 The simple way to describe Chief Information Officer at a bank is it's my fault. Everyone puts it that way because it's becoming more and more, I think banking is becoming like a public utility in some ways in terms of you expect it or it's not working, you're not happy. So for example if you can't do your mobile bank here on your phone, it's a big moment whereas five, ten years ago it wasn't a big issue. So I look after the technology at Westpac which is a major part of a large bank's business. We spend a couple of billion dollars a year on technology and we process literally a few thousand transactions a minute, so it's busy. Okay, so it's a very big job, two billion dollars a year spent on technology, I wish ANU would spend something like that. So tell us in terms of when you look out at the world, Dave, and I guess the kind of world of information and the economy, we've been talking very much in terms of policy and high politics this morning and a bit of high economics, but when you look out at your world, the information economy, what are you most optimistic about and what are you most pessimistic about? It's a great question. I'm both. It's a really good question, I'm happy to answer both. I'll start with the pessimistic because it's better to talk about the optimistic, so I'll move to that. I think, and I had the pleasure of sitting on the previous session, just hearing people talk about where we are in terms of geopolitical change, economic change, the environment we're in. I think the one that was left out of that conversation is we're in massive disruption as well. Technology is disrupting our world in a manner we've never seen it before. We are in a digital revolution. I think that is a change that's coming faster than people are ready for and it's a change that's not going to slow down. People always talk about waves and it slows down and my mind technology is not slowing down. It's going to continue exponential and we are not prepared for that. If I would be pessimistic as Australia moves from a resources economy to more of a service economy, but actually a digital based services economy, I think we're still playing catch up. I think we now talk openly about things like STEM. A year ago we didn't talk about STEM. Other countries have been talking STEM for five to ten years. So if I were being pessimistic, I would say we are under prepared for the digital revolution we live in and we are paying catch up. Now we are chasing hard and we've always been a very smart country so I think we can catch up but we are chasing. Now if I wanted to be optimistic, it's part of what I just said in terms of we've always been a smart country. I always get excited when I spend time at universities or with people from the Westpac Bicentennial Foundation, the scholars. Just the bright minds we have in this country if applied to the problem would be fantastic. So I'm optimistic there. I think one of our problems is the world has been used to work in hierarchical structures. They were the business models of previous years and my generation is very comfortable with hierarchy. It's good when you're defined as the boss because you understand how that works and we have that in so many different ways and I think some of the previous commentary might actually reflect some of that as well when you're talking about inter-country type relations as well. The newer generations have grown up in a digitally connected world and so I think that concept of network is rapidly clashing with hierarchy and I think will prevail over hierarchy and we're going through that transition at the moment. I'm actually very hopeful about what that will mean and I'm very positive what that would mean and it's an exciting time. So to your question, we better hurry up. We are hurrying up and if we get it right we have some of the best minds in the world and I can't wait to see what they can do for us. Yeah, I just, I guess I'm reflecting on what you were talking about. I sort of was thinking about my travels through the Asia Pacific and it seems to me that so many of the societies around Australia seem to be so much more advanced in terms of their use of information technology than we are. You know, the rate and the frequency at which they use mobile telephony and do all sorts of things on their mobile telephones seems to well outstrip Australia even at our younger generation. Are we going to start or are we already at the point of actually needing to learn from the societies around us about what our future is? That's a great set of questions in there. I think we are, we have always been at the forefront of digital adoption. We use technology a lot. We are not as where we need to be and how we develop on that. And also where we put it in our priorities is in a lower space in other parts of the world. In Southeast Asia, I was talking to Nick Farrelly before, in Southeast Asia, you know, the statistics are people will spend 10% of their disposable income on a mobile phone. That's the importance of being connected. Now, the concept of an Australian spending 10% of their disposable income on just a phone is like, we wouldn't do it. We don't have that level of term to how we think. You know, I have three children. My daughter's a 15-year-old goes to school and everything's bringing her own device, everything's interconnected. And I say, how many of your fellow classmates are studying technology? And you get an answer of nearly zero. So you have this massive use of technology, but not this interest in actually growing the skills in it. And it's that mismatch, I think, is where we are likely to fall behind. Some of the greatest developments going on in the world right now are in third-world-type countries where what digital technology and connectivity has brought to them is actually creating great advancement. And they're actually bringing those two together, whereas we've still got a little bit of a split now from where I sit. Now, I'm going to sound like a real old foggy in asking this question, Dave, but it seems to me that we are in a situation in which we are trusting these platforms and these networks more and more with more and more of the vital information that we need in our personal lives, but actually more and more of what keeps our societies running and ticking over and together. Are we making ourselves more and more vulnerable to something going horrendously wrong or to being exploited? The short answer to that has to be yes, unfortunately. To the point I made earlier, we have no choice. This technology is here and getting faster, so it's not like we can stop it. It's here. One of the downsides of being digital and interconnected is more and more of who and what you are is now in a space that is actually connected. And that comes with an enormous upside in terms of just how easy life has become. But on the flip side, in my team, for example, we support literally hundreds of our customers every month who've lost their digital identity. Not for anything to do with the banking, but because they bank with us, we help them. And if you actually lose your digital identity, to actually go back and recreate that is very difficult. In the world of cyber crime and cyber security, which is a massive challenge for everybody, the bad guys are ahead of the good guys right now. And that comes with these challenges. There's a lot of things in the media today about some of the cyber challenges in this country. We continually have to be vigilant in that space. But in my mind, the option isn't stop or slow down or stop the interconnectivity. That is impossible to do. It's recognize that and do more about it. We need to get a bit of framework and conversation within the country about educating the country about what that means. Actually, we chose to get serious about drink driving. We put in a 0.05, but we also put in a massive campaign of education. And we saw a huge impact as a result of that. Now, I'm not saying that's the same thing you need with cyber, but you need something to actually better educate society as the world we now live in. Because it's not going away. And it is a massive impact on both you as a person, but also you as a business, or as a country in terms of your IP if you don't protect it. And it's a whole different threat than we've been used to in the past. Yeah, I saw a figure not so long ago that showed just how many people's password for their computer is password. So ladies and gentlemen, I'd like to bring you into the conversation if and when you're ready and when you've had enough to eat. But I guess my question is, is there in your mind a bit of a tipping point? Is there a data breach out there in the future somewhere that is likely to be so large, so kind of devastating to people's personal information that will actually break down the trust? I mean, essentially, these are not only technological platforms, they are trust. And what makes your business able to function in the way it does is people trusting you to keep their information safe. You could argue we've already had a few. And again, this is a difficult question as well to answer as a 51-year-old, which I am, in terms of my view of what I'm willing to share and what my 15-year-old is willing to share is very different. I think we are seeing more and more. And the challenge with cybersecurity in the past, just for a moment, is we typically have crime that is gangsters or criminals, and we have the local neighbourhood things, and we have things going on between governments. In the cyberspace, that's all interconnected. And so the technology is being developed by nation states and now being leveraged by the cyber criminals and then being leveraged by the hacktivists that other people want to use it. Those three are now blending, which means also not only are the threats they're bringing to bear blending, but the information they receive and the crimes they commit are now blending as well. So it's not just a matter of you lost your password and therefore someone could put a crypto locker on your PC and you got to pay money to get your photographs back. But suddenly your information is in the dark web and moving around the world and being used for all sorts of other things. And suddenly your identity is being used for something else and the other things go there. So to answer your question, I think we are going to see some events where people realise it's not someone stole my money. It's someone stole who I was and used me for something else and that's done at scale. I think when that becomes more into the conversation, that will be an interesting moment for us as to how do we deal with that as a society and as an economy. So could we see, I mean I know there are some countries, for example, that have much lower rates of internet banking than we do because the trust isn't there. The trust, something has happened or something has not happened that people will put their trust in. Could we see some stage in the future Australia pulling back from being that kind of digitally engaged society that we are moving towards? Personally, I don't. I'm the CIO to major bank. We take that incredibly seriously. I think the banks in Australia are as well prepared as they could be in the current environment. Where I think the challenge is that the next layers of business and in the personal realm were under and prepared. And getting a far more common view on this, I think is more important than a particular dial up or dial down in one industry. And that ability to communicate between industry, government, academia and others I think is an interesting topic more broadly than the cyberspace. But in the cyberspace, having a far more for one of the better words secure Australia point of view I think is important in that conversation. So I don't think we'd be stepping away from say banking or internet banking to say I think it's more bringing the rest of where we are to the same level in terms of how we do. You know, I imagine most people in this room use mobile and internet banking. It's become the norm. But similarly they use Facebook and they use all the other social tools that are available to them. It's in those areas there that you have to consider where the other things come together in a broader risk. So I don't see us stepping away. My view is the convenience it brings will continue to see it being adopted. It comes with risks and we have to actually step up to those risks. And how are we doing? I mean I know that the government has instituted a range of sort of government industry working groups and linkages. Is that working as well as it could be? Does more need to be done? How should we be thinking about the future of our cyber security policy? I think more needs to be done across the board in the digital space and definitely in the cyber space. To my comment earlier I think we're in catch-up mode. If you look at other countries around the world that conversation between government, business, academia and in some cases military is far more open and collaborative to the benefit of the country. We struggle in those conversations. We're getting better but we need to do more. Cyber is one of those spaces. We still have almost a one-way dialogue between industry and government on the basis that it's security, you've got to protect it. Well the security threat is now far larger because you have the nation state, the criminals and the hacktivers all coming together so you can't use the same defence against it. You see other countries, Singapore and South East Asia are a good example, Israel is an extraordinary example but even the UK, the things that are happening in the UK are far more collaborative in that space and I think we can do that better. I think the other comment about, we need to be better at producing talent in this space drives the same conversation. I have a frustration that if I look in the academic world the lack of cyber security postgraduate and undergraduate type courses is at best nascent. Last time the latest data suggested we're a million professionals short in the technology world globally. Now if that's not an area where you want to build skills quickly, I can't think of a better one. We need to be quicker at catching up and chasing those things as they happen because we don't have a 20-year advance warning that we used to have on technologies. They are here and here today. Artificial intelligence has been talked about since Isaac Asimov used to write books. It arrived in the last year and yet we're still thinking artificial intelligence is science fiction. It has arrived and we are talking about it. So that's just another example. So getting into the culture of it, Dave, you've just been to Israel. What is it that the Israelis or the Singaporeans have that we don't have? Why are we not capable of leapfrogging into this and being at the leading edge? That's a really hard question. I'm a technologist so I've got to be careful how I answer that. But my personal view is that they have a view of what they want to be or what they need to be. We're in a transition state as a nation. We were very much driven by a resources sector. We're moving more to a services sector. We don't really know what that looks like. Which makes it a very difficult place to be. What I've heard today in a lot of the conversations is a lot of hope, a lot of excitement and a lot of uncertainty. And I think it's that uncertainty of what does it look like? Makes it difficult. Whereas if you turn it to some of these smaller countries, but frankly in terms of population and GDP, not that much smaller, they have a very clear view of what they want to be and how they're going to bring their resources together to compete. And we are a little bit more open than that, which personally, politically is probably a very good thing, but it comes at a price in terms of coordination and how you want to compete. And in a world that's changing faster than you know and that competition is becoming more uncertain, that gives us some challenges. It strikes me that the kind of ongoing political bun fight over the NBN is a good metaphor. For our inability as a country to take this stuff particularly seriously. It's a great metaphor and I'll stay away from the politics of the NBN, but the technology of the NBN was it was a great technology for a piece of time, which means if you rolled it out really quickly, it would be very effective. Where we sit today, we know we haven't rolled it out really effectively and therefore you have all the issues that go with that and I won't comment on those, but I would comment that if rolled out really quickly, it was a technology that at a point in time that would have been a great step up, we're now in a bit more of an uncertain space with it. I think that's true of all the technologies we talk about. You know, I talk with my team and one of the disadvantages is working in a large bank like a West Bank. No matter what we start, it will be out of date before we finish. That's a mindset shift that is very difficult to make for someone that grew up in a world where you put something in and you had 20 years of value out of it. It will be out of date before we've implemented it and you have to change completely how you think and how you work and structures I mentioned of hierarchy struggle with it's out of date before you start and that when you then come into academia, I'm gonna create a new course while it's out of date before the first set of graduates have actually been employed. How do you bring that together? So that's I think one of the great challenges we face. Ladies and gentlemen, are there any questions that people would like to ask? David. David Goyne. There must be, I think, three dimensions to your work, sort of an outwards focus to customers, an inwards focus connecting the bank, then a focus connecting to the other banks and the global financial system. What's your relative importance between those and has that changed? Oh, that's an interesting question. Can I spin it around a bit and see if I can answer it for you? I break it into three things. One is the things I need to do to keep the banking sector secure and stable. So that's things like the cybersecurity work, working with the regulators, ensuring the systems are working. If any of the Australian banks stop working tomorrow and the UK Royal Bank of Scotland was off the air for a week, if that has massive impact on an economy, that'd be about a third of my job just doing that. There's then about a third of your job which is the things you need to do to compete and you compete every day to serve your customers and win their trust. And there's, in the world we live in with all the things changing, for example, if my mobile banking site hasn't got the features expected that someone else has, then I'm out of that competition. So about a third there. And then about a third is more of the outward looking to your question in terms of where's the world going and what are the investments we need to make to be pertinent in 10 and 20 years time? Because in a large organisation, they take five to 10 years to do and you have to be across what's happening. Now in the past, that was reasonably easy. You put your head up once every year or two, you had a look and you went, yes, we're about on track. Where we are now and why I was in Israel two weeks ago in the UK, I'm in San Francisco the week after next is you need to have your head up a lot more because what you thought was going to be the change in how it was going to land is changing all the time. You know, the great example I was given in San Francisco last time I was there was one of the investors in Uber. Wouldn't we all like to be one of the investors in Uber? When he first looked at Uber, they were talking about a $340 million taxi industry in San Francisco and he thought if we could get a third of that and you do that in 10 cities, pretty good investment. The Uber market in San Francisco is now over a billion dollars. So rather than getting a third of the industry, they tripled the industry. Those kind of changes, what you expected to happen is not happening and so being on top of that. So about a third of my job is that outward looking. So in my mind it's keep the bank safe and all the things go with that and the industry goes with it. Make sure we're competitive in that space but also make sure we're relevant as the world goes forward. That's how I split the three. So it's a little bit of a different answer to how you struck it but I hopefully... Just to, sorry, Julia, to the gentleman there with the scarf. Thank you. I have two questions. Thank you. My first question is, what do you think is the next big thing in banking? And my second question is, is there anything great left to do for young entrepreneurs today? Because a lot of you complain to me that everything's been done like this. Like, it's not, I know it's not but normally if you want to open bank these days. So what are your answers? So I think, I remember I'm the CIO at a bank. I'm not one of the other roles. So I just prefaced it with that. I think in banking is disruptions changing all industries. The more regulated industries are not being disrupted as quickly as some of the others. So if I was in the newspaper game I would be in a very disrupted model. What we're seeing more and more is the innovators and the startups and industry rather than coming head to head are coming more together because they're recognizing the value and the two working together. So what I think we're going to see the next big thing in banking is banking and all these other things becoming more intertwined. We talk about it within Westback but I know this is common in many banks. 20 years ago we solved mortgages. Now it's about home ownership. How do you help a customer get into a home and what does that mean? Now I think that's a really positive thing because it's actually talking about the customer's need rather than what I want to sell. And again it's a bit going from the sales world to a services world. So I think the next big thing in banking is genuinely becoming a service that is interconnected in the world we live in and it's keeping up with all the things that are going on. I think that's it. It's going to be driven by cloud technology and artificial intelligence and other things. But I think as an end customer is your bank is going to be less where you go to buy a product as opposed to it's a service that lives in your world and makes your needs at those points when you need it. And I think that's the next big thing and I think it's pretty exciting when we can get there because in my mind that's what banking's all about providing a service and how you do that. To your second question, the answer is yes. And if I give you an example I wouldn't be sitting in here I'll be off working on it. I've got a bunch of ideas. I took three of my board members to Israel recently. We went to look at cyber technology because it's one of the global hubs in that space. But we also spent a bit of time talking to startups. We met five startups in one morning and out of those five if I could, which I can't I would have invested in all five because every one of them blew my mind away about how smart are they? And three of them we will be doing business with within 12 months. Now that's just five in one morning. There are so many opportunities. The challenge is how do you bring the technology and the opportunity together quickly to bring it to need as quickly as you can do but there's so many opportunities. Michael. Coming, everyone's obviously seen it. There's starting to be some scenarios where you have these big tech companies like Google, Facebook, Apple, all these companies that are starting to I guess butt heads a little bit with governments and even sort of banking institutions. I mean we've had, I would say there's the current ongoing situation with Commonwealth Westpac and NAB with the Apple Pay access. Then there was Queensland governments being a bit up and down with Uber's illegal, then it's legal, then it's illegal. And then obviously the big one was the open letter from Apple telling the US government that they wouldn't give them a back door into their phones. So I'm really interested to know what your thoughts are on how that relationship's gonna play out in the future because I mean if you look at it, people are probably realistic with trust, Google more with their information than they do with their own government in a sense in a way. So just interested in what you think in that relationship moving forward. It's an extraordinary different question to answer. It's interesting, your last point is almost the most interesting challenge is people do seem to trust Google more with their information. They have more information than anybody else. Why? I can't answer why. You know, the conversation around Apple Pay at the moment is live right now in banking in Australia and well-publicized. Straight away, I'm obviously biased, so I'll be careful how I answer this, straight away people go to Apple must be right without understanding where it sits. We're an interesting space. The money of the new economy, the value of the new economy is data. And data is becoming people's biggest assets back to the cyber conversation, the identity conversation, but also it's becoming the connector of the world and it's also the value shifts in the world. Those who have the most data are in a very strong position. How they use that, we will wait and see. You've already seen a number of times and you mentioned one where very large tech companies push back on the US government. We will see more. We already have numerous situations where large pools of data with intelligence applied to them have insights in society we didn't expect. It was, you know, nearly a decade ago where Tesco's were predicting, you know, when people were pregnant. That caused all sorts of societal issues as a result of that. There are far more examples of that every day. I'm dodging your question a little because I don't know the answer. What I do know is consolidation is happening more and more. The more startups and others are being successful, the more they're being bought. So that group of companies is growing and they're growing very quickly. They combine GDP, if you measure it in GDP, is more than most countries. They are a political force in their own right. We still haven't worked out what that means. I don't know, but from where I sit, I can see it. These are enormously powerful institutions with an enormous amount of information. I work with most of them. It's part of my job. Most of the time, that's very positive. Some of the times we butt heads. What it does though, tell you that data has become very much the main thing in the new economy and we're still trying to work out what that means. Thank you, Dave, for sharing your thoughts. It's most interesting. I'm trying to work out what a stable future looks like though, is that you mentioned that technology is out of date before you start, which I think was your meaning that you're actually very sympathetic to NBN's problem. You didn't quite connect that. But when we look at Moore's law and see how rapidly technology moves, we've got one element going like that. When we look at policy in an area that I'm sympathetic to, policy will always be playing catch up to the technology. It's not really possible for the policy to be able to get ahead when technology's moving at such a pace. But one of the reasons policy's not moving so fast is I think that our cultural norms and attitudes move even slower. And so when we've got cultural attitudes about acceptability of privacy, cultural attitudes about, but I like to deal with a person and things like that, that pulls policy to a slower speed. How do we ever discover a stable place between what technology could offer, what policy can respond to and deliver, and in a slower moving culture? It's almost an impossible question which I think is part of what you were saying. I do have sympathy to NBN by the way, to roll up something that large in the unstable political environment we've had for the last five years, I feel for them. The answer I would give you, and I don't know enough, none of us do, but the answer I would give you is policy like so many other things for those of us, our generation, has worked very well in that kind of hierarchical type structure. We are moving to a network structure. In fact, most of society has already moved to a network structure. If you move to Southeast Asia and those, and you know, many of those villages and the hills are connected in a way that is changing immediately because of what we've done with technology, it's that piece there I think we're gonna find that's gonna be the new norm. We saw it with Uber. Uber went into cities where most places it was illegal. What did we do? We changed the laws. We didn't remove Uber. We're gonna see more and more of that and I think there's a generation already in our country that are very comfortable working in that manner. There is a generation that currently sets the policy, sets the thinking, runs the companies, that is less comfortable. We're in that transition period. My mind is, people talk about, and I'm not an expert in this space, you'll be very careful. In my mind, babies didn't start coming out differently. So, you know, millennials, the only difference for them than baby boomers is the generation they grew up in and one of the biggest changes there apart from the economic and geopolitical space is the technology space they grew up in. And the fact that millennials are so comfortable, networked, is because of the technology, not because they came out differently. And in my mind, what I think will happen to your question is a new norm is we'll break down hierarchy and move to network, but we don't know what that looks like yet and particularly people like you and me, that's a real challenge because our entire way of thinking is anchored in that and we're seeing that in so many, so many different ways right now. And it's a transition, we don't know what it looks like. I don't think the technology is gonna slow down but that part of the technology is producing a massive, massive shift in the world we live in. That's my simple view on it. Yeah, Brittany. My question's about virtual currency. How do you see virtual currency such as Bitcoin and beyond having an influence on the banking industry coming into the future? That could be a 20-minute question and so on. I'll try and break it down to a few things if I could. Firstly, I see no real difference between virtual currency and real currency. The challenge people have had with Bitcoin is how do you get them and how do you sell them? So what people call on ramps and off ramps and that's still a struggle. I actually think the currency of the new economy is gonna be data. So whether it's whatever, it doesn't matter. Where the challenge is is then how do you manage that? It's no longer a bullion in a bank that's converted to something. It's a whole different space. People talk about blockchain. I think blockchain is a really interesting set of conversations. Everyone thought Bitcoin and blockchain were connected. They're not. What does that mean in terms of creating a distributed ledger and how does that work in our economy has a really interesting set but then you had the hack of the Hong Kong exchange only a month or so ago. So there's still the questions around security to be dealt in that space. So my mind, digital currency is definitely gonna happen in different forms. In my mind though, the concept of currency is gonna get broader and broader. So we're gonna go from physical currency to digital currency to actually what does the value of my data start meaning and how do I actually equate for that? How do I measure that? That's gonna be the bigger challenge. So definitely digital currency within the next few years. I mean it's here now but within the next few years at scale. But then how do you manage that and what does that unlock? And I think that's the real challenge. And then the example I used for people recently, most people probably remember Napster. People remember Napster. We all thought it was a pretty cool technology and it was a pretty cool technology but it didn't actually go anywhere. Then suddenly someone went oh, iTunes and music and iPods and suddenly a whole industry was changed. But the technology had kind of been there for a little while in different forms. I think Bitcoin and undercurrent blockchain and other type things are a bit like Napster. Really, really cool but still got too many flaws to actually really take off. Somewhere someone will either solve the problem or recognize the solution as to a different problem. Probably the latter. And someone's gonna wake up tomorrow and go whatever that is. Good luck if you're on that one. And that's gonna change dramatically. And I wish I knew what that one was because again I wouldn't be sitting here. I'd be working somewhere very hard on that right now. And kind of in linking that then is where do you see Australia banking? Is there their position in that? Oh, that's a good question. And again, obviously I'm biased. I work for an Australian large bank. We have, we're extraordinarily lucky. I think I got the best job in the world apart from my systems break and everyone beats me up but I think I have the best job in the world. Why? The Australian banks like other well regulated managed countries be it Singapore, Canada for two other examples came through the GFC as did the country in good shape. So you've got a vibrant banking environment. You're in a country that has high digital take up and high technology use. And I think importantly as well, our banks are big enough to be able to do things but small enough to be able to do things. So for example, if you go to America right now you are still very much in this siloed banking. You've got your savings account, you've got your mortgage and they're very separate things whereas Australians are very used to being able to connect in all sorts of different ways. You go on the internet, you can call a call center, you can go to a branch, you can look at your mortgage, you can look at your turn deposit, you can look at your wealth management. That and what we think is quite normal in most countries is extraordinarily advanced. So to have that at scale in an environment where you still have a strong economy and a strong banking system puts us at the forefront of what's going on, which is part of where I get my frustration on is, we need more bright capable people working in these spaces rather than heading off to Silicon Valley or somewhere else because we've got a great opportunity if we want to go after it. So I'll be beating the drum as hard and loud as I can that we should be leading the world and these things continue to do so. Thanks, Dave. I'm all about turning consumers of technology into creative technology, so I love that idea. But with all these opportunities that technology has for Australians, how do we ensure that technology is used to, we leverage technology to solve some of our biggest problems, particularly for our generation rising inequality around the world, rather than reinforcing inequality that exists in our world. I think the answer to many of these is education. I think it's education. You know, why in the last 10 years has Australia doubled the number of lawyers and half the number of technology graduates? I can't go my head around that at all. It applies to so many other things. In my mind, it's education. Cyber security, it's education. How do we understand what these things mean? What does interconnectivity mean and how do we leverage it? I think the whole thing is education and quality of conversation. Now, it's one of the things why I think sessions like these are so important, people talking about it. I think the more we talk about it, the more we more. We educate ourselves. Putting our head in the sand and hoping it'll go away to my opening comments. I don't think that's a possibility. I think it's here. So educating ourselves and doing our best with something that we don't fully understand and have to accept we will never fully understand because it's just gonna keep coming so fast than it has to be in the education space. And I'm not now talking about academia. I'm talking about the genuine, broader sense of education as a society. We've been talking about startups and no industries. Do you see a role for failure in actually making advances? Oh, yes. That's another societal challenge. We use the word failure because we think of everything as a project, as a thing, and it fails. I think one of the big shifts we've seen in technology is going away from the large, so-called waterfall project. And I'm a bank high of many. Everything takes six months and costs X million dollars, and if it doesn't work, it's a failure. Being able to learn quickly is so important. The term fail fast is becoming more and more positive. I don't like this because the world failing it. Learn fast, I think it's a much better thing. So we have too much of this, you succeeded or you failed. That works when you're in a kind of sequential world, when you're in this massive parallel change. Short answer is yes, but I wouldn't call it failure. It's how do you learn quickly? How do you test? Why do you have to be an expert? If the change is coming so fast, you can't be an expert, but yet we still have to be an expert because that supports us in a hierarchical world. My expertise is my value. As soon as you can give away that and recognize I can continue to learn, and the way I learn is either being taught or by testing and learning. That's so important. So my mind test and learn is critical and if something didn't work, that's not a failure, that's learning. So yes, but I wouldn't call it a failure, if that makes sense. It provided I can do it quickly. Just here in the front. Hi, I'm Allison. I have a bit of a devil's advocate question. So when studying cities, we look at what makes a city innovative and there's a strong correlation between face to face time and with technology we're seeing more people work from home, more people studying at home or abroad and people getting less face to face time, especially on public transport when everyone's looking at their phones. So in a sense could allow innovating and technological development in a sense lead to less innovation further in the future. Ooh, that's a tough question. How I would try and answer that is I think people make the mistake of thinking technology is gonna replace humans. And if that happens, it's gonna be a very sad day for all of us. I actually think what we're seeing is technology is augmenting human intelligence and it used to be technology created the tractor that replaced the work manual labor on the land but it was an augmentation. We're in exactly the same space with intelligence in terms of technology and augmenting. So I see it in my team as well. I have flexible work conditions in my team. I have people working from home, et cetera. That works well, but when you go to 100% of it you lose that connectivity and we don't work well that way. Now you try and replace that with other things, you know, your internal social media networks and we use NetYama, you use Skype and use all the other things but unless you bring people together quite regularly you do lose that dynamic that brings so much more than you can do. So I think we're gonna see continually technology better augmenting how we work and as long as we think that way we'll get the value out of it. When we expect it to replace it I think we're gonna be challenged. People talk about artificial intelligence and cognitive computing, you know, that has to be an augmentation space. It can't be just let it run. And I think that same, so I'm no expert in the areas you spoke of but I do see where you have large, you know, I have large teams in India. I have very large teams in India. Those teams work much better if a few people every now and again get on a plane and go and spend time with each other. We do all the stand-up meetings, we do all the interconnectivity, we do all the smart board stuff, all the things you'd expect is a technology organization but unless you get the people together you miss that spark and you miss that connectivity. People still trust people they really know rather than someone they just spoken to and I think that's really important. Okay, last question over this side. Thank you, Dave. Very interesting what you were saying before about having the sympathy for the MVN and the difficulty of chasing a very large infrastructure project that necessarily is so large that it's probably gonna be out of date before it is completed. So in your area, how do you actually cope with that level of rate of change? How do you anticipate where the future is going to? Do you use a range of different scenario-based propositions or experimentation? How do you keep away the circumstances of investing in something which is yesterday's technology? So two quick answers to that. First, speed has become more important than it ever was before. So most organizations when projects are running, scope is more important than schedule. Scope and budget. How much money have I got and what do I want to do? Cause that typically translates to where the hierarchy works and where the importance sits. I want something, therefore that's my scope and I've got money for it. And therefore I'll let it run longer till I get what I want or things that go with it. In the new world, actually, schedule is far more important. I've got to deliver it. And if I don't deliver everything I said I was going to deliver it, actually that's not as important as taking longer to delivering everything I said. You've got to change how you work. I think the second one is in an interconnected world, the more you can disconnect the things in your organization so they can reconnect rapidly, that's going to be more and more important. People talk about the API economy and how you use APIs, application programming interfaces. You know, banking a great example. A large part of banking hasn't changed since whenever. You know, personally I can't think of a new product in banking for decades. I can see lots of new, feels like new products, but I've brought them together like a mortgage offset. But all I did there was take two types of things together. So the more that organizations can expose their capability both internally and externally in a manner that can be connected rapidly, that will allow you to keep up. Because whilst the world's changing really fast, some of it's actually just there and you need it just to keep working. And being able to break those apart so you can reconnect them really quickly is really important. So my mind, it's don't build everything as one big connected thing. And if you've got one of those, start breaking it up into manners where you can work within the organization. I'm talking technology here, I'm not talking anything beyond that. And then speed, it's all about speed. And learning to make mistakes along the way and going, I don't know how that's gonna work when I plug these two things together, but it might work. And you know, we all talk about the examples like the Ubers and how they worked. For every Uber, there was 500 that didn't work. You wanna get through those really quickly. And the way you do that is actually at my point of where technology brings organizations and innovation together rather than head to head. And I think that's the word. How do you fast, how do you learn fast, and how do you actually bring things together is actually what the new world's all about. Well, Dave, we've run out of time in an incredibly rich conversation. I guess you could say, I'm scared but exhilarated. That's where I am. The rest of our audience are as well. Ladies and gentlemen, could you please join with me in thanking Dave Curra? Thank you.