(upbeat music) >> Hey, everyone. Welcome back to theCUBE's live coverage of Women in Data Science Worldwide Conference, WiDS 2022, live from Stanford Uni&versity. I'm Lisa Martin. I have a guest next here with me. Maggie Wang is here, Autonomy Engineer at Skydio. Maggie, welcome to the program. >> Thanks so much. I'm so happy to be here. >> Excited to talk to you. You are one of the event speakers, but this is your first WiDS. What's your take so far? >> I'm really excited that there's a conference dedicated to getting more women in STEM. I think it's extremely important, and I'm so happy to be here. >> Were you always interested in STEM subjects when you were growing up? >> I think I've always been drawn to STEM, but not only STEM, but I've always been interested in arts, humanities. I'm getting more interested in the science as well. And I think STEM robotics was really my way to express myself and make things move in the real world. >> Nice. So you've got interests, I was reading about you, interests in motion planning, control theory, computer vision and deep learning. Talk to me about those interests. It sounds very fascinating. >> Yeah. So I think what really drew me into robotics was just how interdisciplinary the subject is. So I think a lot goes into creating a robot. So not only is it about actually understanding where you are in the world, it's also about seeing where you are in the world. And it's so interesting, because I feel like humans, you know, we take this all for granted, but it's actually so difficult to do that in an actual robot. So I'm excited about the possibilities of robotics now and in the future. >> Lots of possibilities. And you only graduated from Harvard last May, with a Bachelor's and a Masters? >> Yeah. >> Tell me a little bit about what you studied at Harvard. >> Yeah, so I studied Physics as my undergrad degree. And that was really interesting, because I've always been interested in science. And, actually, part of what got me interested in STEM was just learning about the universe and astrophysics. And that's what gets me excited. And I think I also wanted to supplement that with computer science and building things in the real world. And so that's why I got my Masters in that. And I always knew that I wanted to kind of blend a lot of different disciplines and study them. >> There's so much benefit from blending disciplines, in terms of even the thought diversity alone, which just opens up the opportunities to be almost endless. So you graduated in May. You're now at Skydio. Autonomy Engineer. Talk to me a little bit, first of all, tell me a bit about Skydio as a company, the products, what differentiates it, and then talk to me about what you're doing there specifically. >> So Skydio is a really amazing company. I'm super-fortunate to work there. So what they do is create autonomous drones, and what differentiates them is the autonomy. So in typical drones, it's very difficult to actually make sure that it has full understanding of the environment and obstacle avoidance. So what happens is we fly these drones manually, but we aren't able to harness the full potential of these drones because of lack of autonomy. So what we do is really push into this autonomous sphere, and make sure that we're able to understand the environment. We have deep learning algorithms on the drone, and we have really good planning and controls on the drone as well. So yeah, our company basically makes the most autonomous drones in the market. >> Nice. And tell me about your role specifically. >> Yeah. So as an autonomy engineer, I write algorithms that run on the drone, which is super-exciting. I can create some algorithms and design it, and then also fly it in simulation, and then fly it in the real world. So it's just really amazing to see the things I work with actually come to life. >> And talk to me about how you got involved in WiDS. You were saying it was your first WiDS, and Margot Gerritsen found you on LinkedIn, but what are some of the things that you've heard so far? I mean, I was in one of the panels this morning before we came out to the set, and I loved how they were talking about the importance of mentors and sponsors. Talk to me about some of your mentors along the way. >> Yeah, I had so many great mentors along the way. I definitely would not be here had it not been for them. Starting from my parents, they're immigrants from China, and they inspire me in so many ways. They're very hard-working, and they always encourage me to fail, and just be courageous, and, you know, follow my passions. And I think beyond that, like in high school, I had great mentors. One was an astrophysics professor. >> Wow. >> Yeah. So it was very amazing that I was able to have these opportunities at a young age. And even in high school, I was involved in all girls robotics team. And that really opened my eyes to how technology can be used and why more women should be in STEM. And that, you know, STEM should not be only for males. And it's really important for everyone to be involved. >> It is, for so many reasons. If we look at the data, and the workforce is about 50-50, but the number of women in STEM positions is less than 25%. It's something that's new to the tech industry. What are some of the things that... Do you see that, do you feel that, or are you just really excited to be able to focus on doing the autonomous engineering that you're doing? >> Well, I think that it's kind of easy to try to separate yourself and your identity from your work, but I don't necessarily agree with that. I think you need to, as best as possible, bring yourself to the table and bring your whole identity. And I think part of growing up for me was trying to understand who I was as a woman and also as an Asian American, and try to combine all of my identities into how I bring myself to the workplace. And I think as we become more vulnerable and try to understand ourselves and express ourselves to others, we're able to build more inclusive communities, in STEM and beyond. >> I agree. Very wise words. So you're going to be talking on the career panel today. What are some of the parts of wisdom are you going to leave the audience with this afternoon? >> Well, wisdom. I think everyone should be able to know, and have intuitive understanding of what they actually bring to the table. I think so many times women shy away from bringing themselves and showing up as themselves. And I think it's really important for a woman to understand that they hold a lot of power, that they have a voice that need to be heard. And I think I just want to encourage everyone to be passionate and show up. >> Be passionate and show up. That's great advice. One of the things that was talked about this morning, and we talk about this a lot when we talk about data or data science, is the inherent bias in data. Talk to me about the importance of data in robotics. Is there bias there? How do you navigate around that? >> Yeah, there's definitely bias in robotics. There's definitely a lot of data involved in robotics. So in many cases right now in robotics, we work in specialized fields, so you can see picking robots that will pick in specific factory locations. But if you bring them to other locations, like in your garage or something, and make it clean up, it's really difficult to do so. So I think having a lot of different streams of data and having very diverse sets of data is very important. And also being able to run these in the real world I think is also super-important, and something that Skydio addresses a lot. >> So you talked about Skydio, what you guys do there, and some of the differentiators. What are some of the technical challenges that you face in trying to do what you're doing? >> Well, first of all, Skydio's trying to run everything on board on the drone. So already there's a lot of technical challenges that goes into putting everything in a small form factor and making sure that we trade off between compute and all of these different resources. And yeah, making sure that we utilize all of our resources in the best possible way. So that's definitely one challenge. And making sure that we have these trade-offs, and understand the trade-offs that we make. >> That's a good point. Talk to me about why robotics researchers and industry practitioners, what should be some of the key things that they're focusing on? >> Yeah, so I think right now, as I said, a lot of robotics is in very specialized environments, and what we're trying to do in robotics is try to expand to more complex real world applications. And I think Skydio's at the forefront of this. And trying to get these drones in all different types of locations is very difficult, because you might not have good priors, you might not have good information on your data sources. So I think, yeah, getting good, diverse data and making sure that these robots can work in multiple environments can hopefully help us in the future when we use robots. >> Right. There's got to be so many real world a applications of that. >> Yeah, for sure. >> I imagine. Definitely. So talk to me about being a female in the drone industry. What's that like? Why do you think it's important to have the female voice in mind in the drone industry? >> Well, I think first of all, I think it's kind of sad to see not many women in the drone space, because I think there's a lot of potential for drones to be used for good in all the different areas that women care about. And for instance, like climate change, there's a lot of ways that drones can help in reducing waste in many different ways. Search and rescue, for instance. Those are huge issues, and potential solutions from drones. And I think that if women understand these solutions and understand how drones can be used for good, I think we could get more women in and excited about this. >> And how do you see your role in that, in helping to get more women excited, and maybe even just aware of it as a career opportunity? >> Yeah. So I think sometimes robotics can be a very niche subject, and a lot of people get into it from gaming or other things. But I think if we come to it as a way to solve humanity's greatest problems, I think that's what really inspires me. I think that's what would inspire a lot of young women, is to see that robotics is a way to help others. And also that it may not, if we don't consciously make it so that robotics helps others, and if we don't put our voices into the table, then potentially robotics will do harm. But we need to push it into the right direction. >> Do you feel it's going in the right direction? >> Yes, I think with more conferences like this, like WiDS, I think we're going in the right direction. >> Yeah, this is a great conference. It's one of my favorite shows to host. And you know, it only started back in 2015 as a one-day technical conference. And look at it now. It's a global movement. They found you. You're now part of the community. But there's hundreds of events going on in 60 countries. You have the opportunity there to really grow your network, but also reach a much bigger audience, just based on something like what Margot Gerritsen and the team have done with WiDS. What does that mean to you? >> It means a lot. I think it's so amazing that we're able to spread the word of how technology can be used in many different fields, not just robotics, but in healthcare, in search and rescue, in environmental protection. So just seeing the power that technology can bring, and spreading that to underserved communities, not just in the United States, I love how WiDS is a global community and there's regional chapters everywhere. And I think there should be more of this global collaboration in technology. >> I agree. You know, every company these days is a technology company, or a data company, or both. You think of even your local retailer or grocery store that has to be a technology company. So for women to get involved in technology, there's so many different applications of that. It doesn't have to be just coding, for example. You're doing work with drones. There's so much potential there. I think the more that we can do events like this, and leverage platforms like theCUBE, the more we can get that word out there. >> I agree. >> So you have the career panel. And then you're also doing a tech vision talk. >> Yeah, a tech talk. >> What are some of the things you're going to talk about there? >> Yeah, so I'm going to talk about... So at the career panel, just advice in general to young people who may be as confused and starting off their career, just like I am. And at the tech talk, I'll be talking about some different aspects of Skydio, and a specific use case, which is 3D scanning any physical object and putting that into a digital model. >> Ooh, wow. Tell me a little bit more about that. >> Yeah, so 3D scan is one of our products, and it allows for us to take pictures of anything in the physical world and make sure that we can put it into a digital form. So we can create digital twins into digital form, which is very cool. >> Very cool. So we're talking any type of physical object. >> Mm hm. So if you want to inspect a building, or any crumbling infrastructure, a lot of the times right now we use helicopters, or big snooper trucks, or just things that could be expensive or potentially dangerous. Instead, we can use a drone. So this is just one example of how drones can be used to help save lives, potentially. >> Tremendous amount of opportunity that drones provide. It's very exciting. What are some of the things that you're looking forward to this year? We are very early in calendar year 2022, but what are you excited about as the year progresses? >> Hmm. What am I excited about? I think there's a lot of really interesting drone-related companies, and also a lot of robotics companies in general, a lot of startups, and there's a lot of excitement there. And I think as the robotics community grows and grows, we'll be seeing more robots in real life. And I think that's just extremely exciting to me. >> It is. And you're at the forefront of that. Maggie, it's great to have you on the program. Thank you for sharing what you're doing at Skydio, your history, your past, and what you're going to be encouraging the audience to be able to go and achieve. We appreciate your time. >> Thanks so much. >> All right. From Maggie Wang. I'm Lisa Martin. You're watching theCUBE's coverage of Women in Data Science Worldwide Conference, WiDS 2022. Stick around. I'll be right back with my next guest. (upbeat music)

>>Welcome back to the cubes coverage of women in data science, 2022. We've been live all day at Stanford at the Arriaga alumni center. Lisa Martin, John furrier joins me next, trying to, to cure your FOMO that you have. >>I love this events. My favorite events is 2015. We've been coming, growing community over 60 countries, 500 ambassadors and growing so many members. Widths has become a global phenomenon. And it's so exciting to be part of just being part of the ride. Judy and Karen, the team have been amazing partners and it's been fun to watch the progression and international women's day is tomorrow. And just the overall environment's changed a lot since then. It's gotten better. I'm still a lot more work to do, but we're getting the word out, but this year seems different. It seems more like a tipping point is happening and real-time cultural change. A lot of problems. COVID pulled forward. A lot of things, there's a war going on in Europe. It's just really weird time. And it's just seems like it's a tipping point. >>I think that's what we felt today was that it was a tipping point. There was a lot of our guests on the program that are first time with attendees. So in seven, just seven short years, this is the seventh annual width it's gone from this one day technical conference to this global movement, as you talked about. And I think that we definitely felt that women of all ages and men that are here as well understand we're at that tipping point and what needs to be done next to push it over the edge. >>Well, I'm super excited that you are able to do all the amazing interviews. I watched some of them online. I had to come by and, and join the team because I have FOMO. I love doing the interviews, but they're including me. I'm happy to be included, but I got to ask you, I mean, what was different this year? Because it was interesting. It's a hybrid event. It's in part, they didn't have it in person last year, right? So it's hybrid. I showed the streams where everywhere good interviews, what was some of the highlights? >>Just a very inspiring stories of women who really this morning's conversation that I got to hear before I came to set was about mentors and sponsors and how important it is for women of any age and anybody really to build their own personal board of directors with mentors and sponsors. And they were very clear in the difference between a mentor and a sponsor and John something. I didn't understand the difference between the two until a few years ago. I think it was at a VMware event and it really surprised me that I have mentors do ask sponsors. And so that was a discussion that everybody on this onset talked about. >>It was interesting. We're doing also the international women's day tomorrow, big 24 interviews, including the winds of content, as well as global women leaders around the world and to new J Randori, who runs all of AWS, Amy are your maps. And she told me the same thing. She's like, there's too many mentors, not enough sponsors. And she said that out loud. I felt, wow. That was a defining moment because he or she is so impressive. Worked at McKinsey, okay. Was an operator in, in running businesses. Now she heads up AWS saying out loud, we have too many mentors, this get down to business and get sponsors. And I asked her the same thing and she said, sponsors, create opportunities. Mentors, give feedback. And mentors go both ways. And she said, my S my teenage son is a mentor to me for some of the cool new stuff, but ventures can go both ways. Sponsors is specifically about opportunities, and I'm like, I felt like that comment hit home. >>It's so important, but it's also important to teach girls. And especially the there's younger girls here this year, there's high school and middle, I think even middle school girls here, how to have the confidence to, to find those mentors, those sponsors and cultivate those relationships. That's a whole, those are skills that are incredibly important, as important as it is to understand AI data science, machine learning. It's to be able to, to have the confidence in a capability to create that and find those sponsors to help you unlock those opportunities. >>You know, I feel lucky to do the interviews, certainly being included as a male, but you've been doing a lot of the interviews as females and females. I got to ask you what was the biggest, because every story is different. Some people will it's about taking charge of their career. Sometimes it's maybe doing something different. What some of the story themes did you see in your interviews out there? What were some of the, the coverings personal? Yeah. >>Yeah. A lot of, a lot of the guests had stem backgrounds and were interested in the stem studies from when they were quite young and had strong family backgrounds that helps to nurture that. I >>Also heard that role models. Yes, >>Exactly, exactly. A strong family backgrounds. I did talk to a few women who come from different backgrounds, like international business and, but loved data and wanted to be able to apply that and really learn data analytics and understand data science and understand the opportunities that, that it brings. And also some of the challenges there. Everybody had an inspiring story. >>Yeah. It's interesting. One of the senior women I interviewed, she was from Singapore and she fled India during a bombing war and then ended up getting her PhD. Now she's in space and weld and all that stuff. And she said, we're now living in nerd, native environment, me and the younger generation they're nerds. And I, you know, were at Stanford dirt nation. Of course we're Stanford, it's nerd nerd nation here. But her point is, is that everything's digital now. So the younger generation, they're not necessarily looking for programmers, certainly coding. Great. But if you're not into coding, you can still solve society problems. There's plenty of jobs that are open for the first time that weren't around years ago, which means there's problems that are new to that need new minds and new, fresh perspectives. So I thought that aperture of surface area of opportunities to contribute in women in tech is not just coding. No, and that was a huge, >>That was, and we also, this morning, I got to hear, and we've talked about, we talked with several of the women before the event about data science in healthcare, data science, in transportation equity. That was a new thing for me, John, that I didn't know, I didn't, I never thought about transient equity and transportation or lack thereof. And so w what this conference showed, I think this year is that the it's not just coding, but it's every industry. As we know, every company is a data company. Every company is a tech company. If they're not, they're not going to be here for a long. So the opportunities for women is the door is just blown. >>And I said, from my interviews, it's a data problem. That's our line. We always say in the cube, people who know our program programming, we say that, but it actually, when we get the data on the pipeline and the pipeline, it has data points where the ages of drop-off of girls and young women is 12 to 14 and 16 to 18, where the drop-off is significant. So attack the pipelining problem is one that I heard a lot of. And the other one that comes out a lot, it's kind of common sense, and it's talked about it, but it's nuanced, but it became very elevated this year in the breaking, the bias theme, which was role models are huge. So seeing powerful women in leadership positions is really a focus and that's inspires people and they can see themselves. And so I think when people see role models of women and, and folks on in positions, not just coded, but even at the executive suite huge focus. So I think that's going to be a next step function in my mind. That's that's, if I had to predict the trend, it would be you see a lot more role modeling, flexing that big time. >>Good that's definitely needed. You know, we, we often used to say she can't be what she can't see, but one of the interviews that I had said, she can be what she can see. And I loved the pivot on that because it put a positive light, but to your point, there needs to be more female role models that, that girls can look up to. So they can see, I can do this. Like she's doing leading, you know, YouTube, for example, or Sheryl Sandberg of Facebook. We need more of these role models to show the tremendous amount of opportunities that are there, and to help those, not just the younger girls, those even that are maybe more mature find that confidence to build. >>And I think that was another king that came out role models from family members, dad, or a relative, or someone that could see was a big one. The other common thread was, yeah. I tend to break stuff and like to put it together. So at a young age, they kind of realized that they were kind of nerdy and they like to do stuff very engineering, but mind is where math or science. And that was interesting. Sally eaves from in the UK brought this up, she's a professor and does cyber policy. She said, it's a stems gray, but put the arts in there, make it steam. So steam and stem are in two acronyms. Stem is, is obviously the technical, but adding arts because of the creativity needs, we need creativity and problem solving with technical. Yes. So it's not just stem it's theme. We've heard that before, but not as much this year, it's amplified big >>Time. Sally's great. I had the chance to interview her in the last couple of months. And you, you bring up creativity, which is an incredibly important point. You know, there are the, obviously the hard skills, the technical skills that are needed, but there's also creativity. Curiosity being curious to ask a question, there's probably many questions that we haven't even thought to ask yet. So encouraging that curiosity, that natural curiosity is as important as maybe someone say as the actual technical knowledge, >>What was the biggest thing you saw this year? If you zoom out and you look at the forest from the trees, what was the big observation for you this year? >>I think it's the growth of woods. We've decided seven years. It's now in 60 countries, 200 events, 500 ambassadors, probably 500 plus. And the number of people that I had on the program, John, that this is their first woods. So just the fact that it's growing, we, we we've seen it for years, but I think we really saw a lot of the fresh faces and heard from them today had stories of how they got involved and how they met Margo, how she found them. I had a younger Alon who'd just graduated from Harvard back in the spring. So maybe not even a year ago, working at Skydio, doing drone work and had a great perspective on why it's important to have women in the drone industry, the opportunities Jones for good. And it was just nice to hear that fresh perspective. And also to S to hear the women who are new to woods, get it immediately. You walk into the Arriaga alumni center in the morning and you feel the energy and the support and that it was just perpetuated year after year. >>Yeah, it's awesome. I think one of the things I think it was reflecting on this morning was how many women we've interviewed in our cube alumni database now. And we yet are massing quite the database of really amazing people and there's more coming in. So that was kind of on a personal kind of reflection on the cube and what we've been working on together. All of us, the other thing that jumped out at me was the international aspect this year. It just seems like there's a community of tribal vibe where it's not just the tech industry, you know, saying rod, rod, it's a complete call to arms around more stories, tell your story. Yes. More enthusiasm outside of the corporate kind of swim lanes into like more of, Hey, let's get the stories out there. And the catalyst from an interview turned into follow up on LinkedIn, just a lot more like viral network effect so much more this year than ever before. So, you know, we just got to get the stories. >>Absolutely. And I think people given what we've been through the last two years are just really hungry for that. In-person collaboration, the opportunity to see more leadership to get inspired and any level of their career. I think the women here this today have had that opportunity and it's been overwhelmingly positive as you can imagine as it is every year. But I agree. I think it's been more international and definitely much more focused on teaching some of the other skills, the confidence, the creativity, the curiosity. >>Well, Lisa, as of right now, it's March 8th in Japan. So today, officially is kicking off right now. It's kicking off international women's day, March 8th, and the cube has a four region portal that we're going to make open, thanks to the sponsors with widths and Stanford and AWS supporting our mission. We're going to have Latin America, AMIA Asia Pacific and north America content pumping on the cube all day today, tomorrow. >>Exactly. And we've had such great conversations. I really enjoyed talking to the women. I always, I love hearing the stories as you talked about, we need more stories to make it personal, to humanize it, to learn from these people who either had some of them had linear paths, but a lot of emergency zig-zaggy, as you would say. And I always find that so interesting to understand how they got to where they are. Was it zig-zaggy, was it zig-zaggy intentionally? Yes. Some of the women that I talked to had very intentional pivots in their career to get them where they are, but I still thought that story was a very, >>And I like how you're here at Stanford university with winds the day before international Wednesday, technically now in Asia, it's starting, this is going to be a yearly trend. This is season one episode, one of the cube covering international women's day, and then every day for the rest of the year, right? >>What were some of your takeaways from some of the international women's day conversations that you had? >>Number one thing was community. The number one vibe was besides the message of more roles or available role models are important. You don't have to be a coder, but community was inherently the fabric of every conversation. The people were high energy, highly knowledgeable about on being on point around the core issue. It wasn't really politicized was much more of about this is really goodness and real examples of force multipliers of diversity, inclusion and equity, when, what works together as a competitive advantage. And, you know, as a student of business, that is a real change. I think, you know, the people who do it are going to have a competitive advantage. So community competitive advantage and just, and just overall break that bias through the mentoring and the sponsorships. >>And we've had a lot of great conversations about, I loved the theme of international women's day, this year breaking the bias. I asked everybody that I spoke with for international women's day and for width. What does that mean to you? And where are we on that journey? And everyone had a really insightful stories to share about where we are with that in their opinions, in their fields industries. Why, and ultimately, I think the general theme was we have the awareness now that we need, we have the awareness from an equity perspective, that's absolutely needed. We have to start there, shine the light on it so that the bias can be broken and opportunities for everybody can just proliferate >>Global community is going to rise and it's going to tend to rise. The tide is rising. It's going to get better and better. It was a fun year this year. And I think it was relief that COVID kind of going out, people getting back into physical events has been, been really, really great. >>Yep, absolutely. So, John, I, I appreciate all the opportunities that you've given me as a female anchor on the show. International women's day coverage was fantastic. Widths 2022 coming to an end was fantastic. Look forward to next year. >>Well, Margo, Judy and Karen who put this together, had a vision and that vision was right and it was this working and when it gets going, it has escape, velocity unstoppable. >>It's a rocket ship. That's a rocket. I love that. I love to be part of John. Thanks for joining me on the wrap. We want to thank you for watching the cubes coverage of international women's day. The women's showcase as well as women in data science, 2022. We'll see you next time.

>> Announcer: From theCUBE studios in Palo Alto, in Boston, connecting with thought leaders all around the world. This is a CUBE conversation. >> Hey, welcome back, you're ready. Jeff Frick here with theCUBE. We are still getting through the year of 2020. It's still the year of COVID and there's no end in sight I think until we get to a vaccine. That said, we're really excited to have one of our favorite guests. We haven't had him on for a while. I haven't talked to him for a long time. He used to I think have the record for the most CUBE appearances of probably any CUBE alumni. We're excited to have him joining us from his house in Palo Alto. Bill Schmarzo, you know him as the Dean of Big Data, he's got more titles. He's the chief innovation officer at Hitachi Vantara. He's also, we used to call him the Dean of Big Data, kind of for fun. Well, Bill goes out and writes a bunch of books. And now he teaches at the University of San Francisco, School of Management as an executive fellow. He's an honorary professor at NUI Galway. I think he's just, he likes to go that side of the pond and a many time author now, go check him out. His author profile on Amazon, the "Big Data MBA," "The Art of Thinking Like A Data Scientist" and another Big Data, kind of a workbook. Bill, great to see you. >> Thanks, Jeff, you know, I miss my time on theCUBE. These conversations have always been great. We've always kind of poked around the edges of things. A lot of our conversations have always been I thought, very leading edge and the title Dean of Big Data is courtesy of theCUBE. You guys were the first ones to give me that name out of one of the very first Strata Conferences where you dubbed me the Dean of Big Data, because I taught a class there called the Big Data MBA and look what's happened since then. >> I love it. >> It's all on you guys. >> I love it, and we've outlasted Strata, Strata doesn't exist as a conference anymore. So, you know, part of that I think is because Big Data is now everywhere, right? It's not the standalone thing. But there's a topic, and I'm holding in my hands a paper that you worked on with a colleague, Dr. Sidaoui, talking about what is the value of data? What is the economic value of data? And this is a topic that's been thrown around quite a bit. I think you list a total of 28 reference sources in this document. So it's a well researched piece of material, but it's a really challenging problem. So before we kind of get into the details, you know, from your position, having done this for a long time, and I don't know what you're doing today, you used to travel every single week to go out and visit customers and actually do implementations and really help people think these through. When you think about the value, the economic value, how did you start to kind of frame that to make sense and make it kind of a manageable problem to attack? >> So, Jeff, the research project was eyeopening for me. And one of the advantages of being a professor is, you have access to all these very smart, very motivated, very free research sources. And one of the problems that I've wrestled with as long as I've been in this industry is, how do you figure out what is data worth? And so what I did is I took these research students and I stick them on this problem. I said, "I want you to do some research. Let me understand what is the value of data?" I've seen all these different papers and analysts and consulting firms talk about it, but nobody's really got this thing clicked. And so we launched this research project at USF, professor Mouwafac Sidaoui and I together, and we were bumping along the same old path that everyone else got, which was inched on, how do we get data on our balance sheet? That was always the motivation, because as a company we're worth so much more because our data is so valuable, and how do I get it on the balance sheet? So we're headed down that path and trying to figure out how do you get it on the balance sheet? And then one of my research students, she comes up to me and she says, "Professor Schmarzo," she goes, "Data is kind of an unusual asset." I said, "Well, what do you mean?" She goes, "Well, you think about data as an asset. It never depletes, it never wears out. And the same dataset can be used across an unlimited number of use cases at a marginal cost equal to zero." And when she said that, it's like, "Holy crap." The light bulb went off. It's like, "Wait a second. I've been thinking about this entirely wrong for the last 30 some years of my life in this space. I've had the wrong frame. I keep thinking about this as an act, as an accounting conversation. An accounting determines valuation based on what somebody is willing to pay for." So if you go back to Adam Smith, 1776, "Wealth of Nations," he talks about valuation techniques. And one of the valuation techniques he talks about is valuation and exchange. That is the value of an asset is what someone's willing to pay you for it. So the value of this bottle of water is what someone's willing to pay you for it. So everybody fixates on this asset, valuation in exchange methodology. That's how you put it on balance sheet. That's how you run depreciation schedules, that dictates everything. But Adam Smith also talked about in that book, another valuation methodology, which is valuation in use, which is an economics conversation, not an accounting conversation. And when I realized that my frame was wrong, yeah, I had the right book. I had Adam Smith, I had "Wealth of Nations." I had all that good stuff, but I hadn't read the whole book. I had missed this whole concept about the economic value, where value is determined by not how much someone's willing to pay you for it, but the value you can drive by using it. So, Jeff, when that person made that comment, the entire research project, and I got to tell you, my entire life did a total 180, right? Just total of 180 degree change of how I was thinking about data as an asset. >> Right, well, Bill, it's funny though, that's kind of captured, I always think of kind of finance versus accounting, right? And then you're right on accounting. And we learn a lot of things in accounting. Basically we learn more that we don't know, but it's really hard to put it in an accounting framework, because as you said, it's not like a regular asset. You can use it a lot of times, you can use it across lots of use cases, it doesn't degradate over time. In fact, it used to be a liability. 'cause you had to buy all this hardware and software to maintain it. But if you look at the finance side, if you look at the pure play internet companies like Google, like Facebook, like Amazon, and you look at their valuation, right? We used to have this thing, we still have this thing called Goodwill, which was kind of this capture between what the market established the value of the company to be. But wasn't reflected when you summed up all the assets on the balance sheet and you had this leftover thing, you could just plug in goodwill. And I would hypothesize that for these big giant tech companies, the market has baked in the value of the data, has kind of put in that present value on that for a long period of time over multiple projects. And we see it captured probably in goodwill, versus being kind of called out as an individual balance sheet item. >> So I don't think it's, I don't know accounting. I'm not an accountant, thank God, right? And I know that goodwill is one of those things if I remember from my MBA program is something that when you buy a company and you look at the value you paid versus what it was worth, it stuck into this category called goodwill, because no one knew how to figure it out. So the company at book value was a billion dollars, but you paid five billion for it. Well, you're not an idiot, so that four billion extra you paid must be in goodwill and they'd stick it in goodwill. And I think there's actually a way that goodwill gets depreciated as well. So it could be that, but I'm totally away from the accounting framework. I think that's distracting, trying to work within the gap rules is more of an inhibitor. And we talk about the Googles of the world and the Facebooks of the world and the Netflix of the world and the Amazons and companies that are great at monetizing data. Well, they're great at monetizing it because they're not selling it, they're using it. Google is using their data to dominate search, right? Netflix is using it to be the leader in on-demand videos. And it's how they use all the data, how they use the insights about their customers, their products, and their operations to really drive new sources of value. So to me, it's this, when you start thinking about from an economics perspective, for example, why is the same car that I buy and an Uber driver buys, why is that car more valuable to an Uber driver than it is to me? Well, the bottom line is, Uber drivers are going to use that car to generate value, right? That $40,000, that car they bought is worth a lot more, because they're going to use that to generate value. For me it sits in the driveway and the birds poop on it. So, right, so it's this value in use concept. And when organizations can make that, by the way, most organizations really struggle with this. They struggle with this value in use concept. They want to, when you talk to them about data monetization and say, "Well, I'm thinking about the chief data officer, try not to trying to sell data, knocking on doors, shaking their tin cup, saying, 'Buy my data.'" No, no one wants your data. Your data is more valuable for how you use it to drive your operations then it's a sell to somebody else. >> Right, right. Well, on of the other things that's really important from an economics concept is scarcity, right? And a whole lot of economics is driven around scarcity. And how do you price for scarcity so that the market evens out and the price matches up to the supply? What's interesting about the data concept is, there is no scarcity anymore. And you know, you've outlined and everyone has giant numbers going up into the right, in terms of the quantity of the data and how much data there is and is going to be. But what you point out very eloquently in this paper is the scarcity is around the resources to actually do the work on the data to get the value out of the data. And I think there's just this interesting step function between just raw data, which has really no value in and of itself, right? Until you start to apply some concepts to it, you start to analyze it. And most importantly, that you have some context by which you're doing all this analysis to then drive that value. And I thought it was really an interesting part of this paper, which is get beyond the arguing that we're kind of discussing here and get into some specifics where you can measure value around a specific business objective. And not only that, but then now the investment of the resources on top of the data to be able to extract the value to then drive your business process for it. So it's a really different way to think about scarcity, not on the data per se, but on the ability to do something with it. >> You're spot on, Jeff, because organizations don't fail because of a lack of use cases. They fail because they have too many. So how do you prioritize? Now that scarcity is not an issue on the data side, but it is this issue on the people resources side, you don't have unlimited data scientists, right? So how do you prioritize and focus on those opportunities that are most important? I'll tell you, that's not a data science conversation, that's a business conversation, right? And figuring out how you align organizations to identify and focus on those use cases that are most important. Like in the paper we go through several different use cases using Chipotle as an example. The reason why I picked Chipotle is because, well, I like Chipotle. So I could go there and I could write it off as research. But there's a, think about the number of use cases where a company like Chipotle or any other company can leverage your data to drive their key business initiatives and their key operational use cases. It's almost unbounded, which by the way, is a huge challenge. In fact, I think part of the problem we see with a lot of organizations is because they do such a poor job of prioritizing and focusing, they try to solve the entire problem with one big fell swoop, right? It's slightly the old ERP big bang projects. Well, I'm just going to spend $20 million to buy this analytic capability from company X and I'm going to install it and then magic is going to happen. And then magic is going to happen, right? And then magic is going to happen, right? And magic never happens. We get crickets instead, because the biggest challenge isn't around how do I leverage the data, it's about where do I start? What problems do I go after? And how do I make sure the organization is bought in to basically use case by use case, build out your data and analytics architecture and capabilities. >> Yeah, and you start backwards from really specific business objectives in the use cases that you outline here, right? I want to increase my average ticket by X. I want to increase my frequency of visits by X. I want to increase the amount of items per order from X to 1.2 X, or 1.3 X. So from there you get a nice kind of big revenue hit that you can plan around and then work backwards into the amount of effort that it takes and then you can come up, "Is this a good investment or not?" So it's a really different way to get back to the value of the data. And more importantly, the analytics and the work to actually call out the information. >> The technologies, the data and analytic technologies available to us. The very composable nature of these allow us to take this use case by use case approach. I can build out my data lake one use case at a time. I don't need to stuff 25 data sources into my data lake and hope there's someone more valuable. I can use the first use case to say, "Oh, I need these three data sources to solve that use case. I'm going to put those three data sources in the data lake. I'm going to go through the entire curation process of making sure the data has been transformed and cleansed and aligned and enriched and met of, all the other governance, all that kind of stuff this goes on. But I'm going to do that use case by use case, 'cause a use case can tell me which data sources are most important for that given situation. And I can build up my data lake and I can build up my analytics then one use case at a time. And there is a huge impact then, huge impact when I build out use case by use case. That does not happen. Let me throw something that's not really covered in the paper, but it is very much covered in my new book that I'm working on, which is, in knowledge-based industries, the economies of learning are more powerful than the economies of scale. Now think about that for a second. >> Say that again, say that again. >> Yeah, the economies of learning are more powerful than the economies of scale. And what that means is what I learned on the first use case that I build out, I can apply that learning to the second use case, to the third use case, to the fourth use case. So when I put my data into my data lake for my first use case, and the paper covers this, well, once it's in my data lake, the cost of reusing that data in a second, third and fourth use cases is basically, you know marginal cost is zero. So I get this ability to learn about what data sets are most important and to reapply that across the organization. So this learning concept, I learn use case by use case, I don't have to do a big economies of scale approach and start with 25 datasets of which only three or four might be useful. But I'm incurring the overhead for all those other non-important data sets because I didn't take the time to go through and figure out what are my most important use cases and what data do I need to support those use cases. >> I mean, should people even think of the data per se or should they really readjust their thinking around the application of the data? Because the data in and of itself means nothing, right? 55, is that fast or slow? Is that old or young? Well, it depends on a whole lot of things. Am I walking or am I in a brand new Corvette? So it just, it's funny to me that the data in and of itself really doesn't have any value and doesn't really provide any direction into a decision or a higher order, predictive analytics until you start to manipulate the data. So is it even the wrong discussion? Is data the right discussion? Or should we really be talking about the capabilities to do stuff within and really get people focused on that? >> So Jeff, there's so many points to hit on there. So the application of data is what's the value, and the queue of you guys used to be famous for saying, "Separating noise from the signal." >> Signal from the noise. Signal from a noise, right. Well, how do you know in your dataset what's signal and what's noise? Well, the use case will tell you. If you don't know the use case and you have no way of figuring out what's important. One of the things I use, I still rail against, and it happens still. Somebody will walk up my data science team and say, "Here's some data, tell me what's interesting in it." Well, how do you separate signal from noise if I don't know the use case? So I think you're spot on, Jeff. The way to think about this is, don't become data-driven, become value-driven and value is driven from the use case or the application or the use of the data to solve that particular use case. So organizations that get fixated on being data-driven, I hate the term data-driven. It's like as if there's some sort of frigging magic from having data. No, data has no value. It's how you use it to derive customer product and operational insights that drive value,. >> Right, so there's an interesting step function, and we talk about it all the time. You're out in the weeds, working with Chipotle lately, and increase their average ticket by 1.2 X. We talk more here, kind of conceptually. And one of the great kind of conceptual holy grails within a data-driven economy is kind of working up this step function. And you've talked about it here. It's from descriptive, to diagnostic, to predictive. And then the Holy grail prescriptive, we're way ahead of the curve. This comes into tons of stuff around unscheduled maintenance. And you know, there's a lot of specific applications, but do you think we spend too much time kind of shooting for the fourth order of greatness impact, instead of kind of focusing on the small wins? >> Well, you certainly have to build your way there. I don't think you can get to prescriptive without doing predictive, and you can't do predictive without doing descriptive and such. But let me throw a really one at you, Jeff, I think there's even one beyond prescriptive. One we're talking more and more about, autonomous, a ton of analytics, right? And one of the things that paper talked about that didn't click with me at the time was this idea of orphaned analytics. You and I kind of talked about this before the call here. And one thing we noticed in the research was that a lot of these very mature organizations who had advanced from the retrospective analytics of BI to the descriptive, to the predicted, to the prescriptive, they were building one off analytics to solve a problem and getting value from it, but never reusing this analytics over and over again. They were done one off and then they were thrown away and these organizations were so good at data science and analytics, that it was easier for them to just build from scratch than to try to dig around and try to find something that was never actually ever built to be reused. And so I have this whole idea of orphaned analytics, right? It didn't really occur to me. It didn't make any sense into me until I read this quote from Elon Musk, and Elon Musk made this statement. He says, " I believe that when you buy a Tesla, you're buying an asset that appreciates in value, not depreciates through usage." I was thinking, "Wait a second, what does that mean?" He didn't actually say it, "Through usage." He said, "He believes you're buying an asset that appreciates not depreciates in value." And of course the first response I had was, "Oh, it's like a 1964 and a half Mustang. It's rare, so everybody is going to want these things. So buy one, stick it in your garage. And 20 years later, you're bringing it out and it's worth more money." No, no, there's 600,000 of these things roaming around the streets, they're not rare. What he meant is that he is building an autonomous asset. That the more that it's used, the more valuable it's getting, the more reliable, the more efficient, the more predictive, the more safe this asset's getting. So there is this level beyond prescriptive where we can think about, "How do we leverage artificial intelligence, reinforcement, learning, deep learning, to build these assets that the more that they are used, the smarter they get." That's beyond prescriptive. That's an environment where these things are learning. In many cases, they're learning with minimal or no human intervention. That's the real aha moment. That's what I miss with orphaned analytics and why it's important to build analytics that can be reused over and over again. Because every time you use these analytics in a different use case, they get smarter, they get more valuable, they get more predictive. To me that's the aha moment that blew my mind. I realized I had missed that in the paper entirely. And it took me basically two years later to realize, dough, I missed the most important part of the paper. >> Right, well, it's an interesting take really on why the valuation I would argue is reflected in Tesla, which is a function of the data. And there's a phenomenal video if you've never seen it, where they have autonomous vehicle day, it might be a year or so old. And he's got his number one engineer from, I think the Microprocessor Group, The Computer Vision Group, as well as the autonomous driving group. And there's a couple of really great concepts I want to follow up on what you said. One is that they have this thing called The Fleet. To your point, there's hundreds of thousands of these things, if they haven't hit a million, that are calling home reporting home every day as to exactly how everyone took the Northbound 101 on-ramp off of University Avenue. How fast did they go? What line did they take? What G-forces did they take? And every one of those cars feeds into the system, so that when they do the autonomous update, not only are they using all their regular things that they would use to map out that 101 Northbound entry, but they've got all the data from all the cars that have been doing it. And you know, when that other car, the autonomous car couple years ago hit the pedestrian, I think in Phoenix, which is not good, sad, killed a person, dark tough situation. But you know, we are doing an autonomous vehicle show and the guy who made a really interesting point, right? That when something like that happens, typically if I was in a car wreck or you're in a car wreck, hopefully not, I learned the person that we hit learns and maybe a couple of witnesses learn, maybe the inspector. >> But nobody else learns. >> But nobody else learns. But now with the autonomy, every single person can learn from every single experience with every vehicle contributing data within that fleet. To your point, it's just an order of magnitude, different way to think about things. >> Think about a 1% improvement compounded 365 times, equals I think 38 X improvement. The power of 1% improvements over these 600,000 plus cars that are learning. By the way, even when the autonomous FSD, the full self-driving mode module isn't turned on, even when it's not turned on, it runs in shadow mode. So it's learning from the human drivers, the human overlords, it's constantly learning. And by the way, not only they're collecting all this data, I did a little research, I pulled out some of their job search ads and they've built a giant simulator, right? And they're there basically every night, simulating billions and billions of more driven miles because of the simulator. They are building, he's going to have a simulator, not only for driving, but think about all the data he's capturing as these cars are riding down the road. By the way, they don't use Lidar, they use video, right? So he's driving by malls. He knows how many cars are in the mall. He's driving down roads, he knows how old the cars are and which ones should be replaced. I mean, he has this, he's sitting on this incredible wealth of data. If anybody could simulate what's going on in the world and figure out how to get out of this COVID problem, it's probably Elon Musk and the data he's captured, be courtesy of all those cars. >> Yeah, yeah, it's really interesting, and we're seeing it now. There's a new autonomous drone out, the Skydio, and they just announced their commercial product. And again, it completely changes the way you think about how you use that tool, because you've just eliminated the complexity of driving. I don't want to drive that, I want to tell it what to do. And so you're saying, this whole application of air force and companies around things like measuring piles of coal and measuring these huge assets that are volume metric measured, that these things can go and map out and farming, et cetera, et cetera. So the autonomy piece, that's really insightful. I want to shift gears a little bit, Bill, and talk about, you had some theories in here about thinking of data as an asset, data as a currency, data as monetization. I mean, how should people think of it? 'Cause I don't think currency is very good. It's really not kind of an exchange of value that we're doing this kind of classic asset. I think the data as oil is horrible, right? To your point, it doesn't get burned up once and can't be used again. It can be used over and over and over. It's basically like feedstock for all kinds of stuff, but the feedstock never goes away. So again, or is it that even the right way to think about, do we really need to shift our conversation and get past the idea of data and get much more into the idea of information and actionable information and useful information that, oh, by the way, happens to be powered by data under the covers? >> Yeah, good question, Jeff. Data is an asset in the same way that a human is an asset. But just having humans in your company doesn't drive value, it's how you use those humans. And so it's really again the application of the data around the use cases. So I still think data is an asset, but I don't want to, I'm not fixated on, put it on my balance sheet. That nice talk about put it on a balance sheet, I immediately put the blinders on. It inhibits what I can do. I want to think about this as an asset that I can use to drive value, value to my customers. So I'm trying to learn more about my customer's tendencies and propensities and interests and passions, and try to learn the same thing about my car's behaviors and tendencies and my operations have tendencies. And so I do think data is an asset, but it's a latent asset in the sense that it has potential value, but it actually has no value per se, inputting it into a balance sheet. So I think it's an asset. I worry about the accounting concept medially hijacking what we can do with it. To me the value of data becomes and how it interacts with, maybe with other assets. So maybe data itself is not so much an asset as it's fuel for driving the value of assets. So, you know, it fuels my use cases. It fuels my ability to retain and get more out of my customers. It fuels ability to predict what my products are going to break down and even have products who self-monitor, self-diagnosis and self-heal. So, data is an asset, but it's only a latent asset in the sense that it sits there and it doesn't have any value until you actually put something to it and shock it into action. >> So let's shift gears a little bit and start talking about the data and talk about the human factors. 'Cause you said, one of the challenges is people trying to bite off more than they can chew. And we have the role of chief data officer now. And to your point, maybe that mucks things up more than it helps. But in all the customer cases that you've worked on, is there a consistent kind of pattern of behavior, personality, types of projects that enables some people to grab those resources to apply to their data to have successful projects, because to your point there's too much data and there's too many projects and you talk a lot about prioritization. But there's a lot of assumptions in the prioritization model that you can, that you know a whole lot of things, especially if you're comparing project A over in group A with project B, with group B and the two may not really know the economics across that. But from an individual person who sees the potential, what advice do you give them? What kind of characteristics do you see, either in the type of the project, the type of the boss, the type of the individual that really lends itself to a higher probability of a successful outcome? >> So first off you need to find somebody who has a vision for how they want to use the data, and not just collect it. But how they're going to try to change the fortunes of the organization. So it always takes a visionary, may not be the CEO, might be somebody who's a head of marketing or the head of logistics, or it could be a CIO, it could be a chief data officer as well. But you've got to find somebody who says, "We have this latent asset we could be doing more with, and we have a series of organizational problem challenges against which I could apply this asset. And I need to be the matchmaker that brings these together." Now the tool that I think is the most powerful tool in marrying the latent capabilities of data with all the revenue generating opportunities in the application side, because there's a countless number, the most important tool that I found doing that is design thinking. Now, the reason why I think design thinking is so important, because one of the things that design thinking does a great job is it gives everybody a voice in the process of identifying, validating, valuing, and prioritizing use cases you're going to go after. Let me say that again. The challenge organizations have is identifying, validating, valuing, and prioritizing the use cases they want to go after. Design thinking is a marvelous tool for driving organizational alignment around where we're going to start and what's going to be next and why we're going to start there and how we're going to bring everybody together. Big data and data science projects don't die because of technology failure. Most of them die because of passive aggressive behaviors in the organization that you didn't bring everybody into the process. Everybody's voice didn't get a chance to be heard. And that one person who's voice didn't get a chance to get heard, they're going to get you. They may own a certain piece of data. They may own something, but they're just waiting and lay, they're just laying there waiting for their chance to come up and snag it. So what you got to do is you got to proactively bring these people together. We call this, this is part of our value engineering process. We have a value engineering process around envisioning where we bring all these people together. We help them to understand how data in itself is a latent asset, but how it can be used from an economics perspective, drive all those value. We get them all fired up on how these can solve any one of these use cases. But you got to start with one, and you've got to embrace this idea that I can build out my data and analytic capabilities, one use case at a time. And the first use case I go after and solve, makes my second one easier, makes my third one easier, right? It has this ability that when you start going use case by use case two really magical things happen. Number one, your marginal cost flatten. That is because you're building out your data lake one use case at a time, and you're bringing all the important data lake, that data lake one use case at a time. At some point in time, you've got most of the important data you need, and the ability that you don't need to add another data source. You got what you need, so your marginal costs start to flatten. And by the way, if you build your analytics as composable, reusable, continuous learning analytic assets, not as orphaned analytics, pretty soon you have all the analytics you need as well. So your marginal cost flatten, but effect number two is that you've, because you've have the data and the analytics, I can accelerate time to value, and I can de-risked projects as I go use case by use case. And so then the biggest challenge becomes not in the data and the analytics, it's getting the all the business stakeholders to agree on, here's a roadmap we're going to go after. This one's first, and this one is going first because it helps to drive the value of the second and third one. And then this one drives this, and you create a whole roadmap of rippling through of how the data and analytics are driving this value to across all these use cases at a marginal cost approaching zero. >> So should we have chief design thinking officers instead of chief data officers that really actually move the data process along? I mean, I first heard about design thinking years ago, actually interviewing Dan Gordon from Gordon Biersch, and they were, he had just hired a couple of Stanford grads, I think is where they pioneered it, and they were doing some work about introducing, I think it was a a new apple-based alcoholic beverage, apple cider, and they talked a lot about it. And it's pretty interesting, but I mean, are you seeing design thinking proliferate into the organizations that you work with? Either formally as design thinking or as some derivation of it that pulls some of those attributes that you highlighted that are so key to success? >> So I think we're seeing the birth of this new role that's marrying capabilities of design thinking with the capabilities of data and analytics. And they're calling this dude or dudette the chief innovation officer. Surprise. >> Title for someone we know. >> And I got to tell a little story. So I have a very experienced design thinker on my team. All of our data science projects have a design thinker on them. Every one of our data science projects has a design thinker, because the nature of how you build and successfully execute a data science project, models almost exactly how design thinking works. I've written several papers on it, and it's a marvelous way. Design thinking and data science are different sides of the same coin. But my respect for data science or for design thinking took a major shot in the arm, major boost when my design thinking person on my team, whose name is John Morley introduced me to a senior data scientist at Google. And I was bottom coffee. I said, "No," this is back in, before I even joined Hitachi Vantara, and I said, "So tell me the secret to Google's data science success? You guys are marvelous, you're doing things that no one else was even contemplating, and what's your key to success?" And he giggles and laughs and he goes, "Design thinking." I go, "What the hell is that? Design thinking, I've never even heard of the stupid thing before." He goes, "I'd make a deal with you, Friday afternoon let's pop over to Stanford's B school and I'll teach you about design thinking." So I went with him on a Friday to the d.school, Design School over at Stanford and I was blown away, not just in how design thinking was used to ideate and bring and to explore. But I was blown away about how powerful that concept is when you marry it with data science. What is data science in its simplest sense? Data science is about identifying the variables and metrics that might be better predictors of performance. It's that might phrase that's the real key. And who are the people who have the best insights into what values or metrics or KPIs you might want to test? It ain't the data scientists, it's the subject matter experts on the business side. And when you use design thinking to bring this subject matter experts with the data scientists together, all kinds of magic stuff happens. It's unbelievable how well it works. And all of our projects leverage design thinking. Our whole value engineering process is built around marrying design thinking with data science, around this prioritization, around these concepts of, all ideas are worthy of consideration and all voices need to be heard. And the idea how you embrace ambiguity and diversity of perspectives to drive innovation, it's marvelous. But I feel like I'm a lone voice out in the wilderness, crying out, "Yeah, Tesla gets it, Google gets it, Apple gets it, Facebook gets it." But you know, most other organizations in the world, they don't think like that. They think design thinking is this Wufoo thing. Oh yeah, you're going to bring people together and sing Kumbaya. It's like, "No, I'm not singing Kumbaya. I'm picking their brains because they're going to help make their data science team much more effective and knowing what problems we're going to go after and how I'm going to measure success and progress. >> Maybe that's the next Dean for the next 10 years, the Dean of design thinking instead of data science, and who knew they're one and the same? Well, Bill, that's a super insightful, I mean, it's so, is validated and supported by the trends that we see all over the place, just in terms of democratization, right? Democratization of the tools, more people having access to data, more opinions, more perspective, more people that have the ability to manipulate the data and basically experiment, does drive better business outcomes. And it's so consistent. >> If I could add one thing, Jeff, I think that what's really powerful about design thinking is when I think about what's happening with artificial intelligence or AI, there's all these conversations about, "Oh, AI is going to wipe out all these jobs. Is going to take all these jobs away." And what we're actually finding is that if we think about machine learning, driven by AI and human empowerment, driven by design thinking, we're seeing the opportunity to exploit these economies of learning at the front lines where every customer engagement, every operational execution is an opportunity to gather not only more data, but to gather more learnings, to empower the humans at the front lines of the organization to constantly be seeking, to try different things, to explore and to learn from each of these engagements. I think it's, AI to me is incredibly powerful. And I think about it as a source of driving more learning, a continuous learning and continuously adapting an organization where it's not just the machines that are doing this, but it's the humans who've been empowered to do that. And my chapter nine in my new book, Jeff, is all about team empowerment, because nothing you do with AI is going to matter of squat if you don't have empowered teams who know how to take and leverage that continuous learning opportunity at the front lines of customer and operational engagement. >> Bill, I couldn't set a better, I think we'll leave it there. That's a great close, when is the next book coming out? >> So today I do my second to last final review. Then it goes back to the editor and he does a review and we start looking at formatting. So I think we're probably four to six weeks out. >> Okay, well, thank you so much, congratulations on all the success. I just love how the Dean is really the Dean now, teaching all over the world, sharing the knowledge and attacking some of these big problems. And like all great economics problems, often the answer is not economics at all. It's completely really twist the lens and don't think of it in that, all that construct. >> Exactly. >> All right, Bill. Thanks again and have a great week. >> Thanks, Jeff. >> All right. He's Bill Schmarzo, I'm Jeff Frick. You're watching theCUBE. Thanks for watching, we'll see you next time. (gentle music)