 Well, welcome everyone. Thank you for showing up, which I'm sure could be probably in the middle of the night for some of you. I know that most people have been traveling, just got here, so we appreciate you attending today. Also, we got started a little bit late because we're told there's like a 25-person queue to get into the facility here, but we've decided to go ahead and get started and we will end on time. But if there's a few people that have questions or other comments, we'll stick around for a few minutes before they clear the room for the next section. So, welcome very much to today's session on the Innovation Playbook. And I will tell you we're going to have a very fun and exciting and interactive time, so make sure that you keep your thinking cap on, that you stay engaged because we will be doing some questions and answers with you as the audience. And I do really want to say thank you to our top tier 18 panelists who I will introduce in a minute, but we're very fortunate to have them guide us along on this journey today. So, the question that we really have on the table, the key question is how do innovative businesses maintain their edge? And I tell you I can't think of a better, more appropriate time to discuss this topic. Let me give some context. A recent CEO survey said that nearly 80% of the respondents, these are CEOs responding, believe innovation will create significant new revenue and cost reduction opportunities over the next three years. My interpretation is that, to me, that translates into multiple disruptive innovation opportunities. Factoid two. Economists, I mean they never really agree anyway, but right now more than ever around the world they're in a heated debate on whether new innovation over the next five to ten years has the potential to move us from the faltering productivity of growth rates of less than 1% during the period of about the last 15 years to rates over 3% during pre-1970 when out of all things we invented things like airplanes, cars, washing machines, indoor plumbing. And let's not forget those never-ending optimists who claim that exponential technologies, 3D printing, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, infinite computing, robotics are going to make an unprecedented impact on things that really matter to business and society. And lastly there's that phrase called the innovator's curse. We've all heard it, exceptional innovative and successful companies that somehow just fade away. So for some reason they just weren't able to keep their competitive edge. So what went wrong other than the inability to not repeat success? Was there no self-will to self-disrupt? Was there no tone at the top for the survival type importance of relentless innovation? So let's find out and the secrets of this so-called innovation playbook. I'm going to introduce our panel and as I do so I'd like to remind you that we do have simultaneous translation in English, Mandarin, Japanese and the headphones were in the back when you walked in if you forgot them. So let me start with Christy on my left. Christy Wyatt is chairman and CEO of Good Technology, one of the world's most foremost providers of security mobility solutions. She has over 15 years of executive management. It's a fabulous company. I encourage you to go to her website, Good Technology. I've got Christof Shazou. Next is HSBC's head of innovation and leads the teams responsible for strategic innovation investment. He has more than 20 years of experience in all asset classes around capital markets. We have Amid Al-Kawaiter is Saudi Aramco's chief technology officer. Saudi Aramco, I know that most of you know this is the world's largest crude oil exporter producing roughly one in eight barrels of the world's oil supply. He's been with Saudi Aramco for more than 30 years in the area of technology. And we've got Jacob Su is the CEO of Symbio, a leading innovator of software product co-creation solutions. He was named one of the world's top 12 young global leaders of tomorrow by chief executive officer in 08. And he also serves as the forum's young global leaders. So I'm going to engage you right away. So if you're not paying attention, I'm going to call on you. So what I want to do is we're going to do a three-minute icebreaker to get you engaged with the panelists and get us engaged with each other. And I'm going to ask you one question and what I want is a one-sentence answer. The question is how do innovative businesses maintain their edge? How do innovative businesses maintain their edge? Now, I see some very familiar faces in the audience. I know that many of you like to talk and give speeches and stories, but the discipline is I want a one-sentence answer. Your thought, how do innovative businesses maintain their edge? Somebody want to raise their hand? They have to learn how to learn all the time. It's not learning something, learn how to learn. One other couple more. Raise your hand if you got one-sentence answer to how do companies maintain their competitive edge? I believe it's through understanding your customers better than your competition. Certainly there's got to be the customers in there. Is there one place, please? Collaboration. Okay, more collaboration across industries and cross functions. Got to wake up. Oh, here we go. Challenging existing business model. Challenging existing business model, I like that. Couple more. Got one up here. Keep track of errors. Keep track of errors. Okay, got that. Here we go, thank you. Create a culture where curiosity and experimentation is the norm. I like that. Couple more, right here. I assume that's through the government investment into innovation. How do businesses maintain their competitive edge around innovation? One last one. Somebody can give me a good one. Or a mediocre one. Oh, got one back here. Where were you? Here you are. Never be content. That's for sure. I agree with that. Anyone else? Okay, thank you. I think we need to convert the innovations into the result of the business. Perfect. Okay. Invest in innovation. That's the innovation. Okay. Be courageous and don't fear failure. I like that one. That's for sure. Okay, good. I think we've got a couple of good ones here. Thank you very much for getting us going. I appreciate that. The way this is going to work, I'm going to go to the panel now and go through a set of questions. Probably maybe only one or two questions each. And then I'm going to come back to you halfway through and ask you for your other questions that you might have for the panelists because you might have better questions than I can think of. I don't want to keep this interactive, but for the next few minutes I'm going to engage with the panelists. And I'm going to go to Kristoff first. I read in an article that HSP last year allocated up to 200 million for investments in tech startups. Now we're seeing a lot of big FG500s creating investment pools to acquire small startups. So in the case of SBC, are you looking to change your business model? Are you looking to buy an idea, if you will, or invest in some uncertainty that you're hoping that one of these Moonstruck opportunities actually builds up? Tell us how this investment vehicle works and how it's changing the mindset at HSBC. The objective of this allocation is really to create a tighter relation between HSBC and potential partners. So it's really looking at how strategically we can create ties and bringing innovation that we couldn't have developed or that is out there and that we would like to import inside the company. So it's really a way to re-organize the company, bringing in new stuff and creating strategic alliance for this investment. Usually we take a seat at the board, so we are there, we are present, we can help the company and they can help us. So it's really creating a partnership, but with an investment. And if you have the investment that proves to be very successful around an idea, at some point it needs the scale of a bigger HSBC organization. Is there success or failure when you begin to bring those ideas into your mainstream organization? No, because when we invest in the company, we usually look for a use case and we look at the technology that strategically is important for us. So we're not just going to tactically invest to make money, it really needs to be a strategic investment. So we have a view that long term, if things go well, it can really develop into something that is material for all the bank, not just for one area, one department or one country. So we have a relatively large objective in mind. Christy, I'm going to go to you next. It's not new to the world that mobile technology is changing all industries, which I'm sure your client base indicates. I recently read that mobile payments will be around 90 billion in 2017. My guess is that that's low or it was an old statement, I'm not sure, but it clearly indicates something's happening there big. When you work with your clients to implement your solutions, my guess is that they engage in a conversation with you around how they can break out into more bolder strategies using your technologies without jeopardizing confidential information. Are there some general themes you can share with the audience? I think the enemy of innovation in a lot of these large organizations is security. A lot of times we become the mediator between the risk management and the risk and compliance team and all of the really bright engineers and application developers within the organization. I don't think they generally start by saying let's innovate. I think it's usually a specific problem. We want to do a different relationship with our customer in a retail branch or home health care we want to do. There's someone in the company that's saying no, that's scary to us, we can't do it. We foster the conversation that says, what if you could trust the data could go on any device? Then what interesting things would you do to bring your customers closer to you or to sort of revamp your business? I think starting with the question of what do you want, staying very focused on what is the problem you're trying to solve instead of the feature they're asking for is kind of the core of the conversation. So you work predominantly with large FG 500 type companies but I also know that you work with smaller ones. Do you get a different sense in terms of how the size of the organization, their excitement or willingness or creativity some of the gentlemen brought up around curiosity. Do smaller companies like to push the edge more than big companies with big risk compliance organizations? Well, that's it, right? So I don't think that the smaller companies want to, more than the larger companies do but I think they probably have an agility that is difficult to maintain when you hit a kind of scale. And then you also get kind of the how we do things. So we want to solve the problem, we think the answer is this but that's not how we do it, so we have to kind of approach it a different way. So I think that actually what's very fascinating when we go into a lot of these really large organizations is that the bright ideas are already there. They oftentimes think they have to go into Silicon Valley or they have to go somewhere and find the smart people and if you have engineers who know your business, they probably already have some really amazing great ideas but the how we do things, it's difficult for them to get to the surface and so you go back to, well, what if you could? What if you could trust that it was going to be safer? What if you could get in front of that customer at that point of sale or at that point of transaction, then what would you do? And if you can establish that, then you'll find actually a lot of really interesting ideas are actually probably already there. So get them to talk about if you could, don't make the decision and then at the store is good that maybe get them to... We see all the time, I mean mobile particularly, look, it's a fun spot and if you have anyone who's writing code, that's what they want to be working on. So they probably already did it. There's probably someone who's already written a hack of an app inside your organization somewhere where they've said, look at this really cool thing we could do and then somebody would stop that right now and so they're probably there. Okay. Jacob, I'm going to go to you, okay? I went onto your website, Symbio's website. I encourage you to do the same too, cool company. You focus on co-creating as a word that you use on your website with your clients to find innovative solutions around customer care. So tell us a little bit about what you mean by co-creating. Make sure we understand the phrase customer care and then how does your approach really change things of what's the normal behavior that occurs in your client base? So our concept of innovation co-creation is really around creating a collaborative process that enables you to create breakthrough products and services. So a key focus is really on products and services. It's actually a process that was derived from the software industry, actually where we got our start, which is really an R&D process. And now as more and more industries are being transformed and disrupted by technology, essentially what we're advocating is that every industry needs to build this R&D capability, right? It's no longer about IT or BPO or it's not about outsourcing. It's really about how do you actually build these co-creative partnerships with external partners to actually accelerate the product innovation cycle. So there are three key principles of our co-creation process. The first is really rapid experimentation. I've heard this in the audience about experimentation and about disrupting yourself. I think a big part of this actually is a lot of people have great ideas. A lot of organizations have fantastic ideas inside, but as what Kristi mentioned, a lot of these things end up getting stopped because of whether it be the innovators' curse or innovators' dilemma kind of situation where large organizations are so optimized around their existing model that they create these antibodies to these new ideas. So a big part of this process is really around taking these ideas but rapidly experimenting, putting together really fast high-fidelity prototypes that you can actually put into the hands of your end users, your actual real customers, put that in motion so you can actually quickly validate if these things actually are going to work and then you actually can learn from that process. I think the second principle really is around learning by doing together. So as I mentioned, when you're working with strategic external partners, a big part of that process isn't necessarily specifying what you're trying to get to. So by definition, if you're trying to create something that's a breakthrough product or service, it's very hard to specify what that is. If it was specified, you could do it yourself. So the big part of it is starting with the problem, starting with a really clear understanding of what problem or set of problems that you're looking to solve and actually building a process that you can actually learn together with your partner through this process. So a big part of that is learning by doing together and part of that is the experimentalization cycle. And the last principle that we advocate quite a lot is what we call metrics-driven experiences. So what's changed in the way that you build products and services today versus even just five years ago, particularly in Silicon Valley that actually I think is now percolating across every industry, is that you start with the user experience. And part of that is actually bringing your end custers, bringing your users into that process. Really, and when you talk about user experience, it's not about creating cool things. It's not about creating kind of that next glitzy, glamorous thing. It's actually really about tying back to those metrics of what is the key problem you're looking to solve. And testing. So continue when you're doing the experimentation process, putting these experiences, actual prototypes of experiences in front of actual end users and getting feedback and again learning by doing together. So that loop. So one of the things that I think a mindset change for a lot of companies when we talk about co-creation is it's not a linear process. This whole concept of building new products and services, it's not linear. It's a learning process and you have to kind of go through lots of iterative cycles to really come up with what is that learning formula in the end. So just to follow up, you mentioned it a little bit. You used the word change and so whenever you go into a company, you're going to cause change. And typically that change has a strong business case to do it. So from the business point of view, that change is what needs to be done. But like all of us, we get stuck in our routine. Some of us don't have routines and so that's good. But many large organizations that you work for, those people in the workforce have routines and they don't necessarily want to change. So how do you convince them to change and get on board and get on here? Well, we usually start a lot of these processes with just a lay of the land of what are the really disruptive forces that are happening in their industries. So it's really giving them a lay of the land to understand what's happening at the edges of their industry. Most of the times these new disruptive technologies or innovations really haven't attacked the core yet. So the technology adoption curve or the absorption curve is still fairly early. So we try to share that with our clients so they understand where they're at and what are some of the competitive threats and risks ahead of them. I think that's the first part of spurring that mindset. I think the second is that we try to catalyze the internal disruptors. There's so many people inside these large organizations who have fantastic ideas and who probably have better ideas about how to disrupt their own business except that because of the way that the organization structure is formed, they're sort of hired to do specific jobs. So we try to catalyze those sort of disruptors. And I think the third is really, again, it's really about experimentation. So when people actually start getting this process of experimenting, you take their ideas and you transform them into actual prototypes. Oftentimes when we're doing this, it's clickable prototypes, stuff that you can actually go through and start working with your end users on. It starts to change that sort of thinking. It starts to say, wow, what is the possible? And starts getting people focused on the possible. And when they start seeing actual progress in terms of validation from these ideas, it just spurs that continual thinking in the organization. Now the big challenge is that I think, and again, this is why I think R&D is a really important discipline that every organization and every industry needs to build, is that it's a never-ending process. So it's not this workshop that you do once, one and you're done. This needs to be an ongoing process that an organization starts to build. So it's this constant learning, searching, building, experimentation muscle that needs to be built into organizations. And that's what we try to advocate for. So, Amon, a while ago, a couple years ago, there was some public articles around Aramco around the Accelerated Transformation Program that was done. It was labeled at least what I read more at the beginning around new business model, changes in behavior, but almost all business transformation activities result in technology-enabled solutions. And today, a lot of talk around technology is in these so-called exponential technologies, nanotechnology, artificial intelligence, robotics, 3D printing, infinite computing. Were any of those involved and discussed towards the latter end of the program when all the hard heavy lifting came to the Chief Technology Officer to get things done? Well, maybe I can answer that a little bit from just going back a little bit to talk about what is the Accelerated Transformation Program. I'd like to go back to your question, which you asked the audience. How do you maintain your competitive edge? And I think for us, part of it is being a little bit scared. I think everybody, leadership, especially of companies, has to always be a little bit scared of what's out there. I like the lay of the land, the lay of the land. You need to keep your mind on what's out there and what's going to disrupt your industry and where are your real competitive advantage? Where's your real competitive threat? In 2011, when we started Accelerated Transformation Program, we were at a really comfortable position. $100 a barrel of oil producing our maximum on about 80 years of a really successful company. Really, at that time, typically companies don't make a change. I mean, when things are going good, don't break it. That's not what we did. Our leadership felt at the time that that was actually the best time to make a transformation for the company, because we now had the resources to do that. We had maybe a little bit more room to maneuver. And so we started the Accelerated Transformation Program, which is really a comprehensive transformation of our processes. And I'd like to go back to that other point about agility. We, as a large company, and energy companies in general, are very large capital-intensive industries with long timelines. So agility is not our specialty. I mean, it's not our core competency. I think we have to, all companies have to be agile. And if they have a challenge in agility due to their size, they have to find other means to complement their skills and competency. So part of that transformation program was really to try to bring out that agility to improve our processes. I'll just give a couple of examples. Some of the things we did, we realized that we have a great advantage. We have a population, a young population joining our company. By 2020, the majority of our population will be millennials, basically, who will be born in the 1980s or so. And they bring a whole new outlook. We actually have an advantage if we can leverage their knowledge quickly and their capabilities and their interests. And so we established something called the Young Leaders Advisory Board. And where we bring in, we engage our youth in the company. And that's under 35 for an energy industry. That's young. And they basically, they organize themselves. They have their leaders, and their leaders actually participate. They have very much, they're brought into the table and looking at the issues facing the company. They address those issues, and they give us really innovative approaches to solving those challenges. Given example, we were talking about some of the processes associated with innovation. And our traditional approach to innovation was, you know, basically a software platform which allowed everybody to enter ideas and then we would review those ideas and try to create some, try to identify innovations. The review committees after a few years lost their interest and things just piled up. And so basically people lost trust in the innovation process of what they call the open innovation process within the company because we took a traditional engineers approach. But with the YLab approach was totally different. They looked at social tools, social networking, and rather than have committees, they chose to go for the voting approach where the community votes the best idea. And they really leveraged the interests of the youth and we actually have a much more agile platform now for seeking good ideas from our employees. That's just a simple example, but there's many other areas where they've helped us. As part of that whole transformation program, we also realized the importance of R&D. And we have an aspiration to expand beyond our normal business, which is oil and gas. We are moving into the petrochemical industry and we are looking at engaging with more of our customers. So we have really expanded into many areas where we don't have a competitive advantage as we had in the past. We have a huge competitive advantage in the oil and gas industry, whether it's our capabilities or our resources. Beyond that, we don't have an advantage. So the only real competitive advantage is technology. And so those are the kinds of technologies you mentioned. In nanotechnologies, we have big growth in our research in that area. We have expanded our research footprint. Beginning in 2012, we only had one research center in Dahurana, our headquarters. Now we have nine centers around the globe. We have several in North America, one we just opened here in Beijing nearby in April. And a lot of it is about material science, mostly focused on energy. But we also do a lot of automotive technologies, engine technology, efficiency, and carbon management. So there's a lot of interesting technologies we apply, robotics as well. And most of those are those exponential technologies. How do we tap into those exponential technologies and leverage them for our industry? We've already seen really good success in such a few short years in applying those technologies. I have to ask, at 40 bucks a barrel, is your investment in exponential technologies increasing or decreasing? Absolutely. Actually, it is a tough time. But the good news is that we started early. We started actually when we had $100 barrel oil. So we're actually seeing some of the benefits of those technologies now as we speak. So yes, the cost of production is impacted directly by these technologies as we speak. So I think we are definitely making some advantage from that. We're much more resilient with that technology than we are without it. OK, great. Good, good, good. I'm going to go back to the audience. We have somebody walking around with a microphone, I do believe. Ask your question to the panelists. I have some questions if things get slow, but I really want to engage you and give you the opportunity for your questions. There's a little bit of an echo up here at the stage here. So I'd ask you to speak a little bit more slowly and a little bit more loudly than normal, particularly for those that English is not their primary language. Do we have a mic and can we raise your hand? We have a question up here up front, please. Right again. OK, terrific. Thank you. This question is for Jacob and for Ahmad. One of the things I heard you both say implicitly was that innovation really requires companies to have their feet in two places at once on one foot, scaling today's business model. I think the language we used was you described antibodies building around certain parts of the business, but there are core parts of the business that companies are going to want to keep. And then with the other foot, finding the space to innovate to be more empathetic to design unique customer journeys, et cetera, could you comment a little bit on how you believe companies should go about striking that balance in terms of who should be doing what and how you lead people in terms of where they should be allocating their time? Do you want to go ahead? Sure. Well, you know, one of the things that we tried to help our clients understand is you have to think of innovation as a portfolio. So it's a portfolio management process. You can think of this as your typical matrix where you have sort of offerings on one axis and you have users on a different axis, existing and new on both axes. Most organizations spend a lot of time optimizing their existing offerings for their existing users. And I find most, you know, you go, and it's very extreme. So you have, you typically go to, let's say a software company, probably, you know, 90% of the budget is really spent on trying to find new offerings for new users versus you go to, let's say, the other extreme, let's say, you know, a bank, right, or insurance company where, you know, 90% of the budget is spent on existing offerings for existing users and trying to optimize that. So you have to think about it in terms of a portfolio of innovations, right, in terms of products and services. What we try to do is that we try to help organizations understand what are the internal capabilities that they have and oftentimes what most organizations are well equipped to do is take, whether it be sort of, you know, taking existing offerings to users or taking or finding sort of new uses for existing business, those are things that existing organization is quite good at. This is what we kind of talk about incremental innovation. But when you really want to create this breakthrough products and services, new offerings for new users, that's where I really try to talk a lot about trying to find external partners to actually do that together with. Because it's actually very hard to self-disrupt, right? You hear a lot about this, like, self-disruption. I think Clayton Christensen also talked a lot about that in terms of, you know, you have to constantly be challenging yourself. It's actually quite hard to do that in an organization. And I can tell you whenever companies go through cost-cutting, that's the first thing that goes, right, is these sort of moonshot things that companies do. And even large tech companies have had a challenge doing that, right? So it's, you know, whether it be through an M&A process where you try to acquire or find sort of these breakthroughs or you try to find work with external partners to actually co-create that together, you know, that's how I'd advocate how do you actually create those moonshots or breakthroughs. I'd say that, you know, for us, at least, the solutions are a little different. We're a very large company. We're global. We do have a very large core business. And so our approaches have been different. We looked at how do we get, how do we understand other industries where we're moving into? One of the areas we looked at are, for example, the venture capital area. The venture capital is a great way of experimenting to understand how, you know, how other industries work first, to understand if there's value in that and is there synergies for your own, can you do it there? Can you really, so I think that's a nice experiment at corporate venture capital is one way of getting into other industries. Most of our use of corporate venture capital has been more to accelerate the kinds of ideas that we would like to apply in our own, in the core businesses. However, we also have, for example, we do a lot of venture capital investments now into efficiency and to clean technologies. That's very much a disruptive, if you think of it, for a traditional oil company. But for us, it's our long-term view of how we want to see, you know, what are the possible businesses that energy companies are looking at. And we do see renewables as a potential growth area for energy company. We also look at other possible disruptors, but we look at how does it complement our business at the same time that it's a disruptor. So we are very much, we want to understand those disruptors as much as we want to. We don't really want to fight them. We want to see how we can build a business around those disruptors in a way. And that's, you can do it with venture capital today. You do it with a lot of R&D as well, with, you know, traditional R&D internally. So we do a lot of R&D in areas that you would never think we would be working on. Things like hydrogen, fuel cells, we do all kinds of interesting technologies that... And then we apply those in our core business so we can accelerate them. But we have a view of potential businesses that are complementary to our business later on outside of that. So I think we look for those technologies that we feel or those industries that are still early that might be a complement initially and then maybe a big growth area in the future. And that's the way we're looking at it. But it's very difficult, I have to say, even internally because of the... You know, you get this philosophy or a challenge on strategy or anything else. How does this fit into your business? And especially in times, as we said, where at difficult times financially, it is difficult to make the case. And as a CTO, that's my biggest role, is defending our long-term vision on research and investment in R&D and investment in these disruptors, say. I think you need also to have a portfolio of ideas, a portfolio of stuff, but also a portfolio of horizon. I think the time horizon of your portfolio is very important. When difficulties are coming, most companies tend to shorten the time horizon. And so we see it in finance. We've seen it in the oil industry probably. And shortening this time horizon is really bad for innovation. In finance, I see it very acutely. When I think back in 2007, our time horizon was three to five years. And with the crisis coming, with the regulation, the time horizon of the whole industry has shortened massively. And so it's capacity to innovate, it's capacity to consider the future, to consider also how the customer is going to evolve and what are its future needs, is massively constrained. And so keeping a time horizon that is sufficiently long I think is very important in your portfolio. And I take as an example the Dyson, whose results have come out last week, an increase of 13% of their PBT, they have a relatively long time horizon and they have a very good portfolio of that. So I think in industries that are prone to shorten the time horizon, sometimes for regulation, or because they are marked to market, so our industry in finance is marked to market, as opposed to the insurance industry, which is still on a crude, our time horizon has shortened massively. And so we need to compensate extending the time horizon. And this is why sometimes we resort to a portfolio of internal initiatives like the one that Jacob described, as well as investment into startups, because startups mechanically have relatively long term horizon. Whether an entrepreneur creates something, he doesn't think he's going to change the world, but their time horizon is longer than what we see on a day-to-day basis in a bigger company. Anything here? Yeah. So I'm going to say something maybe a little unpopular, because we're sort of talking about innovation as though it were a what instead of a how. I don't think that you can kind of define a category of stuff and say that's the innovative stuff and that's the non-innovative stuff. And I've been inside companies that have done this really, really well, like Apple, and I've been inside companies that have really, really struggled, like I won't name them because they might be in the room and they might get upset. So I think that the kiss of death is if you set up a group and say this is our innovation group, and all the smart people are going to be there and all the good ideas are going to come from those folks and whether it's in-house or out... So when we're talking about partnering or we're talking about working with the industry, you're not outsourcing innovation out to them. You're maybe challenging the internal thinking, you're maybe bringing in a different framework to look through the problems, but the companies that do this really, really well are not... Innovation is what you call it in the rearview mirror. It's not what you're calling it at that moment. At that moment, you're solving a problem and you've built a culture where people can think clearly about what is the best way to solve that problem? Do I have the flexibility to solve it that way? And what time horizon? Do I have the resources? But at that moment, you're solving a problem and a culture that you're building is one that is inquisitive and open to new ideas and looks at things from different corners of the building. All of those things are true. I don't think innovation is a thing. I think it's a how. How do you get to the finish line? Do you have the flexibility of thought? Somebody said earlier when you have the long... the moon shots and the budget cuts come, those are the things that cut first. If that's true, then that means they weren't developed within the business. When we went through a difficult phase recently in our past and we had to look at restructuring costs, the things that we held on to, the tightest, were the things that were going to change the business as we went forward. But that's because they were developed in the business. We knew these were things that we had to critically get right. So there was no way. Those were going to be the last things that hit the floor. So a long time ago there was probably a point in time where those so-called separate scunt works maybe did something right, but clearly life has moved way beyond that. I don't mean that you can't have a lab or a centralized place to think about things, but I just think culturally, the companies that do this really well make that a hub of a process and a hub of where things come together as opposed to the bucket of really smart things with the really smart people and everybody else is just kind of doing A to Z. I think we had a question up here. Please. Your name and the company and just then again speak a little slowly and more clearly. My name is Austin O'Carry from Computer Warehouse Group from Nigeria. Also with the work on the Innovation and Entrepreneurship Council. And my question is to Christy. Is there a sense of obsession with disruption and innovation? And I give you a sense of why I'm asking that. I mean, part of why people of my age went for iPhone was that they were stable. But today, there's so many iOS upgrade, upgrade, upgrade each one with its own mistakes. Is there an obsession? At what point do you say, okay, it's working, let's give people time to enjoy it before, you know, it's my question. Well, do I believe there's a time where you just sort of enjoy it? I think as the consumer there absolutely is, but I think as the provider it's unlikely that you're going to say, okay, I'm good now, I've thought of all the good ideas and I've delivered everything I want to deliver. I think that, but is there an obsession with innovation as an abstract concept? I tend to think there are. I think you mentioned payments before and when I was inside Citigroup, we were working on paying mobile wallets in like 16 different countries. And what was really clear was, you know, we were in the best position to be able to think about mobile commerce. But we had a lot of legacy thinking. We had a lot of regulatory issues. We had a lot of rules that had just built up around the business that were so tight. Google coming in and looking at that problem for the first time has none of those constraints, right? Apple coming in and thinking about wallets at that moment in time. They're not thinking about anything. They're thinking about how do I solve that problem? What does the user experience need to look like so that using a phone to pay for something is easier than a piece of plastic? And that's all that's on there in my mind. Now will the regulators call them at some point and say, did you think about X, Y, and Z? But I think that's, it's the how, right? It's taking yourself out of the day-to-day and thinking about the process. And in hindsight, you're going to say, hey, that really worked. Customers love that. And someone will write an article at some point that said they have great vision and amazing innovation culture. But at that moment, you were thinking, how do I let people pay on a phone that is as easy to use as a piece of plastic? A gentleman in the aisle back here. I'm a lawyer, so I'm used to standing. My name is Gary Sieb. I'm with Baker McKenzie. And thank you to the panel for the discussion this morning. There are a couple of aspects that particularly intrigue me. I'm on our executive committee, our board. And we're very focused on innovation. But we're focused on innovation in a rather different business model. We're a professional services firm. We're a law firm. And I often say that we have 700 partners. Therefore, we have 800 opinions on everything. And so my question really, I really like the idea of the how and the under 35s team. How in an organization, which if you like is not a corporate organization, do you drive innovation? I'm looking for advice, aren't I? What's your drive? Is it bottom down or is it top up? And in that context, the under 35 idea is really attractive to me. So I'd like to hear from the panel on driving innovation in a very dynamic kind of flat structure rather than a hierarchical course. Christopher, I'm going to have you kick it off. It's okay because of your role as head of innovation for obviously a very large organization, you've got issues of getting innovation mindset at the top and innovation mindset at the bottom and everywhere in between. I think each company is very specific and it depends on their culture and the way they, what is their experience which is the condition they are in and so forth. So at HSBC, and I think mostly in the financial industry, it's a very much top-down lead effort because again, I think we need to re-extend this time horizon, think longer in terms of the future. What is it that our customers are going to want in three years, in five years? How can we make their life better? How can we advise them better? How can we solve problems of financial inclusion, real problems that the world has? And so for that, I think the top is extremely important. Commitment from the top is key and this is why we have a long-distance initiative of investing into startups because it's highly visible in the company and then the mindset of people are starting to change. But obviously, without the people doing the stuff changing, nothing can happen. So this needs to be taken to relay afterwards but every layer innovating, I'm glad that with the work that Jacob is doing with HSBC, for example, we were from the middle management layer embracing also technology. It needs to be an effort, a collective effort. But in the specific case of financial industry, I think it needs really to come from the top. Any other comments? One thing, we're, of course, a hierarchical organization, a traditional energy-style company. So it is a challenge because of the silos between organizations to get the kind of innovation to... Maybe one of the things that we have, one advantage I think a company like an energy company has, is very much an engineering culture. A can-do attitude to solving challenges and problems and a very rigorous approach to solving challenges and very technology biased. So innovative approaches come naturally to engineers as much as possible. The problem is these traditional organizational structures inhibit their innovation. It inhibits their ability to implement and to... And it's a risk averse. There's a bit of a risk averseness. So I put a lot of weight on leadership. The only way that these innovations will happen in the organization is if leaders have the courage to make them happen and to have that... To break those boundaries and let those teams collaborate because the way these large, large organizations work is that they're functionally... They do have those antibodies built in. Those antibodies are in what we call our general instructions, our standards. They are there to protect the core business from the risk of innovation in many ways. And that's okay. It's good to have mitigation systems and processes. That's good. But what you really need to understand is how to get people to work, collaborate across those boundaries, within those boundaries. And you have to eliminate all the unnecessary boundaries. So we review our standards every few years. We have really, really regular approaches where we review our standards because of the recognition that we see those standards were put in there. Somebody said you need to coast on your innovation a bit. That's not why we put those... They should not be there to coast on the innovation, my opinion. I think you need to keep innovating. Those standards are there because they need to protect us from really the most critical dangers. The risk, the process risk, for example, in a refinery or safety risks. They are not there. They should not be there to inhibit innovation. And I think that's the biggest challenge is how do you rigorously and systematically review those barriers continuously? And I think the choice of leadership is critical at this point because the leaders really have to believe in the value of innovation. I say come back to it again. They have to be a little bit scared. They cannot be complacent. They need to have... And the vision part is critical. I mean, there's a lot of people who just... When times are good, they buy into the vision and that's okay. But after when times get a little tough, then you start hearing, oh, we don't need that. That's just... And the critics, the knives come out, let's say. I would say that choice of leadership is critical so that people really do have long-term vision. They are not short-termers. And in an industry like where we are, in the oil industry, we have the largest reserves in the world. So we're going to be in this industry for the next 100 years, probably. We really do have a long-term vision of what we want to do 50 years from now. And that's real to us. It's not a nice thing to have. We really want to know what are we going to do with oil in 50 years from now? What are the different businesses we're going to be in? What industries we want to be in? And I think all of our leaders have to be that. It's not just the CTO. I do like that phrase, risk of innovation. I've not heard that before. Gentlemen here that have been patiently waiting. Good morning. Tim Jones from Artscape in Toronto. The Schwab Foundation of World Economic Forum has become a big advocate of corporate social innovation, by which they mean bringing business interests and social progress closer together. Typically, that's not just in a corporate social responsibility kind of way, but in a way that is actually, in other words, at the margins of what companies do, but in a way that's more central to what companies are about. How much is that on your agenda? And do you approach corporate social innovation differently than you would, say, other types of innovation from within your company? We do quite a lot of social innovation projects. Actually, even in China, one of the things that we were very early to do in the fintech space was really try to do a lot of stuff around peer-to-peer lending, social lending, actually with the forum as well. One of the things that I think is also probably related to the last question is that a lot of times this top-down drive towards innovation is sort of one aspect. But another sort of jiu-jitsu side of this is also just really trying to find serendipity or engineering serendipity into an organization. And oftentimes when you do a lot of this social innovation, what you're really doing is you're trying to find interesting new problems to solve that really come from the base of that pyramid. And you'd be surprised how much of, how many breakthrough innovations come from these sort of things at the margin, right? Whether it be sort of interesting problems that have emerged in sort of emerging markets. I think GE famously created a portable MRI because of the requirements coming from China. You've actually, we've sort of found that a lot of times a big part of this is just finding new use cases to look for, new use cases to solve for. So again, finding this sort of, from the base of that pyramid, finding interesting new problems that solve that potentially could have transformative effects at sort of the middle and top periods of that pyramid is where we sort of see a lot of social innovation being very valuable for organizations. All right, gentlemen. Here was waiting patiently. Thank you. Anir Shama from Carbon Clean Solutions. We are one of the technology pioneers this year. My question is for Ahmad. We work with quite a number of large companies, especially in the energy industry. And what we see is there are generally two silos. There is an operating silo and there is an innovation silo. And imagine that you sit in like middle of both. So when you look at innovation, what are the few boxes that you need to take and you go to the people that are operating side and say, guys, this is old stuff. There's something new. I want you to look at this and probably implement. Yeah. That is our biggest challenge. You have the operation, what we call our operation organizations, which are really focused on day-to-day application and solving their problems day-to-day and risk mitigation. They really want to keep their operations smooth. They want to continue. And then you have the innovations which could revolutionize their business and really take them to the next level. And how do you bring those two together is what I was talking about a little earlier about. And so part of it is really just talking. I mean, we have to break those barriers down. We have to get the operation organizations in touch with the innovations and the innovative ideas. They themselves have very many innovative approaches and ideas. And if you encourage that within those organizations, that can be a cultural change. So we're very much believers in organizational change through cultural behavior. We have a number of programs that we've established that look at changing our organizational behavior and trying to really focus on the values that we believe made us most successful. And some of those are actually the kind of things that break down those barriers. So collaboration, empowerment, these are the kind of organizational behaviors that we try to reinforce. We have actually active, explicit programs to try to, from a top-down, bottom-up approach in communities around these behaviors, kind of. It's a very, very interesting approach. It's an innovative approach to changing a culture sort of way or maintaining what made us successful but also looking at reinforcing some of the things that we would like to see in our culture that could allow us to do more of that innovation that you're referring to. With operating organizations, it's all about building trust and understanding, really talking their language and understanding what their challenges truly are. And if they have that trust, they will work with you. So I have to say it's been lazy. I think these silos are created because we've been lazy in many cases. We don't want to talk. We just want to continue working in our skunk works or whatever. And then we come out with something. And of course, if you haven't been talking to your customer, which is your operating organization in this case, they don't want to buy it. It's not something that they need as far as they're concerned. One of the things about a successful session is when you're out of time and you've got 15 or 20 more questions that want to be asked. So what I'm going to do is wrap up. I'm going to remind you, the audience, what you said at the very beginning. And when I'm doing that, I'm going to go to each of the panelists for your 20-second key takeaway that you heard. Let me tell you what you said. You guys were a great audience today. Without any prompting, here are the things that you brought up around on an innovation playbook in terms of what are the successful innovative companies do to maintain their competitive advantage. Learn how to learn all the time. Understand your customer. Collaborate across functions, industries, and geographies. Challenge existing business models. Keep track of errors. Create culture of curiosity and creation becomes the norm. Government investment in innovation. Never be content. Show results. Invest in innovation. Be courageous. Don't fear. Pretty good. Jacob, do you mind if I start with you to give your 30-second closeout? Sure. I think it still goes back to experimentation. It goes back to sort of finding that serendipity in the organization. Having those aha moments. I like that one about finding errors. So oftentimes find the errors, the non-standard deviations inside your organization. Those are the interesting problems that you can start with, and build that R&D capability into your organization. Matt? Yeah, I'd just like to say that I think that the most important thing is really to be scared a bit, to be looking out there all the time, and to be, you need to get the excitement of people talking within the challenges that are facing you. I do feel that with larger organizations, that's a challenge specific maybe to larger organizations, because communication is key. You know, the collaboration around the challenges and understanding and having that clarity is important, so that the strategy is, people agree, and they really understand it at a low level, at a really, all the way through the organization. Christophe? Yeah, as I said, I think there is a tendency in many of our industries to try to look too short-term. And I think there are fundamental challenges in front of us in the world. To echo the word of Raphael Riff, who is the president of MIT, I think we need to also create structures for real new ideas or new science, so things which are much more fundamental than some of the incremental innovation we are doing. And to echo the corporate social responsibility that was there, I think it's really a duty of a number of companies. Christi? I guess I'll end with the, you know, innovation is a culture and it's a how, not a what. I think that, you know, the companies that do this really, really well, all of the other things we touched on, you know, you need to have executive sponsorship, you need to have clarity in the problem you're trying to solve and stay focused on that particular point. But I think the companies that really sort of master this are the ones that leave themselves open to that kind of thinking and incorporate that into their internal culture. And it's not easy. Sometimes you have to bring in new faces and new tools and new partners, but those are the companies that are able to continuously reinvent themselves. Audius, I want to thank you for being engaged. Your good ideas at the very beginning, your good questions and your attentiveness panel. Thank you for your commitment to be here, the prep work that you all did and how you engage with the audience. Let's give everyone a big hand. Thank you.