surprising, right? Well, you can detect interesting bottlenecks when you shift to work from home. We detected all sorts of interesting bottlenecks in our own organization that were not intuitive to me that have to do with, you know, more senior people being overloaded and creating bottlenecks where they didn't exist. Whereas we thought we were actually an organization that was very good at working from home because of our open source roots. So the data is highly complex. Software value streams are extremely complicated. And the only way to really get the proper analysts and data is to model it properly and then to leverage these machine learning and AI techniques that we have. But that front part of what you said is where organizations are just extremely immature in what I've seen, where they've got data from all their tools, but not modeled in the right way. Right, right. >>Right. Well, all right. So before I let you go, you know, let's say you get a business leader. He, he buys in, he reads the manifesto, he signs on the dotted line and he says, Mick, how do I get started? I want to be more aligned with the, with the development teams. I know I'm in a very competitive space. We need to be putting out new software features and engage with our customers. I want to be more data-driven how do I get started? Well, you know, what's the biggest inhibitor for most people to get started and get some early wins, which we know is always the key to success in any kind of a new initiative. >>Right? So I think you can reach out to us through the website, uh, for the manifesto. But the key thing is just, it's definitely set up it's to get started and to get the key wins. So take a product value stream. That's mission critical if it'd be on your mobile and web experiences or part of your cloud modernization platform where your analytics pipeline, but take that and actually apply these principles to it and measure the end to end flow of value. Make sure you have a value metric that everyone is on the same page on, but the people on the development teams that people in leadership all the way up to the CEO, and one of the, where I encourage you to start is actually that end to end flow time, right? That is the number one metric. That is how you measure it, whether you're getting the benefit of your cloud modernization, that is the one metric that when the people I respect tremendously put into his cloud for CEOs, the metric, the one, the one way to measure innovation. So basically take these principles, deploy them on one product value stream measure, Antonin flow time, uh, and then you'll actually be well on your path to transforming and to applying the concepts of agile and dev ops all the way to, to the, to the way >>You're offering model. >>Well, Mick really great tips, really fun to catch up. I look forward to a time when we can actually sit across the table and, and get into this. Cause I just, I just love the perspective and, you know, you're very fortunate to have that foundational, that foundational base coming from Xerox park and they get, you know, it's, it's a very magical place with a magical history. So to, to incorporate that into, continue to spread that well, uh, you know, good for you through the book and through your company. So thanks for sharing your insight with us today. >>Thanks so much for having me, Jeff. Absolutely. >>All right. And go to the biz ops manifesto.org, read it, check it out. If you want to sign it, sign it. They'd love to have you do it. Stay with us for continuing coverage of the unveiling of the business manifesto on the cube. I'm Jeff. Rick. Thanks for watching. See you next time >>From around the globe. It's the cube with digital coverage, a biz ops manifesto unveiled brought to you by biz ops coalition. >>Hey, welcome back. You're ready. Jeff Frick here with the cube for our ongoing coverage of the big unveil. It's the biz ops manifesto manifesto unveil. And we're going to start that again from the top three And a Festo >>Five, four, three, two. >>Hey, welcome back everybody. Jeff Frick here with the cube come to you from our Palo Alto studios today for a big, big reveal. We're excited to be here. It's the biz ops manifesto unveiling a thing's been in the works for a while and we're excited to have our next guest. One of the, really the powers behind this whole effort. And he's joining us from Boston it's surge, Lucio, the vice president, and general manager enterprise software division at Broadcom surge. Great to see you. >>Hi, good to see you, Jeff. Glad to be here. >>Absolutely. So you've been in this business for a very long time. You've seen a lot of changes in technology. What is the biz ops manifesto? What is this coalition all about? Why do we need this today and in 2020? >>Yeah. So, so I've been in this business for close to 25 years, right? So about 20 years ago, the agile manifesto was created. And the goal of the agile manifesto was really to address the uncertainty around software development and the inability to predict the efforts to build software. And, uh, if you, if you roll that kind of 20 years later, and if you look at the current state of the industry of the product, the project management Institute, estimates that we're wasting about a million dollars, every 20 seconds in digital transformation initiatives that do not deliver on business results. In fact, we were recently served a third of the, a, a number of executives in partnership with Harvard >>Business review and 77% of those executives think that one of the key challenges that they have is really the collaboration between business and it, and that that's been kind of a case for, uh, almost 20 years now. Um, so the, the, the key challenge that we're faced with is really that we need a new approach. And many of the players in the industry, including ourselves have been using different terms, right? Some are being, are talking about value stream management. Some are talking about software delivery management. If you look at the site, reliability engineering movement, in many ways, it embodies a lot of these kind of concepts and principles. So we believed that it became really imperative for us to crystallize around, could have one concept. And so in many ways, the, a, the BizOps concept and the BizOps manifesto are bringing together a number of ideas, which has been emerging in the last five years or so, and, and defining the key values and principles to finally help these organizations truly transform and become digital businesses. And so the hope is that by joining our forces and defining public key principles and values, we can help the industry, uh, not just, uh, by, you know, providing them with support, but also tools and consulting that is required for them to truly achieve the kind of transformation that everybody's taking. >>Right. Right. So COVID now we're six months into it, approximately seven months into it. Um, a lot of pain, a lot of bad stuff still happening. We've got a ways to go, but one of the things that on the positive side, right, and you've seen all the memes and social media is, is a driver of digital transformation and a driver of change. Cause we had this light switch moment in the middle of March, and there was no more planning. There was no more conversation. You've suddenly got remote workforces, everybody's working from home and you got to go, right. So the reliance on these tools increases dramatically, but I'm curious, you know, kind of short of, of the beginnings of this effort in short of kind of COVID, which, you know, came along unexpectedly. I mean, what were those inhibitors because we've been making software for a very long time, right? The software development community has, has adopted kind of rapid change and, and iterative, uh, delivery and, and sprints, what was holding back the connection with the business side to make sure that those investments were properly aligned with outcomes. >>Well, so, so you have to understand that it is, is kind of a its own silos. And traditionally it has been treated as a cost center within large organizations and not as a value center. And so as a result, kind of a, the traditional dynamic between it and the business is basically one of a kind of supplier up to kind of a business. Um, and you know, if you go back to, uh, I think you'll unmask a few years ago, um, basically at this concept of the machines to build the machines and you went as far as saying that, uh, the, the machines or the production line is actually the product. So, uh, meaning that the core of the innovation is really about, uh, building, could it be engine to deliver on the value? And so in many ways, you know, we, we have missed on this shift from, um, kind of it becoming this kind of value center within the enterprises and end. >>He talks about culture. Now, culture is a, is a sum total of behaviors. And the reality is that if you look at it, especially in the last decade, uh, we've agile with dev ops with, um, I bring infrastructures, uh, it's, it's way more volatile today than it was 10 years ago. And so the, when you start to look at the velocity of the data, the volume of data, the variety of data to analyze the system, um, it's, it's very challenging for it to actually even understand and optimize its own processes, let alone, um, to actually include business as sort of an integral part of kind of a delivery chain. And so it's both kind of a combination of, of culture, um, which is required, uh, as well as tools, right? To be able to start to bring together all these data together, and then given the volume of variety of philosophy of the data. Uh, we have to apply some core technologies, which have only really, truly emerged in the last five to 10 years around machine learning and analytics. And so it's really kind of a combination of those freaks, which are coming together today, truly out organizations kind of get to the next level. Right, >>Right. So let's talk about the manifesto. Let's talk about, uh, the coalition, uh, the BizOps coalition. I just liked that you put down these really simple, you know, kind of straightforward core values. You guys have four core values that you're highlighting, you know, business outcomes, over individual projects and outputs, trust, and collaboration, oversight, load teams, and organizations, data driven decisions, what you just talked about, uh, you know, over opinions and judgment and learned, respond and pivot. I mean, surgery sounds like pretty basic stuff, right? I mean, aren't, isn't everyone working to these values already. And I think he touched on it on culture, right? Trust and collaboration, data driven decisions. I mean, these are fundamental ways that people must run their business today, or the person that's across the street, that's doing it. It's going to knock them out right off their block. >>Yeah. So that's very true. But, uh, so I'll, I'll mention an hour survey. We did, uh, I think about six months ago and it was in partnership with, uh, with, uh, an industry analyst and we serve at a, again, a number of it executives to understand only we're tracking business outcomes. I'm going to get the software executives, it executives we're tracking business outcomes. And the, there were less than 15% of these executives were actually tracking the outcomes of the software delivery. And you see that every day. Right? So in my own teams, for instance, we've been adopting a lot of these core principles in the last year or so, and we've uncovered that 16% of our resources were basically aligned around initiatives, which are not strategic for us. Um, I take another example, for instance, one of our customers in the, uh, in the airline industry and Harvard, for instance, that a number of, uh, um, that they had software issues that led to people searching for flights and not returning any kind of availability. >>And yet, um, you know, the it teams, whether it's operation software environments were completely oblivious to that because they were completely blindsided to it. And so the connectivity between kind of the inwards metrics that RT is using, whether it's database time, cycle time, or whatever metric we use in it are typically completely divorced from the business metrics. And so at its core, it's really about starting to align the business metrics with the, the, the software delivery chain, right? This, uh, the system, which is really a core differentiator for these organizations. It's about connecting those two things and starting to, um, infuse some of the agile culture and principles. Um, that's emerged from the software side into the business side. Um, of course the lean movement and other movements have started to change some of these dynamics on the business side. And so I think this, this is the moment where we are starting to see kind of the imperative to transform. Now, you know, Covina obviously has been a key driver for that. The, um, the technology is right to start to be able to weave data together and really kind of, uh, also the cultural shifts, uh, Prue agile through dev ops through, uh, the SRE movement, uh frulein um, business transformation, all these things are coming together and that are really creating kind of the conditions for the BizOps manifestor to exist, >>Uh, Clayton Christianson, great, uh, Harvard professor innovator's dilemma might steal my all time. Favorite business books, you know, talks about how difficult it is for incumbents to react to, to disruptive change, right? Because they're always working on incremental change cause that's what their customers are asking for. And there's a good ROI when you talk about, you know, companies not measuring the right thing. I mean, clearly it has some portion of their budget that has to go to keeping the lights on, right. That that's always the case, but hopefully that's an ever decreasing percentage of their total activity. So, you know, what should people be measuring? I mean, what are kind of the new metrics, um, in, in biz ops that drive people to be looking at the right things, measuring the right things and subsequently making the right decisions, investment decisions on whether they should do, you know, move project a along or project B. >>So there, there are only two things, right? So, so I think what you're talking about is portfolio management, investment management, right. And, um, which, which is a key challenge, right? Um, in my own experience, right? Uh, driving strategy or a large scale kind of software organization for years, um, it's very difficult to even get kind of a base data as to who is doing what, uh, um, I mean, some of our largest customers we're engaged with right now are simply trying to get a very simple answer, which is how many people do I have and that specific initiative at any point in time and just tracking that information is extremely difficult. So, and, and again, back to a product project management Institute, um, they're, they've estimated that on average, it organizations have anywhere between 10 to 20% of their resources focused on initiatives, which are not strategically aligned. >>So that's one dimension on portfolio management. I think the key aspect though, that we are really keen on is really around kind of the alignment of a business metrics to the it metrics. Um, so I'll use kind of two simple examples, right? And my background is around quality. And so I've always believed that fitness for purpose is really kind of a key, um, uh, philosophy if you will. And so if you start to think about quality as fitness for purpose, you start to look at it from a customer point of view, right. And fitness for purpose for core banking application or mobile application are different, right? So the definition of a business value that you're trying to achieve is different. Um, and so the, and yet, if you look at our, it, operations are operating, they were using kind of a same type of, uh, kind of inward metrics, uh, like a database of time or a cycle time, or what is my point of velocity, right? >>And, uh, and so the challenge really is this inward facing metrics that it is using, which are divorced from ultimately the outcome. And so, you know, if I'm, if I'm trying to build a poor banking application, my core metric is likely going to be uptime, right? If I'm trying to build a mobile application or maybe your social mobile app, it's probably going to be engagement. And so what you want is for everybody across it, to look at these metric, and what's hard, the metrics within the software delivery chain, which ultimately contribute to that business metric and some cases cycle time may be completely irrelevant, right? Again, my core banking app, maybe I don't care about cycle time. And so it's really about aligning those metrics and be able to start to differentiate, um, the key challenges you mentioned, uh, around the, the, um, uh, around the disruption that we see is, or the investors is the dilemma now is really around the fact that many it organizations are essentially applying the same approaches of, for innovation, right, for basically scrap work, then they would apply to kind of over more traditional projects. And so, you know, there's been a lot of talk about two-speed it, and yes, it exists, but in reality are really organizations, um, truly differentiating, um, all of the operate, their, their projects and products based on the outcomes that they're trying to achieve. And this is really where BizOps is trying to affect. >>I love that, you know, again, it doesn't seem like brain surgery, but focus on the outcomes, right. And it's horses for courses, as you said, this project, you know, what you're measuring and how you define success, isn't necessarily the same as, as on this other project. So let's talk about some of the principles we've talked about the values, but, you know, I think it's interesting that, that, that the BizOps coalition, you know, just basically took the time to write these things down and they don't seem all that, uh, super insightful, but I guess you just gotta get them down and have them on paper and have them in front of your face. But I want to talk about, you know, one of the key ones, which you just talked about, which is changing requirements, right. And working in a dynamic situation, which is really what's driven, you know, this, the software to change in software development, because, you know, if you're in a game app and your competitor comes out with a new blue sword, you've got to come out with a new blue sword. >>So whether you had that on your Kanban wall or not. So it's, it's really this embracing of the speed of change and, and, and, and making that, you know, the rule, not the exception. I think that's a phenomenal one. And the other one you talked about is data, right? And that today's organizations generate more data than humans can process. So informed decisions must be generated by machine learning and AI, and, you know, in the, the big data thing with Hadoop, you know, started years ago, but we are seeing more and more that people are finally figuring it out, that it's not just big data, and it's not even generic machine learning or artificial intelligence, but it's applying those particular data sets and that particular types of algorithms to a specific problem, to your point, to try to actually reach an objective, whether that's, you know, increasing the, your average ticket or, you know, increasing your checkout rate with, with, with shopping carts that don't get left behind and these types of things. So it's a really different way to think about the world in the good old days, probably when you got started, when we had big, giant, you know, MRDs and PRDs and sat down and coded for two years and came out with a product release and hopefully not too many patches subsequently to that. >>It's interesting. Right. Um, again, back to one of these surveys that we did with, uh, with about 600, the ITA executives, and, uh, and, and we, we purposely designed those questions to be pretty open. Um, and, and one of them was really role requirements and, uh, and it was really a wrong kind of what do you, what is the best approach? What is your preferred approach towards requirements? And if I remember correctly over 80% of the it executives set that the best approach they'll prefer to approach is for requirements to be completely defined before software development starts. Let me pause there where 20 years after the agile manifesto, right? And for 80% of these idea executives to basically claim that the best approach is for requirements to be fully baked before salt, before software development starts, basically shows that we still have a very major issue. >>And again, our hypothesis in working with many organizations is that the key challenge is really the boundary between business and it, which is still very much contract based. If you look at the business side, they basically are expecting for it deliver on time on budget, right. But what is the incentive for it to actually delivering all the business outcomes, right? How often is it measured on the business outcomes and not on an SLA or on a budget type criteria. And so that, that's really the fundamental shift that we need to, we really need to drive up as an industry. Um, and you know, we, we talk about kind of this, this imperative for organizations to operate that's one, and back to the innovator's dilemma. The key difference between these larger organization is, is really kind of a, if you look at the amount of capital investment that they can put into pretty much anything, why are they losing compared to, um, you know, startups? What, why is it that, uh, more than 40% of, uh, personal loans today or issued not by your traditional brick and mortar banks, but by, um, startups? Well, the reason, yes, it's the traditional culture of doing incremental changes and not disrupting ourselves, which Christiansen covered at length, but it's also the inability to really fundamentally change kind of a dynamic picture. We can business it and, and, and partner right. To, to deliver on a specific business outcome. Right. >>I love that. That's a great, that's a great summary. And in fact, getting ready for this interview, I saw you mentioning another thing where, you know, the, the problem with the agile development is that you're actually now getting more silos because you have all these autonomous people working, you know, kind of independently. So it's even a harder challenge for, for the business leaders to, to, to, as you said, to know, what's actually going on, but, but certainly I w I want to close, um, and talk about the coalition. Um, so clearly these are all great concepts. These are concepts you want to apply to your business every day. Why the coalition, why, you know, take these concepts out to a broader audience, including your, your competition and, and the broader industry to say, Hey, we, as a group need to put a stamp of approval on these concepts, values, these principles. >>So, first I think we, we want, um, everybody to realize that we are all talking about the same things, the same concepts. I think we were all from our own different vantage point, realizing that, um, things after change, and again, back to, you know, whether it's value stream management or site reliability engineering, or biz ops, we're all kind of using slightly different languages. Um, and so I think one of the important aspects of BizOps is for us, all of us, whether we're talking about, you know, consulting agile transformation experts, uh, whether we're talking about vendors, right, provides kind of tools and technologies, or these large enterprises to transform for all of us to basically have kind of a reference that lets us speak around kind of, um, in a much more consistent way. The second aspect is for, to me is for, um, these concepts to start to be embraced, not just by us or trying, or, you know, vendors, um, system integrators, consulting firms, educators, thought leaders, but also for some of our old customers to start to become evangelists of their own in the industry. >>So we, our, our objective with the coalition needs to be pretty, pretty broad. Um, and our hope is by, by starting to basically educate, um, our, our joint customers or partners, that we can start to really foster these behaviors and start to really change, uh, some of dynamics. So we're very pleased at if you look at, uh, some of the companies which have joined the, the, the, the manifesto. Um, so we have vendors and suggest desktop or advance, or, um, uh, PagerDuty for instance, or even planned view, uh, one of my direct competitors, um, but also thought leaders like Tom Davenport or, uh, or cap Gemini or, um, um, smaller firms like, uh, business agility, institutes, or agility elf. Um, and so our, our goal really is to start to bring together, uh, thought leaders, people who have been LP, larger organizations do digital transformation vendors, were providing the technologies that many of these organizations use to deliver on these digital preservation and for all of us to start to provide the kind of, uh, education support and tools that the industry needs. Yeah, >>That's great surge. And, uh, you know, congratulations to you and the team. I know this has been going on for a while, putting all this together, getting people to sign onto the manifesto, putting the coalition together, and finally today getting to unveil it to the world in a little bit more of a public, uh, opportunity. So again, you know, really good values, really simple principles, something that, that, uh, shouldn't have to be written down, but it's nice cause it is, and now you can print it out and stick it on your wall. So thank you for, uh, for sharing this story. And again, congrats to you and the team. Thank you. Appreciate it. My pleasure. Alrighty, surge. If you want to learn more about the biz ops, Manifesta go to biz ops manifesto.org, read it, and you can sign it and you can stay here for more coverage. I'm the cube of the biz ops manifesto unveiled. Thanks for watching. See you next time >>From around the globe. It's the cube with digital coverage of this ops manifesto unveiled and brought to you by >>This obstacle volition. Hey, welcome back, everybody Jeffrey here with the cube. Welcome back to our ongoing coverage of the biz ops manifesto unveiling. It's been in the works for awhile, but today's the day that it actually kind of come out to the, to the public. And we're excited to have a real industry luminary here to talk about what's going on, why this is important and share his perspective. And we're happy to have from Cape Cod, I believe is Tom Davenport. He's a distinguished author and professor at Babson college. We could go on, he's got a lot of great titles and, and really illuminary in the area of big data and analytics Thomas. Great to see you. >>Thanks Jeff. Happy to be here with you. >>Great. So let's just jump into it, you know, and getting ready for this. I came across your LinkedIn posts. I think you did earlier this summer in June and right off the bat, the first sentence just grabbed my attention. I'm always interested in new attempts to address longterm issues, uh, in how technology works within businesses, biz ops. What did you see in biz ops, uh, that, that kind of addresses one of these really big longterm problems? >>Well, yeah, but the longterm problem is that we've had a poor connection between business people and it people between business objectives and the, it solutions that address them. This has been going on, I think since the beginning of information technology and sadly it hasn't gone away. And so biz ops is a new attempt to deal with that issue with a, you know, a new framework, eventually a broad set of solutions that increase the likelihood that will actually solve a business problem with an it capability. >>Right. You know, it's interesting to compare it with like dev ops, which I think a lot of people are probably familiar with, which was, you know, built around, uh, agile software development and a theory that we want to embrace change that that changes. Okay. And we want to be able to iterate quickly and incorporate that. And that's been happening in the software world for, for 20 plus years. What's taken so long to get that to the business side, because as the pace of change has changed on the software side, you know, that's a strategic issue in terms of execution, the business side that they need now to change priorities. And, you know, there's no PRDs and MRDs and big, giant strategic plans that sit on the shelf for five years. That's just not the way business works anymore. It took a long time to get here. >>Yeah, it did. And, you know, there had been previous attempts to make a better connection between business and it, there was the so called strategic alignment framework that a couple of friends of mine from Boston university developed, I think more than 20 years ago, but you know, now we have better technology for creating that linkage. And the, you know, the idea of kind of ops oriented frameworks is pretty pervasive now. So I think it's time for another serious attempt at it. >>And do you think doing it this way, right. With the, with the BizOps coalition, you know, getting a collection of, of, of kind of likeminded individuals and companies together, and actually even having a manifesto, which we're making this declarative statement of, of principles and values, you think that's what it takes to kind of drive this kind of beyond the experiment and actually, you know, get it done and really start to see some results in, in, uh, in production in the field. >>I think certainly no one vendor organization can pull this off single handedly. It does require a number of organizations collaborating and working together. So I think our coalition is a good idea and a manifesto is just a good way to kind of lay out what you see as the key principles of the idea. And that makes it much easier for everybody to understand and act on. >>I, I think it's just, it's really interesting having, you know, having them written down on paper and having it just be so clearly articulated both in terms of the, of the values as well as, as the, uh, the principles and the values, you know, business outcomes matter trust and collaboration, data-driven decisions, which is the number three of four, and then learn, respond and pivot. It doesn't seem like those should have to be spelled out so clearly, but, but obviously it helps to have them there. You can stick them on the wall and kind of remember what your priorities are, but you're the data guy. You're the analytics guy, uh, and a big piece of this is data and analytics and moving to data driven decisions. And principle number seven says, you know, today's organizations generate more data than humans can process and informed decisions can be augmented by machine learning and artificial intelligence right up your alley. You know, you've talked a number of times on kind of the mini stages of analytics. Um, and how has that evolved over over time, you know, as you think of analytics and machine learning, driving decisions beyond supporting decisions, but actually starting to make decisions in machine time. What's that, what's that thing for you? What does that make you, you know, start to think, wow, this is this going to be pretty significant. >>Yeah. Well, you know, this has been a longterm interest of mine. Um, the last generation of AI, I was very interested in expert systems. And then, um, I think, uh, more than 10 years ago, I wrote an article about automated decision-making using what was available then, which was rule-based approaches. Um, but you know, this addresses an issue that we've always had with analytics and AI. Um, you know, we, we tended to refer to those things as providing decision support, but the problem is that if the decision maker didn't want their support, didn't want to use them in order to make a decision, they didn't provide any value. And so the nice thing about automating decisions, um, with now contemporary AI tools is that we can ensure that data and analytics get brought into the decision without any possible disconnection. Now, I think humans still have something to add here, and we often will need to examine how that decision is being made and maybe even have the ability to override it. But in general, I think at least for, you know, repetitive tactical decisions, um, involving a lot of data, we want most of those, I think to be at least, um, recommended if not totally made by an algorithm or an AI based system. And that I believe would add to, um, the quality and the precision and the accuracy of decisions and in most organizations, >>No, I think, I think you just answered my next question before I, before I asked it, you know, we had dr. Robert Gates on the former secretary of defense on a few years back, and we were talking about machines and machines making decisions. And he said at that time, you know, the only weapon systems, uh, that actually had an automated trigger on it were on the North Korea and South Korea border. Um, everything else, as you said, had to go through a sub person before the final decision was made. And my question is, you know, what are kind of the attributes of the decision that enable us to more easily automated? And then how do you see that kind of morphing over time, both as the data to support that as well as our comfort level, um, enables us to turn more and more actual decisions over to the machine? >>Well, yeah, as I suggested we need, um, data and the data that we have to kind of train our models has to be high quality and current, and we need to know the outcomes of that data. You know, um, most machine learning models, at least in business are supervised. And that means we need to have labeled outcomes in the, in the training data. But I, you know, um, the pandemic that we're living through is a good illustration of the fact that, that the data also have to be reflective of current reality. And, you know, one of the things that we're finding out quite frequently these days is that, um, the data that we have do not reflect, you know, what it's like to do business in a pandemic. Um, I wrote a little piece about this recently with Jeff cam at wake forest university, we call it data science quarantined, and we interviewed with somebody who said, you know, it's amazing what eight weeks of zeros will do to your demand forecast. We just don't really know what happens in a pandemic. Um, our models maybe have to be put on the shelf for a little while and until we can develop some new ones or we can get some other guidelines into making decisions. So I think that's one of the key things with automated decision making. We have to make sure that the data from the past and that's all we have of course, is a good guide to, you know, what's happening in the present and the future as far as we understand it. >>Yeah. I used to joke when we started this calendar year 2020, it was finally the year that we know everything with the benefit of hindsight, but I turned down 20, 20 a year. We found out we actually know nothing and everything and thought we knew, but I want to, I want to follow up on that because you know, it did suddenly change everything, right? We've got this light switch moment. Everybody's working from home now we're many, many months into it, and it's going to continue for a while. I saw your interview with Bernard Marr and you had a really interesting comment that now we have to deal with this change. We don't have a lot of data and you talked about hold fold or double down. And, and I can't think of a more, you know, kind of appropriate metaphor for driving the value of the biz ops when now your whole portfolio strategy, um, these to really be questioned and, and, you know, you have to be really, uh, well, uh, executing on what you are, holding, what you're folding and what you're doubling down with this completely new environment. >>Well, yeah, and I hope I did this in the interview. I would like to say that I came up with that term, but it actually came from a friend of mine. Who's a senior executive at Genpact. And, um, I, um, used it mostly to talk about AI and AI applications, but I think you could, you could use it much more broadly to talk about your entire sort of portfolio of digital projects. You need to think about, well, um, given some constraints on resources and a difficult economy for a while, which of our projects do we want to keep going on pretty much the way we were and which ones are not that necessary anymore? You see a lot of that in AI, because we had so many pilots, somebody told me, you know, we've got more pilots around here than O'Hare airport and, and AI. Um, and then, but the ones that involve doubled down, they're even more important to you. They are, you know, a lot of organizations have found this out, um, in the pandemic on digital projects, it's more and more important for customers to be able to interact with you, um, digitally. And so you certainly wouldn't want to cancel those projects or put them on hold. So you double down on them and get them done faster and better. Right, >>Right. Uh, another, another thing that came up in my research that, that you quoted, um, was, was from Jeff Bezos, talking about the great bulk of what we do is quietly, but meaningfully improving core operations. You know, I think that is so core to this concept of not AI and machine learning and kind of the general sense, which, which gets way too much buzz, but really applied right. Applied to a specific problem. And that's where you start to see the value. And, you know, the, the BizOps, uh, manifesto is, is, is calling it out in this particular process. But I'd love to get your perspective as you know, you speak generally about this topic all the time, but how people should really be thinking about where are the applications where I can apply this technology to get direct business value. >>Yeah, well, you know, even talking about automated decisions, um, uh, the kind of once in a lifetime decisions, uh, the ones that, um, ag Lafley, the former CEO of Procter and gamble used to call the big swing decisions. You only get a few of those. He said in your tenure as CEO, those are probably not going to be the ones that you're automating in part because, um, you don't have much data about them. You're only making them a few times and in part, because, um, they really require that big picture thinking and the ability to kind of anticipate the future, that the best human decision makers, um, have. Um, but, um, in general, I think where they, I, the projects that are working well are, you know, what I call the low hanging fruit ones, the, some people even report to it referred to it as boring AI. >>So, you know, sucking data out of a contract in order to compare it to a bill of lading for what arrived at your supply chain companies can save or make a lot of money with that kind of comparison. It's not the most exciting thing, but AI, as you suggested is really good at those narrow kinds of tasks. It's not so good at the, at the really big moonshots, like curing cancer or, you know, figuring out well what's the best stock or bond under all or even autonomous vehicles. Um, we, we made some great progress in that area, but everybody seems to agree that they're not going to be perfect for quite a while, and we really don't want to be driving around on, um, and then very much unless they're, you know, good and all kinds of weather and with all kinds of pedestrian traffic and you know, that sort of thing, right? >>That's funny you bring up contract management. I had a buddy years ago, they had a startup around contract management and I've like, and this was way before we had the compute power today and cloud proliferation. I said, you know, how can you possibly build software around contract management? It's language, it's legal, ease. It's very specific. And he's like, Jeff, we just need to know where's the contract. And when does it expire? And who's the signatory. And he built a business on those, you know, very simple little facts that weren't being covered because their contracts are in people's drawers and files and homes. And Lord only knows. So it's really interesting, as you said, these kind of low hanging fruit opportunities where you can extract a lot of business value without trying to, you know, boil the ocean. >>Yeah. I mean, if you're Amazon, um, uh, Jeff Bezos thinks it's important to have some kind of billion dollar project. And he even says it's important to have a billion dollar failure or two every year. But I think most organizations probably are better off being a little less aggressive and, you know, sticking to, um, what AI has been doing for a long time, which is, you know, making smarter decisions based on, based on data. >>Right? So Tom, I want to shift gears one more time before, before we let you go on, on kind of a new topic for you, not really new, but you know, not, not a, the vast majority of, of your publications and that's the new way to work, you know, as, as the pandemic hit in mid March, right. And we had this light switch moment, everybody had to work from home and it was, you know, kind of crisis and get everybody set up. Well, you know, now we're five months, six months, seven months. A number of companies have said that people are not going to be going back to work for a while. And so we're going to continue on this for a while. And then even when it's not what it is now, it's not going to be what it was before. So, you know, I wonder, and I know you, you, uh, you teased, you're working on a new book, you know, some of your thoughts on, you know, kind of this new way to work and, and, and the human factors in this new, this new kind of reality that we're kind of evolving into, I guess. >>Yeah. I missed was an interest of mine. I think, um, back in the nineties, I wrote an article called, um, a coauthored, an article called two cheers for the virtual office. And, you know, it was just starting to emerge. Then some people were very excited about it. Some people were skeptical and, uh, we said two cheers rather than three cheers because clearly there's some shortcomings. And, you know, I keep seeing these pop up. It's great that we can work from our homes. It's great that we can, most of what we need to do with a digital interface, but, um, you know, things like innovation and creativity, and certainly, um, uh, a good, um, happy social life kind of requires some face to face contact every now and then. And so I, you know, I think we'll go back to an environment where there is some of that. >>Um, we'll have, um, times when people convene in one place so they can get to know each other face to face and learn from each other that way. And most of the time, I think it's a huge waste of people's time to commute into the office every day and to jump on airplanes, to, to, um, give every little, um, uh, sales call or give every little presentation. Uh, we just have to really narrow down what are the circumstances where face to face contact really matters. And when can we get by with digital? You know, I think one of the things in my current work I'm finding is that even when you have AI based decision making, you really need a good platform in which that all takes place. So in addition to these virtual platforms, we need to develop platforms that kind of structure the workflow for us and tell us what we should be doing next, then make automated decisions when necessary. And I think that ultimately is a big part of biz ops as well. It's not just the intelligence of an AI system, but it's the flow of work that kind of keeps things moving smoothly throughout your organization. >>I think such, such a huge opportunity as you just said, cause I forget the stats on how often we're interrupted with notifications between email texts, Slack, a sauna, Salesforce, the list goes on and on. So, you know, to put an AI layer between the person and all these systems that are begging for attention, you've written a book on the attention economy, which is a whole nother topic, we'll say for another day, you know, it, it really begs, it really begs for some assistance because you know, you just can't get him picked, you know, every two minutes and really get quality work done. It's just not, it's just not realistic. And you know what? I don't think that's a feature that we're looking for. >>I agree. Totally >>Tom. Well, thank you so much for your time. Really enjoyed the conversation. I got to dig into the library. It's very long. So I might start at the attention economy. I haven't read that one. And to me, I think that's the fascinating thing in which we're living. So thank you for your time and, uh, great to see you. >>My pleasure, Jeff. Great to be here. >>All right. He's Tom I'm Jeff. You are watching the continuing coverage of the biz ops manifesto and Vail. Thanks for watching the cube. We'll see you next time.

>>from around the globe. It's the Cube with digital coverage of biz ops Manifesto unveiled. Brought to you by biz ops Coalition. Hey, welcome back your body, Jeffrey here with the Cube. Welcome back to our ongoing coverage of the busy ops manifesto unveiling its been in the works for a while. But today is the day that it actually kind of come out to the to the public. And we're excited to have a real industry luminary here to talk about what's going on, Why this is important and share his perspective. And we're happy to have from Cape Cod, I believe, is Tom Davenport. He is a distinguished author on professor at Babson College. We could go on. He's got a lot of great titles and and really illuminate airy in the area of big data and analytics. Thomas, great to see you. >>Thanks, Jeff. Happy to be here with you. Great. >>So let's just jump into it, you know, and getting ready for this. I came across your LinkedIn post. I think you did earlier this summer in June and right off the bat, the first sentence just grabbed my attention. I'm always interested in new attempts to address long term issues, Uh, in how technology works within businesses. Biz ops. What did you see in biz ops? That that kind of addresses one of these really big long term problems? >>Well, yeah. The long term problem is that we've had a poor connection between business people and I t people between business objectives and the i t. Solutions that address them. This has been going on, I think, since the beginning of information technology, and sadly, it hasn't gone away. And so busy ops is new attempt to deal with that issue with a, you know, a new framework. Eventually a broad set of solutions that increase the likelihood that will actually solve a business problem with a nightie capability. >>Right. You know, it's interesting to compare it with, like, Dev ops, which I think a lot of people are probably familiar with, which was, you know, built around a agile software development and the theory that we want to embrace change that that changes okay on. We wanna be able to iterate quickly and incorporate that, and that's been happening in the software world for for 20 plus years. What's taking so long to get that to the business side because the pace of change is change on the software side. You know, that's a strategic issue in terms of execution on the business side that they need now to change priorities. And, you know, there's no P R D S and M R. D s and big giant strategic plans that sit on the shelf for five years. That's just not the way business works anymore. Took a long time to get here. >>Yeah, it did. And, you know, there have been previous attempts to make a better connection between business and i t. There was the so called strategic alignment framework that a couple of friends of mine from Boston University developed, I think more than 20 years ago. But, you know, now we have better technology for creating that linkage. And the, you know, the idea of kind of ops oriented frameworks is pretty pervasive now. So I think it's, um you know, time for another serious attempt at it, >>right? And do you think doing it this way right with the bizarre coalition, you know, getting a collection of of kind of like minded individuals and companies together and actually even having a manifesto which were making this declarative statement of principles and values. You think that's what it takes to kind of drive this, you know, kind of beyond the experiment and actually, you know, get it done and really start to see some results in, in in production in the field. >>I think certainly no one vendor organization can pull this off single handedly. It does require a number of organizations collaborating and working together. So I think a coalition is a good idea, and a manifesto is just a good way to kind of lay out. What you see is the key principles of the idea, and that makes it much easier for everybody. Toe I understand and act on. >>Yeah, I I think it's just it's really interesting having, you know, having them written down on paper and having it just be so clearly articulated both in terms of the of the values as well as as the the principles and and the values, you know. Business outcomes, matter, trust and collaboration, data driven decisions, which is the number three or four and then learn, responded pivot. It doesn't seem like those should have to be spelled out so clearly. But obviously it helps to have them there. You can stick them on the wall and kind of remember what your priorities are. But you're the data guy. You're the analytics guy. Yeah, And a big piece of this is data analytics and moving to data driven decisions. And principle number seven says, you know, today's organizations generate more data than humans can process. And informed decisions can be augmented by machine learning and artificial intelligence right up your alley. You know, you've talked a number of times on kind of the many stages of analytics. Onda. How has that's evolved over over time? You know, it is You think of analytics and machine learning driving decisions beyond supporting decisions, but actually starting to make decisions in machine time. What's that? What's that think for you? What does that make you? You know, start to think Wow, this is This is gonna be pretty significant. >>Yeah, well, you know, this has been a long term interest of mine. Um, the last generation of a I I was very interested in expert systems. And then e think more than 10 years ago, I wrote an article about automated decision making using, um, what was available then, which is rule based approaches. But, you know, this address is an issue that we've always had with analytics and ai. Um, you know, we tended Thio refer to those things as providing decision support. The problem is that if the decision maker didn't want their support, didn't want to use them in order to make a decision, they didn't provide any value. And so the nice thing about automating decisions with now contemporary ai tools is that we can ensure that data and analytics get brought into the decision without any possible disconnection. Now, I think humans still have something to add here, and we often will need to examine how that decision is being made and maybe even have the ability to override it. But in general, I think, at least for, you know, repetitive tactical decisions, um, involving a lot of data. We want most of those I think, to be at least, um, recommended, if not totally made by analgesic rhythm or an AI based system, and that, I believe would add to the quality and the precision and the accuracy of decisions. And in most organizations, >>you know, I think I think you just answered my next question before I Before I asked it. You know, we had Dr Robert Gates on the former secretary of Defense on a few years back, and we were talking about machines and machines making decisions, and he said at that time, you know, the only weapon systems that actually had an automated trigger on it, We're on the North Korean South Korea border. Um, everything else that you said had to go through some person before the final decision was made. And my question is, you know what are kind of the attributes of the decision that enable us that more easily automated? And then how do you see that kind of morphing over time both as the the data to support that as well as our comfort level, Um, enables us to turn mawr mawr actual decisions over to the machine? >>Well, yeah, I suggested we need data, and the data that we have to kind of train our models has to be high quality and current, and we need to know the outcomes of the that data. You know, most machine learning models, at least in business, are supervised, and that means we need tohave labeled outcomes in the in the training data. But you know, the pandemic that we're living through is a good illustration of the fact that the data also have to be reflective of current reality. And, you know, one of the things that were finding out quite frequently these days is that the data that we have a do not reflect you know what it's like to do business in a pandemic. I wrote a little piece about this recently with Jeff Cam at Wake Forest University. We call it Data Science Quarantined and it we interviewed somebody who said, You know, it's amazing what eight weeks of zeros will do to your demand forecast. We just don't really know what happens in a pandemic. Our models may be have to be put on the shelf for a little while and until we can develop some new ones or we can get some other guidelines into making decisions. So I think that's one of the key things with automated decision making. We have toe make sure that the data from the past and you know that's all we have, of course, is a good guide toe. You know what's happening in the present and in the future, as far as we understand it. >>Yeah, I used to joke when we started this calendar year 2020 was finally the year that we know everything with the benefit of hindsight. But it turned out 2020 the year we found out we actually know nothing and everything >>we thought we d >>o. But I wanna I wanna follow up on that because, you know, it did suddenly change everything, right? We got this light switch moment. Everybody's working from home now. We're many, many months into it, and it's going to continue for a while. I saw your interview with Bernard Marr and you had a really interesting comment that now we have to deal with this change. We don't have a lot of data and you talked about hold, fold or double down, and And I can't think of, um or, you know, kind of appropriate metaphor for driving the value of the biz ops. When now your whole portfolio strategy, um, needs to really be questioned. And, you know, you have to be really well executing on what you are holding. What you're folding and what you're doubling down with this completely new environment? >>Well, yeah, And I hope I did this in the interview. I would like to say that I came up with that term, but it actually came from a friend of mine was a senior executive at gen. Packed, and I used it mostly to talk about AI and AI applications, but I think you could You could use it much more broadly to talk about your entire sort of portfolio. Digital projects you need to think about. Well, um, given some constraints on resource is and a difficulty economy for a while. Which of our projects do we wanna keep going on Pretty much the way we were for and which ones, um, are not that necessary anymore. You see a lot of that in a I because we had so many pilots. Somebody told me, You know, we've got more pilots around here than O'Hare Airport in a I, um and then the the ones that involve double down there, even mawr Important to you, they are. You know, a lot of organizations have found this out in the pandemic on digital projects. It's more and more important for customers to be ableto interact with you digitally. And so you certainly wouldn't want toe cancel those projects or put them on hold. So you double down on them, get them done faster and better. >>Another. Another thing I came up in my research that that you quoted um, was was from Jeff. Bezos is talking about the great bulk of what we do is quietly but meaning fleeing, improving core operations. You know, I think that is so core to this concept of not AI and machine learning and kind of the general sense, which which gets way too much buzz but really applied, applied to a specific problem. And that's where you start to see the value. And, you know, the biz ops manifesto is calling it out in this particular process. But I just love to get your perspective. As you know, you speak generally about this topic all the time, but how people should really be thinking about where the applications where I can apply this technology to get direct business value. >>Yeah, well, you know, even talking about automated decisions, um, the kind of once in a lifetime decisions, uh, the ones that a G laugh. Li, the former CEO of Proctor and Gamble, used to call the big swing decisions. You only get a few of those, he said. In your tenure as CEO, those air probably not going to be the ones that you're automating in part because you don't have much data about them. Your you know, only making them a few times and in part because they really require that big picture thinking and the ability to kind of anticipate the future that the best human decision makers have. Um, but in general, I think where they I The projects that are working well are you know what I call the low hanging fruit ones? The some people even report to refer to it as boring A. I so you know, sucking data out of a contract in order to compare it Thio bill of lading for what arrived at your supply chain. Companies can save or make a lot of money with that kind of comparison. It's not the most exciting thing, but a I, as you suggest, is really good at those narrow kinds of tasks. Um, it's not so good at the at the really big Moonshots like curing cancer or, you know, figuring out well, what's the best stock or bond under all circumstances or even autonomous vehicles. We made some great progress in that area, but everybody seems to agree that they're not gonna be perfect for quite a while. And we really don't wanna be driving around on, um in that very much, unless they're, you know, good and all kinds of weather and with all kinds of pedestrian traffic. And you know that sort of thing, right? >>That's funny. Bring up contract management. I had a buddy years ago. They had a startup around contract management, and I'm like and this was way before we had the compute power today and cloud proliferation. I said, You know how How could you possibly built off around contract management? It's language. It's legalese. It's very specific. He's like Jeff. We just need to know where's the contract and when does it expire? And who's the signatory? And he built a business on those you know, very simple little facts that weren't being covered because their contracts from people's drawers and files and homes and Lord only knows so it's really interesting as you said. These kind of low hanging fruit opportunities where you could extract a lot of business value without trying to, you know, boil the ocean. >>Yeah, I mean, if you're Amazon, Jeff Bezos thinks it's important toe have some kind of billion dollar projects, and he even says it's important to have a billion dollar failure or two every year. But I think most organizations probably are better off being a little less aggressive and, you know, sticking to what a I has been doing for a long time, which is, you know, making smarter decisions based on based on data. >>Right? So, Tom, I want to shift gears one more time before before you let Ugo on on kind of a new topic for you, not really new, but you know, not not the vast majority of your publications. And that's the new way toe work, you know, as as the pandemic hit in mid March, right? And we had this light switch moment. Everybody had to work from home, and it was, you know, kind of crisis and get everybody set up. Well, you know, now we're five months, six months, seven months. A number of companies have said that people are not gonna be going back to work for a while, and so we're going to continue on this for a while, and then even when it's not what it is now, it's not gonna be what it was before. So, you know, I wonder and I know you, you tease. You're working on a a new book, you know, some of your thoughts on, you know, kind of this new way, uh, toe work and and and the human factors in this new, this new kind of reality that we're kind of evolving into, I guess, >>Yeah, this was an interest of mine. I think. Back in the nineties, I wrote an article called a co authored an article called Two Cheers for the Virtual Office. And, you know, it was just starting to emerge than some people were very excited about it. Some people were skeptical, and we said to cheers rather than three cheers because clearly there's some shortcomings and, you know, I keep seeing these pop up. It's it's great that we can work from our homes. It's great that we can accomplish most of what we need to do with a digital interface, but you know, things like innovation and creativity and certainly, um a A good, um, happy social life kind of requires some face to face contact every now and then. And so you know, I think we'll go back to an environment where there is some of that. Um, will have, um, time when people convene in one place so they can get to know each other face to face and learn from each other that way. And most of the time, I think it's a huge waste of people's time to commute into the office every day and toe jump on airplanes. Thio, Thio, give every little sales call or give every little presentation we just have to really narrow down. What are the circumstances, where face to face contact really matters and when can we get by with digital? You know, I think one of the things in my current work on finding is that even when you have AI based decision making, you really need a good platform in which that all takes place. So in addition to these virtual platforms, we need to develop platforms that kind of structure the workflow for us and tell us what we should be doing next and make automated decisions when necessary. And I think that ultimately is a big part of biz ops as well. It's not just the intelligence of an AI system, but it's the flow of work that kind of keeps things moving smoothly throughout your organization. Yeah, >>I think such such a huge opportunity as you just said, because I forget the stats on how often were interrupted with notifications between email text, slack asana, salesforce The list goes on and on. So, you know, t put an AI layer between the person and all these systems that are begging for attention. And you've written a you know, a book on the attention economy, which is a whole nother topic will say for another day. You know, it really begs. It really begs for some assistance because, you know, you just can't get him picked, you know, every two minutes and really get quality work done. It's just not it's just not realistic. And you know what? I don't think that's the future that we're looking for. >>Great. Totally. Alright, >>Tom. Well, thank you so much for your time. Really enjoyed the conversation. I got to dig into the library. It's very long song. I might started the attention economy. I haven't read that one in to me. I think that's the fascinating thing in which we're living. So thank you for your time. And, uh, great to see you. >>My pleasure, Jeff. Great to be here. >>All right, take care. Alright. East, Tom. I'm Jeff. You are watching the continuing coverage of the biz ops manifesto. Unveil. Thanks for watching the Cube. We'll see you next time.

>>from around the globe. It's the Cube with digital coverage of biz ops Manifesto unveiled. Brought to you by biz ops Coalition. Hey, welcome back your body, Jeffrey here with the Cube. Welcome back to our ongoing coverage of the busy ops manifesto unveiling its been in the works for a while. But today is the day that it actually kind of come out to the to the public. And we're excited to have a real industry luminary here to talk about what's going on, Why this is important and share his perspective. And we're happy to have from Cape Cod, I believe, is Tom Davenport. He is a distinguished author on professor at Babson College. We could go on. He's got a lot of great titles and and really illuminate airy in the area of big data and analytics. Thomas, great to see you. >>Thanks, Jeff. Happy to be here with you. Great. >>So let's just jump into it, you know, and getting ready for this. I came across your LinkedIn post. I think you did earlier this summer in June and right off the bat, the first sentence just grabbed my attention. I'm always interested in new attempts to address long term issues, Uh, in how technology works within businesses. Biz ops. What did you see in biz ops? That that kind of addresses one of these really big long term problems? >>Well, yeah. The long term problem is that we've had a poor connection between business people and I t people between business objectives and the i t. Solutions that address them. This has been going on, I think, since the beginning of information technology, and sadly, it hasn't gone away. And so busy ops is new attempt to deal with that issue with a, you know, a new framework. Eventually a broad set of solutions that increase the likelihood that will actually solve a business problem with a nightie capability. >>Right. You know, it's interesting to compare it with, like, Dev ops, which I think a lot of people are probably familiar with, which was, you know, built around a agile software development and the theory that we want to embrace change that that changes okay on. We wanna be able to iterate quickly and incorporate that, and that's been happening in the software world for for 20 plus years. What's taking so long to get that to the business side because the pace of change is change on the software side. You know, that's a strategic issue in terms of execution on the business side that they need now to change priorities. And, you know, there's no P R D S and M R. D s and big giant strategic plans that sit on the shelf for five years. That's just not the way business works anymore. Took a long time to get here. >>Yeah, it did. And, you know, there have been previous attempts to make a better connection between business and i t. There was the so called strategic alignment framework that a couple of friends of mine from Boston University developed, I think more than 20 years ago. But, you know, now we have better technology for creating that linkage. And the, you know, the idea of kind of ops oriented frameworks is pretty pervasive now. So I think it's, um you know, time for another serious attempt at it, right? >>And do you think doing it this way right with the bizarre coalition, you know, getting a collection of of kind of like minded individuals and companies together and actually even having a manifesto which were making this declarative statement of principles and values. You think that's what it takes to kind of drive this, you know, kind of beyond the experiment and actually, you know, get it done and really start to see some results in, in in production in the field. >>Well, you know, the manifesto approach worked for Karl Marx and communism. So maybe it'll work. Here is Well, now, I think certainly no one vendor organization can pull this off single handedly. It does require a number of organizations collaborating and working together. So I think a coalition is a good idea, and a manifesto is just a good way to kind of lay out. What you see is the key principles of the idea, and that makes it much easier for everybody. Toe I understand and act on. >>Yeah, I I think it's just it's really interesting having you know, having them written down on paper and having it just be so clearly articulated both in terms of the of the values as well as as the the principles and and the values, you know, business outcomes, matter, trust and collaboration, data driven decisions, which is the number three or four and then learn responded Pivot, It doesn't seem like those should have to be spelled out so clearly, but obviously it helps to have them there. You can stick them on the wall and kind of remember what your priorities are. But you're the data guy. You're the analytics guy. Uh, and a big piece of this is data analytics and moving to data driven decisions. And principle number seven says, you know, today's organizations generate more data than humans can process. And informed decisions can be augmented by machine learning and artificial intelligence right up your alley. You know, you've talked a number of times on kind of the many stages of analytics Onda how that's evolved over over time. You know, it is you think of analytics and machine learning driving decisions beyond supporting decisions, but actually starting to make decisions in machine time. What's that? What's that think for you? What does that make you? You know, start to think Wow, this is this is gonna be pretty significant. >>Yeah, well, you know, this has been a long term interest of mine. Um, the last generation of a I I was very interested in expert systems. And then e think more than 10 years ago I wrote an article about automated decision making using, um, what was available then, which is rule based approaches. But, you know, this address is an issue that we've always had with analytics and ai. Um, you know, we tended Thio refer to those things as providing decision support. The problem is that if the decision maker didn't want their support, didn't want to use them in order to make a decision, they didn't provide any value. And so the nice thing about automating decisions with now contemporary ai tools is that we can ensure that data and analytics get brought into the decision without any possible disconnection. Now, I think humans still have something to add here, and we often will need to examine how that decision is being made and maybe even have the ability to override it. But in general, I think, at least for, you know, repetitive tactical decisions, um, involving a lot of data. We want most of those I think, to be at least, um, recommended, if not totally made by analgesic rhythm or an AI based system, and that I believe would add to the quality and the precision and the accuracy of decisions in in most organizations. >>You know, I think I think you just answered my next question before I before I asked it. You know, we had Dr Robert Gates on the former secretary of Defense on a few years back, and we were talking about machines and machines making decisions, and he said at that time, you know, the only weapon systems that actually had an automated trigger on it, We're on the North Korea and South Korea border. Everything else, as you said, had to go through some person before the final decision was made. And my question is, you know what are kind of the attributes of the decision that enable us to more easily automated? And then how do you see that kind of morphing over time both as the data to support that as well as our comfort level, Um, enables us to turn Maura Maura actual decisions over to the machine? >>Well, yeah, I suggested we need data and the data that we have to kind of train our models has to be high quality and current, and we need to know the outcomes of that data. You know, most machine learning models, at least in business, are supervised, and that means we need tohave labeled outcomes in the in the training data. But, you know, the pandemic that we're living through is a good illustration of the fact that the the data also have to be reflective of current reality. And, you know, one of the things that we're finding out quite frequently these days is that the data that we have do not reflect. You know what it's like to do business in it. Pandemic it. I wrote a little piece about this recently with Jeff Cam at Wake Forest University. We call it Data Science quarantined, and we interviewed somebody who said, You know, it's amazing what eight weeks of zeros will do to your demand forecast. We just don't really know what happens in a pandemic. Our models may be have to be put on the shelf for a little while and until we can develop some new ones or we can get some other guidelines into making decisions. So I think that's one of the key things with automated decision making. We have toe, make sure that the data from the past and you know, that's all we have, of course, is a good guide toe. You know what's happening in the present and and the future as far as we understand it. >>Yeah, I used to joke when we started this calendar year 2020 is finally the year that we know everything with the benefit of hindsight. But it turned out 2020 the year we found out we actually know nothing and everything way. But I wanna I wanna follow up on that because, you know, it did suddenly change everything, right? We got this light switch moment. Everybody's working from home now. We're many, many months into it, and it's going to continue for a while. I saw your interview with Bernard Marr and you had a really interesting comment that now we have to deal with this change. We don't have a lot of data and you talked about hold, fold or double down and and I can't think of, um or, you know, kind of appropriate metaphor for driving the value of the biz ops. When now your whole portfolio strategy, um, needs to really be questioned. And, you know, You have to be really well, executing on what you are holding, what you're folding and what you're doubling down with this completely new environment. >>Well, yeah, And I hope I did this in the interview. I would like to say that I came up with that term, but it actually came from a friend of mine who's a senior executive at gen. Packed. And I used it mostly to talk about AI and AI applications, but I think you could You could use it much more broadly to talk about your entire sort of portfolio of digital projects you need to think about. Well, um, given some constraints on resource is and a difficulty economy for a while. Which of our projects do we wanna keep going on Pretty much the way we were And which ones, um, are not that necessary anymore. You see a lot of that in a I because we had so many pilots, somebody for me, you know, we've got more pilots around here, then O'Hare airport in a I, um and then the the ones that involve double down there, even mawr Important to you, they are, you know, a lot of organizations have found this out in the pandemic on digital projects, it's more and more important for customers to be ableto interact with you, um, digitally. And so you certainly wouldn't want toe cancel those projects or put them on hold. So you double down on them, get them done faster and better. >>Another. Another thing that came up in my research that that you quoted, um, was was from Jeff. Bezos is talking about the great bulk of what we do is quietly but meaning fleeing, improving core operations. You know, I think that is so core to this concept of not AI and machine learning and kind of the general sense, which which gets way too much buzz but really applied, applied to a specific problem. And that's where you start to see the value and, you know, the biz ops. Uh, manifesto is calling it out in this particular process, but I just love to get your perspective. As you know, you speak generally about this topic all the time, but how people should really be thinking about where the applications where I can apply this technology to get direct business value. >>Yeah, well, you know, even talking about automated decisions? Uh, the kind of once in a lifetime decisions, uh, the ones that a g laugh Li, the former CEO of Proctor and Gamble, used to call the big swing decisions. You only get a few of those, he said. In your tenure as CEO, those air probably not going to be the ones that you're automating in part because you don't have much data about them. You're only making them a few times, and in part because they really require that big picture thinking and the ability to kind of anticipate the future that the best human decision makers have. Um, but in general, I think where they I the projects that are working well are you know what I call the low hanging fruit ones? The some people even report to refer to it as boring A I so you know, sucking data out of a contract in order to compare it Thio bill of lading for what arrived at your supply chain. Companies can save or make a lot of money with that kind of comparison. It's not the most exciting thing, but a I, as you suggest, is really good at those narrow kinds of tasks. Um, it's not so good at the at the really big Moonshots like curing cancer or, you know, figuring out well, what's the best stock or bond under all circumstances or even autonomous vehicles. We made some great progress in that area, but everybody seems to agree that they're not going to be perfect for quite a while. And we really don't wanna be driving around on, um in that very much, unless they're, you know, good and all kinds of weather and with all kinds of pedestrian traffic. And you know that sort of thing, right? >>That's funny. Bring up contract management. I had a buddy years ago. They had a startup around contract management, and I'm like, and this was way before we had the compute power today and and cloud proliferation. I said, You know how How could you possibly built off around contract management? It's language. It's legalese. It's very specific. He's like Jeff. We just need to know where's the contract and when does it expire? And who's a signatory? And he built a business on those you know, very simple little facts that weren't being covered because their contracts from People's drawers and files and homes, and Lord only knows So it's really interesting, as you said, these kind of low hanging fruit opportunities where you could extract a lot of business value without trying to, you know, boil the ocean. >>Yeah, I mean, if you're Amazon, Jeff Bezos thinks it's important toe have some kind of billion dollar projects, and he even says it's important to have a billion dollar failure or two every year. But I think most organizations probably are better off being a little less aggressive and, you know, sticking to what a I has been doing for a long time, which is, you know, making smarter decisions based on based on data. >>Right? So, Tom, I want to shift gears one more time before before you let Ugo on on kind of a new topic for you, not really new, but you know, not not the vast majority of your publications. And that's the new way toe work, you know, as as the pandemic hit in mid March, right? And we had this light switch moment. Everybody had to work from home, and it was, you know, kind of crisis and get everybody set up well you know, Now we're five months, six months, seven months. A number of companies have said that people are not gonna be going back to work for a while. And so we're going to continue on this for a while, and then even when it's not what it is now, it's not gonna be what it was before. So, you know, I wonder and I know you, you tease. You're working on a a new book, you know, some of your thoughts on, you know, kind of this new way. Uh, toe work and and and the human factors in this new, this new kind of reality that we're kind of evolving into, I guess. >>Yeah, This was an interest of mine. I think back in the nineties, I wrote an article called Ah Co authored an article called Two Cheers for the Virtual Office. And, you know, it was just starting to emerge. Then some people were very excited about it. Some people were skeptical and we said to cheers rather than three cheers because clearly there's some shortcomings and, you know, I keep seeing these pop up. It's great that we can work from our homes. It's great that we can accomplish most of what we need to do with a digital interface. But you know, things like innovation and creativity and certainly a a good, um, happy social life kind of requires some face to face contact every now and then. And so you know, I think we'll go back to an environment where there is some of that. We'll have, um, time when people convene in one place so they can get to know each other face to face and learn from each other that way. And most of the time, I think it's a huge waste of people's time to commute into the office every day and toe jump on airplanes. Thio, Thio give every little mhm, uh, sales call or give every little presentation. We just have to really narrow down. What are the circumstances, where face to face contact really matters and when can we get by with digital? You know, I think one of the things in my current work I'm finding is that even when you have a I based decision making, you really need a good platform in which that all takes place. So in addition to these virtual platforms, We need to develop platforms that kind of structure the workflow for us and tell us what we should be doing next and make automated decisions when necessary. And I think that ultimately is a big part of biz ops as well. It's not just the intelligence oven, a isis some, but it's the flow of work that kind of keeps things moving smoothly throughout your organization. Yeah, >>I think such such a huge opportunity as you just said, because I forget the stats on how often were interrupted with notifications between email text, slack asana, salesforce The list goes on on and on. So, you know, t put an AI layer between the person and all these systems that are begging for attention. And you've written a you know, a book on the attention economy, which is a whole nother topic will say for another day. You know, it really begs. It really begs for some assistance because, you know, you just can't get him picked, you know, every two minutes and really get quality work done. It's just not it's just not realistic. And you know what? I don't think that's the future that we're looking for. >>Great totally alright, >>Tom. Well, thank you so much for your time. Really enjoyed the conversation. I gotta dig into the library. It's very long song. I might started the attention economy. I haven't read that one in to me. I think that's the fascinating thing in which we're living. So thank you for your time. And, uh, great to see you. >>My pleasure, Jeff. Great to be here. >>All right, take care. Alright. He's Tom. I'm Jeff. You are watching the continuing coverage of the biz ops manifesto. Unveil. Thanks for watching. The Cube will see you next time.

>> connecting with thought leaders all around the world, this is a CUBE Conversation. Hi, everybody this is Dave Vellante of theCUBE, and welcome back to my CXO series. I've been running this through really since the start of the COVID-19 crisis to really understand how leaders are dealing with this pandemic. Sri Ambati is here, he's the CEO and founder of H20. Sri, it's great to see you again, thanks for coming on. >> Thank you for having us. >> Yeah, so this pandemic has obviously given people fits, no question, but it's also given opportunities for companies to kind of reassess where they are. Automation is a huge watchword, flexibility, business resiliency and people who maybe really hadn't fully leaned into things like the cloud and AI and automation are now realizing, wow, we have no choice, it's about survival. Your thought as to what you're seeing in the marketplace. >> Thanks for having us. I think first of all, kudos to the frontline health workers who have been ruthlessly saving lives across the country and the world, and what you're really doing is a fraction of what we could have done or should be doing to stay away the next big pandemic. But that apart I think, I usually tend to say BC is before COVID. So if the world was thinking about going digital after COVID-19, they have been forced to go digital and as a result, you're seeing tremendous transformation across our customers, and a lot of application to kind of go in and reinvent their business models that allow them to scale as effortlessly as they could using the digital means. >> So, think about, doctors and diagnosis machines, in some cases, are helping doctors make diagnoses, they're sometimes making even better diagnosis, (mumbles) is informing. There's been a lot of talk about the models, you know how... Yeah, I know you've been working with a lot of healthcare organizations, you may probably familiar with that, you know, the Medium post, The Hammer and the Dance, and if people criticize the models, of course, they're just models, right? And you iterate models and machine intelligence can help us improve. So, in this, you know, you talk about BC and post C, how have you seen the data and in machine intelligence informing the models and proving that what we know about this pandemic, I mean, it changed literally daily, what are you seeing? >> Yeah, and I think it started with Wuhan and we saw the best application of AI in trying to trace, literally from Alipay, to WeChat, track down the first folks who were spreading it across China and then eventually the rest of the world. I think contact tracing, for example, has become a really interesting problem. supply chain has been disrupted like never before. We're beginning to see customers trying to reinvent their distribution mechanisms in the second order effects of the COVID, and the the prime center is hospital staffing, how many ventilator, is the first few weeks so that after COVID crisis as it evolved in the US. We are busy predicting working with some of the local healthcare communities to predict how staffing in hospitals will work, how many PPE and ventilators will be needed and so henceforth, but that quickly and when the peak surge will be those with the beginning problems, and many of our customers have begin to do these models and iterate and improve and kind of educate the community to practice social distancing, and that led to a lot of flattening the curve and you're talking flattening the curve, you're really talking about data science and analytics in public speak. That led to kind of the next level, now that we have somewhat brought a semblance of order to the reaction to COVID, I think what we are beginning to figure out is, is there going to be a second surge, what elective procedures that were postponed, will be top of the mind for customers, and so this is the kind of things that hospitals are beginning to plan out for the second half of the year, and as businesses try to open up, certain things were highly correlated to surgeon cases, such as cleaning supplies, for example, the obvious one or pantry buying. So retailers are beginning to see what online stores are doing well, e-commerce, online purchases, electronic goods, and so everyone essentially started working from home, and so homes needed to have the same kind of bandwidth that offices and commercial enterprises needed to have, and so a lot of interesting, as one side you saw airlines go away, this side you saw the likes of Zoom and video take off. So you're kind of seeing a real divide in the digital divide and that's happening and AI is here to play a very good role to figure out how to enhance your profitability as you're looking about planning out the next two years. >> Yeah, you know, and obviously, these things they get, they get partisan, it gets political, I mean, our job as an industry is to report, your job is to help people understand, I mean, let the data inform and then let public policy you know, fight it out. So who are some of the people that you're working with that you know, as a result of COVID-19. What's some of the work that H2O has done, I want to better understand what role are you playing? >> So one of the things we're kind of privileged as a company to come into the crisis, with a strong balance and an ability to actually have the right kind of momentum behind the company in terms of great talent, and so we have 10% of the world's top data scientists in the in the form of Kaggle Grand Masters in the company. And so we put most of them to work, and they started collecting data sets, curating data sets and making them more qualitative, picking up public data sources, for example, there's a tremendous amount of job loss out there, figuring out which are the more difficult kind of sectors in the economy and then we started looking at exodus from the cities, we're looking at mobility data that's publicly available, mobility data through the data exchanges, you're able to find which cities which rural areas, did the New Yorkers as they left the city, which places did they go to, and what's to say, Californians when they left Los Angeles, which are the new places they have settled in? These are the places which are now busy places for the same kind of items that you need to sell if you're a retailer, but if you go one step further, we started engaging with FEMA, we start engaging with the universities, like Imperial College London or Berkeley, and started figuring out how best to improve the models and automate them. The SEER model, the most popular SEER model, we added that into our Driverless AI product as a recipe and made that accessible to our customers in testing, to customers in healthcare who are trying to predict where the surge is likely to come. But it's mostly about information right? So the AI at the end of it is all about intelligence and being prepared. Predictive is all about being prepared and that's kind of what we did with general, lots of blogs, typical blog articles and working with the largest health organizations and starting to kind of inform them on the most stable models. What we found to our not so much surprise, is that the simplest, very interpretable models are actually the most widely usable, because historical data is actually no longer as effective. You need to build a model that you can quickly understand and retry again to the feedback loop of back testing that model against what really happened. >> Yeah, so I want to double down on that. So really, two things I want to understand, if you have visibility on it, sounds like you do. Just in terms of the surge and the comeback, you know, kind of what those models say, based upon, you know, we have some advanced information coming from the global market, for sure, but it seems like every situation is different. What's the data telling you? Just in terms of, okay, we're coming into the spring and the summer months, maybe it'll come down a little bit. Everybody says it... We fully expect it to come back in the fall, go back to college, don't go back to college. What is the data telling you at this point in time with an understanding that, you know, we're still iterating every day? >> Well, I think I mean, we're not epidemiologists, but at the same time, the science of it is a highly local response, very hyper local response to COVID-19 is what we've seen. Santa Clara, which is just a county, I mean, is different from San Francisco, right, sort of. So you beginning to see, like we saw in Brooklyn, it's very different, and Bronx, very different from Manhattan. So you're seeing a very, very local response to this disease, and I'm talking about US. You see the likes of Brazil, which we're worried about, has picked up quite a bit of cases now. I think the silver lining I would say is that China is up and running to a large degree, a large number of our user base there are back active, you can see the traffic patterns there. So two months after their last research cases, the business and economic activity is back and thriving. And so, you can kind of estimate from that, that this can be done where you can actually contain the rise of active cases and it will take masking of the entire community, masking and the healthy dose of increase in testing. One of our offices is in Prague, and Czech Republic has done an incredible job in trying to contain this and they've done essentially, masked everybody and as a result they're back thinking about opening offices, schools later this month. So I think that's a very, very local response, hyper local response, no one country and no one community is symmetrical with other ones and I think we have a unique situation where in United States you have a very, very highly connected world, highly connected economy and I think we have quite a problem on our hands on how to safeguard our economy while also safeguarding life. >> Yeah, so you can't just, you can't just take Norway and apply it or South Korea and apply it, every situation is different. And then I want to ask you about, you know, the economy in terms of, you know, how much can AI actually, you know, how can it work in this situation where you have, you know, for example, okay, so the Fed, yes, it started doing asset buys back in 2008 but still, very hard to predict, I mean, at this time of this interview you know, Stock Market up 900 points, very difficult to predict that but some event happens in the morning, somebody, you know, Powell says something positive and it goes crazy but just sort of even modeling out the V recovery, the W recovery, deep recession, the comeback. You have to have enough data, do you not? In order for AI to be reasonably accurate? How does it work? And how does at what pace can you iterate and improve on the models? >> So I think that's exactly where I would say, continuous modeling, instead of continuously learning continuous, that's where the vision of the world is headed towards, where data is coming, you build a model, and then you iterate, try it out and come back. That kind of rapid, continuous learning would probably be needed for all our models as opposed to the typical, I'm pushing a model to production once a year, or once every quarter. I think what we're beginning to see is the kind of where companies are beginning to kind of plan out. A lot of people lost their jobs in the last couple of months, right, sort of. And so up scaling and trying to kind of bring back these jobs back both into kind of, both from the manufacturing side, but also lost a lot of jobs in the transportation and the kind of the airlines slash hotel industries, right, sort of. So it's trying to now bring back the sense of confidence and will take a lot more kind of testing, a lot more masking, a lot more social empathy, I think well, some of the things that we are missing while we are socially distant, we know that we are so connected as a species, we need to kind of start having that empathy for we need to wear a mask, not for ourselves, but for our neighbors and people we may run into. And I think that kind of, the same kind of thinking has to kind of parade, before we can open up the economy in a big way. The data, I mean, we can do a lot of transfer learning, right, sort of there are new methods, like try to model it, similar to the 1918, where we had a second bump, or a lot of little bumps, and that's kind of where your W shaped pieces, but governments are trying very well in seeing stimulus dollars being pumped through banks. So some of the US case we're looking for banks is, which small medium business in especially, in unsecured lending, which business to lend to, (mumbles) there's so many applications that have come to banks across the world, it's not just in the US, and banks are caught up with the problem of which and what's growing the concern for this business to kind of, are they really accurate about the number of employees they are saying they have? Do then the next level problem or on forbearance and mortgage, that side of the things are coming up at some of these banks as well. So they're looking at which, what's one of the problems that one of our customers Wells Fargo, they have a question which branch to open, right, sort of that itself, it needs a different kind of modeling. So everything has become a very highly good segmented models, and so AI is absolutely not just a good to have, it has become a must have for most of our customers in how to go about their business. (mumbles) >> I want to talk a little bit about your business, you have been on a mission to democratize AI since the beginning, open source. Explain your business model, how you guys make money and then I want to help people understand basic theoretical comparisons and current affairs. >> Yeah, that's great. I think the last time we spoke, probably about at the Spark Summit. I think Dave and we were talking about Sparkling Water and H2O our open source platforms, which are premium platforms for democratizing machine learning and math at scale, and that's been a tremendous brand for us. Over the last couple of years, we have essentially built a platform called Driverless AI, which is a license software and that automates machine learning models, we took the best practices of all these data scientists, and combined them to essentially build recipes that allow people to build the best forecasting models, best fraud prevention models or the best recommendation engines, and so we started augmenting traditional data scientists with this automatic machine learning called AutoML, that essentially allows them to build models without necessarily having the same level of talent as these great Kaggle Grand Masters. And so that has democratized, allowed ordinary companies to start producing models of high caliber and high quality that would otherwise have been the pedigree of Google, Microsoft or Amazon or some of these top tier AI houses like Netflix and others. So what we've done is democratize not just the algorithms at the open source level. Now, we've made it easy for kind of rapid adoption of AI across every branch inside a company, a large organization, also across smaller organizations which don't have the access to the same kind of talent. Now, third level, you know, what we've brought to market, is ability to augment data sets, especially public and private data sets that you can, the alternative data sets that can increase the signal. And that's where we've started working on a new platform called Q, again, more license software, and I mean, to give you an idea there from business models endpoint, now majority of our software sales is coming from closed source software. And sort of so, we've made that transition, we still make our open source widely accessible, we continue to improve it, a large chunk of the teams are improving and participating in building the communities but I think from a business model standpoint as of last year, 51% of our revenues are now coming from closed source software and that change is continuing to grow. >> And this is the point I wanted to get to, so you know, the open source model was you know, Red Hat the one company that, you know, succeeded wildly and it was, put it out there open source, come up with a service, maintain the software, you got to buy the subscription okay, fine. And everybody thought that you know, you were going to do that, they thought that Databricks was going to do and that changed. But I want to take two examples, Hortonworks which kind of took the Red Hat model and Cloudera which does IP. And neither really lived up to the expectation, but now there seems to be sort of a new breed I mentioned, you guys, Databricks, there are others, that seem to be working. You with your license software model, Databricks with a managed service and so there's, it's becoming clear that there's got to be some level of IP that can be licensed in order to really thrive in the open source community to be able to fund the committers that you have to put forth to open source. I wonder if you could give me your thoughts on that narrative. >> So on Driverless AI, which is the closest platform I mentioned, we opened up the layers in open source as recipes. So for example, different companies build their zip codes differently, right, the domain specific recipes, we put about 150 of them in open source again, on top of our Driverless AI platform, and the idea there is that, open source is about freedom, right? It is not necessarily about, it's not a philosophy, it's not a business model, it allows freedom for rapid adoption of a platform and complete democratization and commodification of a space. And that allows a small company like ours to compete at the level of an SaaS or a Google or a Microsoft because you have the same level of voice as a very large company and you're focused on using code as a community building exercise as opposed to a business model, right? So that's kind of the heart of open source, is allowing that freedom for our end users and the customers to kind of innovate at the same level of that a Silicon Valley company or one of these large tech giants are building software. So it's really about making, it's a maker culture, as opposed to a consumer culture around software. Now, if you look at how the the Red Hat model, and the others who have tried to replicate that, the difficult part there was, if the product is very good, customers are self sufficient and if it becomes a standard, then customers know how to use it. If the product is crippled or difficult to use, then you put a lot of services and that's where you saw the classic Hadoop companies, get pulled into a lot of services, which is a reasonably difficult business to scale. So I think what we chose was, instead, a great product that builds a fantastic brand, that makes AI, even when other first or second.ai domain, and for us to see thousands of companies which are not AI and AI first, and even more companies adopting AI and talking about AI as a major way that was possible because of open source. If you had chosen close source and many of your peers did, they all vanished. So that's kind of how the open source is really about building the ecosystem and having the patience to build a company that takes 10, 20 years to build. And what we are expecting unfortunately, is a first and fast rise up to become unicorns. In that race, you're essentially sacrifice, building a long ecosystem play, and that's kind of what we chose to do, and that took a little longer. Now, if you think about the, how do you truly monetize open source, it takes a little longer and is much more difficult sales machine to scale, right, sort of. Our open source business actually is reasonably positive EBITDA business because it makes more money than we spend on it. But trying to teach sales teams, how to sell open source, that's a much, that's a rate limiting step. And that's why we chose and also explaining to the investors, how open source is being invested in as you go closer to the IPO markets, that's where we chose, let's go into license software model and scale that as a regular business. >> So I've said a few times, it's kind of like ironic that, this pandemic is as we're entering a new decade, you know, we've kind of we're exiting the era, I mean, the many, many decades of Moore's law being the source of innovation and now it's a combination of data, applying machine intelligence and being able to scale and with cloud. Well, my question is, what did we expect out of AI this decade if those are sort of the three, the cocktail of innovation, if you will, what should we expect? Is it really just about, I suggest, is it really about automating, you know, businesses, giving them more agility, flexibility, you know, etc. Or should we should we expect more from AI this decade? >> Well, I mean, if you think about the decade of 2010 2011, that was defined by software is eating the world, right? And now you can say software is the world, right? I mean, pretty much almost all conditions are digital. And AI is eating software, right? (mumbling) A lot of cloud transitions are happening and are now happening much faster rate but cloud and AI are kind of the leading, AI is essentially one of the biggest driver for cloud adoption for many of our customers. So in the enterprise world, you're seeing rebuilding of a lot of data, fast data driven applications that use AI, instead of rule based software, you're beginning to see patterned, mission AI based software, and you're seeing that in spades. And, of course, that is just the tip of the iceberg, AI has been with us for 100 years, and it's going to be ahead of us another hundred years, right, sort of. So as you see the discovery rate at which, it is really a fundamentally a math, math movement and in that math movement at the beginning of every century, it leads to 100 years of phenomenal discovery. So AI is essentially making discoveries faster, AI is producing, entertainment, AI is producing music, AI is producing choreographing, you're seeing AI in every walk of life, AI summarization of Zoom meetings, right, you beginning to see a lot of the AI enabled ETF peaking of stocks, right, sort of. You're beginning to see, we repriced 20,000 bonds every 15 seconds using H2O AI, corporate bonds. And so you and one of our customers is on the fastest growing stock, mostly AI is powering a lot of these insights in a fast changing world which is globally connected. No one of us is able to combine all the multiple dimensions that are changing and AI has that incredible opportunity to be a partner for every... (mumbling) For a hospital looking at how the second half will look like for physicians looking at what is the sentiment of... What is the surge to expect? To kind of what is the market demand looking at the sentiment of the customers. AI is the ultimate money ball in business and then I think it's just showing its depth at this point. >> Yeah, I mean, I think you're right on, I mean, basically AI is going to convert every software, every application, or those tools aren't going to have much use, Sri we got to go but thanks so much for coming to theCUBE and the great work you guys are doing. Really appreciate your insights. stay safe, and best of luck to you guys. >> Likewise, thank you so much. >> Welcome, and thank you for watching everybody, this is Dave Vellante for the CXO series on theCUBE. We'll see you next time. All right, we're clear. All right.

>> Starting the record, Dave in five, four, three. Hi, everybody this is Dave Vellante, theCUBE, and welcome back to my CXO series. I've been running this through really since the start of the COVID-19 crisis to really understand how leaders are dealing with this pandemic. Sri Ambati is here, he's the CEO and founder of H20. Sri, it's great to see you again, thanks for coming on. >> Thank you for having us. >> Yeah, so this pandemic has obviously given people fits, no question, but it's also given opportunities for companies to kind of reassess where they are. Automation is a huge watchword, flexibility, business resiliency and people who maybe really hadn't fully leaned into things like the cloud and AI and automation are now realizing, wow, we have no choice, it's about survival. Your thought as to what you're seeing in the marketplace. >> Thanks for having us. I think first of all, kudos to the frontline health workers who have been ruthlessly saving lives across the country and the world, and what you're really doing is a fraction of what we could have done or should be doing to stay away the next big pandemic. But that apart I think, I usually tend to say BC is before COVID. So if the world was thinking about going digital after COVID-19, they have been forced to go digital and as a result, you're seeing tremendous transformation across our customers, and a lot of application to kind of go in and reinvent their business models that allow them to scale as effortlessly as they could using the digital means. >> So, think about, doctors and diagnosis machines, in some cases, are helping doctors make diagnoses, they're sometimes making even better diagnosis, (mumbles) is informing. There's been a lot of talk about the models, you know how... Yeah, I know you've been working with a lot of healthcare organizations, you may probably familiar with that, you know, the Medium post, The Hammer and the Dance, and if people criticize the models, of course, they're just models, right? And you iterate models and machine intelligence can help us improve. So, in this, you know, you talk about BC and post C, how have you seen the data and in machine intelligence informing the models and proving that what we know about this pandemic, I mean, it changed literally daily, what are you seeing? >> Yeah, and I think it started with Wuhan and we saw the best application of AI in trying to trace, literally from Alipay, to WeChat, track down the first folks who were spreading it across China and then eventually the rest of the world. I think contact tracing, for example, has become a really interesting problem. supply chain has been disrupted like never before. We're beginning to see customers trying to reinvent their distribution mechanisms in the second order effects of the COVID, and the the prime center is hospital staffing, how many ventilator, is the first few weeks so that after COVID crisis as it evolved in the US. We are busy predicting working with some of the local healthcare communities to predict how staffing in hospitals will work, how many PPE and ventilators will be needed and so henceforth, but that quickly and when the peak surge will be those with the beginning problems, and many of our customers have begin to do these models and iterate and improve and kind of educate the community to practice social distancing, and that led to a lot of flattening the curve and you're talking flattening the curve, you're really talking about data science and analytics in public speak. That led to kind of the next level, now that we have somewhat brought a semblance of order to the reaction to COVID, I think what we are beginning to figure out is, is there going to be a second surge, what elective procedures that were postponed, will be top of the mind for customers, and so this is the kind of things that hospitals are beginning to plan out for the second half of the year, and as businesses try to open up, certain things were highly correlated to surgeon cases, such as cleaning supplies, for example, the obvious one or pantry buying. So retailers are beginning to see what online stores are doing well, e-commerce, online purchases, electronic goods, and so everyone essentially started working from home, and so homes needed to have the same kind of bandwidth that offices and commercial enterprises needed to have, and so a lot of interesting, as one side you saw airlines go away, this side you saw the likes of Zoom and video take off. So you're kind of seeing a real divide in the digital divide and that's happening and AI is here to play a very good role to figure out how to enhance your profitability as you're looking about planning out the next two years. >> Yeah, you know, and obviously, these things they get, they get partisan, it gets political, I mean, our job as an industry is to report, your job is to help people understand, I mean, let the data inform and then let public policy you know, fight it out. So who are some of the people that you're working with that you know, as a result of COVID-19. What's some of the work that H2O has done, I want to better understand what role are you playing? >> So one of the things we're kind of privileged as a company to come into the crisis, with a strong balance and an ability to actually have the right kind of momentum behind the company in terms of great talent, and so we have 10% of the world's top data scientists in the in the form of Kaggle Grand Masters in the company. And so we put most of them to work, and they started collecting data sets, curating data sets and making them more qualitative, picking up public data sources, for example, there's a tremendous amount of job loss out there, figuring out which are the more difficult kind of sectors in the economy and then we started looking at exodus from the cities, we're looking at mobility data that's publicly available, mobility data through the data exchanges, you're able to find which cities which rural areas, did the New Yorkers as they left the city, which places did they go to, and what's to say, Californians when they left Los Angeles, which are the new places they have settled in? These are the places which are now busy places for the same kind of items that you need to sell if you're a retailer, but if you go one step further, we started engaging with FEMA, we start engaging with the universities, like Imperial College London or Berkeley, and started figuring out how best to improve the models and automate them. The SaaS model, the most popular SaaS model, we added that into our Driverless AI product as a recipe and made that accessible to our customers in testing, to customers in healthcare who are trying to predict where the surge is likely to come. But it's mostly about information right? So the AI at the end of it is all about intelligence and being prepared. Predictive is all about being prepared and that's kind of what we did with general, lots of blogs, typical blog articles and working with the largest health organizations and starting to kind of inform them on the most stable models. What we found to our not so much surprise, is that the simplest, very interpretable models are actually the most widely usable, because historical data is actually no longer as effective. You need to build a model that you can quickly understand and retry again to the feedback loop of back testing that model against what really happened. >> Yeah, so I want to double down on that. So really, two things I want to understand, if you have visibility on it, sounds like you do. Just in terms of the surge and the comeback, you know, kind of what those models say, based upon, you know, we have some advanced information coming from the global market, for sure, but it seems like every situation is different. What's the data telling you? Just in terms of, okay, we're coming into the spring and the summer months, maybe it'll come down a little bit. Everybody says it... We fully expect it to come back in the fall, go back to college, don't go back to college. What is the data telling you at this point in time with an understanding that, you know, we're still iterating every day? >> Well, I think I mean, we're not epidemiologists, but at the same time, the science of it is a highly local response, very hyper local response to COVID-19 is what we've seen. Santa Clara, which is just a county, I mean, is different from San Francisco, right, sort of. So you beginning to see, like we saw in Brooklyn, it's very different, and Bronx, very different from Manhattan. So you're seeing a very, very local response to this disease, and I'm talking about US. You see the likes of Brazil, which we're worried about, has picked up quite a bit of cases now. I think the silver lining I would say is that China is up and running to a large degree, a large number of our user base there are back active, you can see the traffic patterns there. So two months after their last research cases, the business and economic activity is back and thriving. And so, you can kind of estimate from that, that this can be done where you can actually contain the rise of active cases and it will take masking of the entire community, masking and the healthy dose of increase in testing. One of our offices is in Prague, and Czech Republic has done an incredible job in trying to contain this and they've done essentially, masked everybody and as a result they're back thinking about opening offices, schools later this month. So I think that's a very, very local response, hyper local response, no one country and no one community is symmetrical with other ones and I think we have a unique situation where in United States you have a very, very highly connected world, highly connected economy and I think we have quite a problem on our hands on how to safeguard our economy while also safeguarding life. >> Yeah, so you can't just, you can't just take Norway and apply it or South Korea and apply it, every situation is different. And then I want to ask you about, you know, the economy in terms of, you know, how much can AI actually, you know, how can it work in this situation where you have, you know, for example, okay, so the Fed, yes, it started doing asset buys back in 2008 but still, very hard to predict, I mean, at this time of this interview you know, Stock Market up 900 points, very difficult to predict that but some event happens in the morning, somebody, you know, Powell says something positive and it goes crazy but just sort of even modeling out the V recovery, the W recovery, deep recession, the comeback. You have to have enough data, do you not? In order for AI to be reasonably accurate? How does it work? And how does at what pace can you iterate and improve on the models? >> So I think that's exactly where I would say, continuous modeling, instead of continuously learning continuous, that's where the vision of the world is headed towards, where data is coming, you build a model, and then you iterate, try it out and come back. That kind of rapid, continuous learning would probably be needed for all our models as opposed to the typical, I'm pushing a model to production once a year, or once every quarter. I think what we're beginning to see is the kind of where companies are beginning to kind of plan out. A lot of people lost their jobs in the last couple of months, right, sort of. And so up scaling and trying to kind of bring back these jobs back both into kind of, both from the manufacturing side, but also lost a lot of jobs in the transportation and the kind of the airlines slash hotel industries, right, sort of. So it's trying to now bring back the sense of confidence and will take a lot more kind of testing, a lot more masking, a lot more social empathy, I think well, some of the things that we are missing while we are socially distant, we know that we are so connected as a species, we need to kind of start having that empathy for we need to wear a mask, not for ourselves, but for our neighbors and people we may run into. And I think that kind of, the same kind of thinking has to kind of parade, before we can open up the economy in a big way. The data, I mean, we can do a lot of transfer learning, right, sort of there are new methods, like try to model it, similar to the 1918, where we had a second bump, or a lot of little bumps, and that's kind of where your W shaped pieces, but governments are trying very well in seeing stimulus dollars being pumped through banks. So some of the US case we're looking for banks is, which small medium business in especially, in unsecured lending, which business to lend to, (mumbles) there's so many applications that have come to banks across the world, it's not just in the US, and banks are caught up with the problem of which and what's growing the concern for this business to kind of, are they really accurate about the number of employees they are saying they have? Do then the next level problem or on forbearance and mortgage, that side of the things are coming up at some of these banks as well. So they're looking at which, what's one of the problems that one of our customers Wells Fargo, they have a question which branch to open, right, sort of that itself, it needs a different kind of modeling. So everything has become a very highly good segmented models, and so AI is absolutely not just a good to have, it has become a must have for most of our customers in how to go about their business. (mumbles) >> I want to talk a little bit about your business, you have been on a mission to democratize AI since the beginning, open source. Explain your business model, how you guys make money and then I want to help people understand basic theoretical comparisons and current affairs. >> Yeah, that's great. I think the last time we spoke, probably about at the Spark Summit. I think Dave and we were talking about Sparkling Water and H2O or open source platforms, which are premium platforms for democratizing machine learning and math at scale, and that's been a tremendous brand for us. Over the last couple of years, we have essentially built a platform called Driverless AI, which is a license software and that automates machine learning models, we took the best practices of all these data scientists, and combined them to essentially build recipes that allow people to build the best forecasting models, best fraud prevention models or the best recommendation engines, and so we started augmenting traditional data scientists with this automatic machine learning called AutoML, that essentially allows them to build models without necessarily having the same level of talent as these Greek Kaggle Grand Masters. And so that has democratized, allowed ordinary companies to start producing models of high caliber and high quality that would otherwise have been the pedigree of Google, Microsoft or Amazon or some of these top tier AI houses like Netflix and others. So what we've done is democratize not just the algorithms at the open source level. Now, we've made it easy for kind of rapid adoption of AI across every branch inside a company, a large organization, also across smaller organizations which don't have the access to the same kind of talent. Now, third level, you know, what we've brought to market, is ability to augment data sets, especially public and private data sets that you can, the alternative data sets that can increase the signal. And that's where we've started working on a new platform called Q, again, more license software, and I mean, to give you an idea there from business models endpoint, now majority of our software sales is coming from closed source software. And sort of so, we've made that transition, we still make our open source widely accessible, we continue to improve it, a large chunk of the teams are improving and participating in building the communities but I think from a business model standpoint as of last year, 51% of our revenues are now coming from closed source software and that change is continuing to grow. >> And this is the point I wanted to get to, so you know, the open source model was you know, Red Hat the one company that, you know, succeeded wildly and it was, put it out there open source, come up with a service, maintain the software, you got to buy the subscription okay, fine. And everybody thought that you know, you were going to do that, they thought that Databricks was going to do and that changed. But I want to take two examples, Hortonworks which kind of took the Red Hat model and Cloudera which does IP. And neither really lived up to the expectation, but now there seems to be sort of a new breed I mentioned, you guys, Databricks, there are others, that seem to be working. You with your license software model, Databricks with a managed service and so there's, it's becoming clear that there's got to be some level of IP that can be licensed in order to really thrive in the open source community to be able to fund the committers that you have to put forth to open source. I wonder if you could give me your thoughts on that narrative. >> So on Driverless AI, which is the closest platform I mentioned, we opened up the layers in open source as recipes. So for example, different companies build their zip codes differently, right, the domain specific recipes, we put about 150 of them in open source again, on top of our Driverless AI platform, and the idea there is that, open source is about freedom, right? It is not necessarily about, it's not a philosophy, it's not a business model, it allows freedom for rapid adoption of a platform and complete democratization and commodification of a space. And that allows a small company like ours to compete at the level of an SaaS or a Google or a Microsoft because you have the same level of voice as a very large company and you're focused on using code as a community building exercise as opposed to a business model, right? So that's kind of the heart of open source, is allowing that freedom for our end users and the customers to kind of innovate at the same level of that a Silicon Valley company or one of these large tech giants are building software. So it's really about making, it's a maker culture, as opposed to a consumer culture around software. Now, if you look at how the the Red Hat model, and the others who have tried to replicate that, the difficult part there was, if the product is very good, customers are self sufficient and if it becomes a standard, then customers know how to use it. If the product is crippled or difficult to use, then you put a lot of services and that's where you saw the classic Hadoop companies, get pulled into a lot of services, which is a reasonably difficult business to scale. So I think what we chose was, instead, a great product that builds a fantastic brand, that makes AI, even when other first or second.ai domain, and for us to see thousands of companies which are not AI and AI first, and even more companies adopting AI and talking about AI as a major way that was possible because of open source. If you had chosen close source and many of your peers did, they all vanished. So that's kind of how the open source is really about building the ecosystem and having the patience to build a company that takes 10, 20 years to build. And what we are expecting unfortunately, is a first and fast rise up to become unicorns. In that race, you're essentially sacrifice, building a long ecosystem play, and that's kind of what we chose to do, and that took a little longer. Now, if you think about the, how do you truly monetize open source, it takes a little longer and is much more difficult sales machine to scale, right, sort of. Our open source business actually is reasonably positive EBITDA business because it makes more money than we spend on it. But trying to teach sales teams, how to sell open source, that's a much, that's a rate limiting step. And that's why we chose and also explaining to the investors, how open source is being invested in as you go closer to the IPO markets, that's where we chose, let's go into license software model and scale that as a regular business. >> So I've said a few times, it's kind of like ironic that, this pandemic is as we're entering a new decade, you know, we've kind of we're exiting the era, I mean, the many, many decades of Moore's law being the source of innovation and now it's a combination of data, applying machine intelligence and being able to scale and with cloud. Well, my question is, what did we expect out of AI this decade if those are sort of the three, the cocktail of innovation, if you will, what should we expect? Is it really just about, I suggest, is it really about automating, you know, businesses, giving them more agility, flexibility, you know, etc. Or should we should we expect more from AI this decade? >> Well, I mean, if you think about the decade of 2010 2011, that was defined by software is eating the world, right? And now you can say software is the world, right? I mean, pretty much almost all conditions are digital. And AI is eating software, right? (mumbling) A lot of cloud transitions are happening and are now happening much faster rate but cloud and AI are kind of the leading, AI is essentially one of the biggest driver for cloud adoption for many of our customers. So in the enterprise world, you're seeing rebuilding of a lot of data, fast data driven applications that use AI, instead of rule based software, you're beginning to see patterned, mission AI based software, and you're seeing that in spades. And, of course, that is just the tip of the iceberg, AI has been with us for 100 years, and it's going to be ahead of us another hundred years, right, sort of. So as you see the discovery rate at which, it is really a fundamentally a math, math movement and in that math movement at the beginning of every century, it leads to 100 years of phenomenal discovery. So AI is essentially making discoveries faster, AI is producing, entertainment, AI is producing music, AI is producing choreographing, you're seeing AI in every walk of life, AI summarization of Zoom meetings, right, you beginning to see a lot of the AI enabled ETF peaking of stocks, right, sort of. You're beginning to see, we repriced 20,000 bonds every 15 seconds using H2O AI, corporate bonds. And so you and one of our customers is on the fastest growing stock, mostly AI is powering a lot of these insights in a fast changing world which is globally connected. No one of us is able to combine all the multiple dimensions that are changing and AI has that incredible opportunity to be a partner for every... (mumbling) For a hospital looking at how the second half will look like for physicians looking at what is the sentiment of... What is the surge to expect? To kind of what is the market demand looking at the sentiment of the customers. AI is the ultimate money ball in business and then I think it's just showing its depth at this point. >> Yeah, I mean, I think you're right on, I mean, basically AI is going to convert every software, every application, or those tools aren't going to have much use, Sri we got to go but thanks so much for coming to theCUBE and the great work you guys are doing. Really appreciate your insights. stay safe, and best of luck to you guys. >> Likewise, thank you so much. >> Welcome, and thank you for watching everybody, this is Dave Vellante for the CXO series on theCUBE. We'll see you next time. All right, we're clear. All right.