 Thank you all for coming to the session. I know there's a lot of competition and I had a hard time coming here to make my own presentation, given the other sessions underway. So our topic today is workflow. Roger and I are taking this from the perspective of a strategic perspective. And our main, in the end, what we want to do is hear from you. But let me give you a little bit of context. I will quote, I think I'm quoting work in Dempsey, who has been saying that workflow is the new content for some years. I think we are seeing that over and over again. And there's lots of evidence of this, even in Joan's talk. When she was talking about the 21st century skills, it was about research as a process and understanding that process. There is much afoot in the tech world about workflow. That one just implemented a new grant management system based on workflow. The ServiceNow platform for user service is also based on workflow. It's all over the place. The concern that we're raising here is in the academic sense, who is controlling this research workflow. And I will give you a little flavor of why we think that's an important question. And because it has been such a growing and important topic, we really want to try to take a deep dive and try to get into some concrete issues here about what workflow means, how it instantiates itself in different disciplines. We're not going to be, by any means, comprehensive. And so why we're inviting discussion following. But we want to ground a discussion more firmly so that we can address what we think are really important strategic questions a little better. Why me and Roger kind of random in some ways, not so random in others? As you know, Roger's been publishing on this topic in scholarly kitchen and elsewhere for some time. And my team at Mellon have been forced to focus on workflow for a variety of reasons, some of which will become apparent as we present. So in a way, we've appointed ourselves to lead this discussion. But as I said, our main purpose here is to invite you to join in that discussion. And we'll try to be quick about the thoughts we want to present. So let me start. Mellon, at the Foundation, I've been defining scholarly communications in workflow terms for some times with the idea that at the center of this workflow is the stuff that scholars work with, the cultural and scholarly record, and that there are a variety of processes, discovery, and access, and the use in teaching and research, the publication process. There we go, sorry. Publication process, when research insights are developed and generated, they're published. And they become part of the stuff and the preservation of that record over time. Each of these are processes and part of the overall scholarly communications workflow. What we've observed, though, is that before the 1990s, there was only a small kind of external interest in these workflows, with OCLC and ICPSR kind of providing aggregating services of various kinds as time has gone on. These outside services have become more interesting and more prevalent. Until now, we have to break up these parts to really capture the external interest in those processes. And again, I'm not trying to be comprehensive here. This is just what the world has begun to look like. If you look at the publishing area and in the preservation space as well, lots of third parties offering various kinds of services. I think it's probably worth observing that a lot of this action and movement is the movement of scholarly work to the cloud and the way that you afford business in research now is you have to be able to take account of the cloud and the nature of it. That's cross-institutional. It's digital work that needs to be preserved and produced and managed. And this movement to the cloud has required a different kind of economy. And what you're seeing in these slides here is a kind of representation of that economy. I'm going to hand it off to Amber Roger to take us a next level into this workflow idea. Thanks, Tom. So Don shaped out very nicely some of the large-scale changes that we've seen over the last few decades. And the dynamics that we're seeing today that we're all living through is that the workflows, the platforms and systems that support scholarship from the very beginning, the inception of a research project all the way through its completion and indeed its post-publication lifecycle is clearly becoming of growing importance to the scientific research enterprise. I think I'm going to really focus on the scientific research enterprise in my remarks. But the universities that see science and academic science and clinical medicine and other related fields as really the direction forward from their perspective on the research side. If you think about a kind of schematic of what a research workflow for laboratory sciences might look like, this is just illustrative, not comprehensive and probably not specific to any individual. But what we're really trying to call to your attention is the whole process that you might see it starting with current awareness, moving through the design of a research project, the search for funding, the efforts to find funding for the project, the collaboration around research, the movement, through all sorts of things, experiment design and data collection and all the way through analysis, writing, sharing. You can see the whole process through publication and eventually showcasing an assessment. This is a process where the academic library falls in only maybe two or three or four of these boxes, depending on how you see things working at any given institution, at least traditionally. And so there are some really interesting questions about how as this process becomes platformed or as Don said, how it moves to the cloud, who provides for the different stages of this research workflow. I'm going to show a couple of charts that others have created. This one is from the 101 Innovations Project. And I commend to you a variety of the different charts that they've put together, schematics that they've put together. The three here that you can see are first the workflow that Elsevier has been developing, acquiring, and now controls. The workflow that Digital Science has been developing, acquiring, and now controls. And then finally the one with Clarevade. And I'm going to focus on these three for just a moment because although there are other players and other competitors in the space, there's been a tremendous amount of consolidation, of acquisition and consolidation around startups in the research workflow process that these three companies have clearly been pursuing. They haven't developed identical portfolios to one another, but they are selling in increasingly sophisticated ways a portfolio, a bundle of research workflow tools that ultimately in at least one or two of these cases is getting closer and closer to something that could become an end to end sort of closed, locked in system. None of them are yet fully developed in that way today but could over time move in that sort of direction. There are some very interesting news just looking at these three companies. Clarevade just the other day acquired Caperneo, which is an access provision tool. And then now to move on to just another version of how you can look at these verticals. Some of you will have seen a version of this slide just 30 or 45 minutes ago in Tom Kramer's talk. This is a slide that he's, PDF that he's created, I believe, again looking at the Clarevade vertical, the Elsevier vertical, the Digital Science vertical, and thinking about the open stack and whether there can emerge or will emerge an open stack. And one of the things that's really, one of the questions that's embedded for us all strategically in this space is whether Digital Science, which is owned by Holtzbrink, which owns 53% of Springer Nature, is in fact has a publishing house, the second largest commercial scientific publishing house attached to it or not. And that's something that is actually a deeply important question in understanding whether Clarevade, as it claims, is more independent and neutral than the other two of Elsevier and Digital Science. Anyway, these questions are of profound importance to the scientists on our campuses and our work to support academic science, but they're not just important to scientists. And this is where I'll turn back to Don. So as Roger and I have been talking about these issues, the debates we have are, okay, well, this is fine for the sciences, but tell me about what's going on in the other parts of the academy. And we're, and even in Tom's talk in the last session, he ended kind of mumbling that, sorry, Tom, if you're here. That, oh, we really don't count for the humanities because that's too hard. So why is it too hard? The slides that Roger just showed you gave you a structure for that sort of mess that I showed you of the surrounding interest around the core academic processes. The structure here, it's very clear of the particles that are emerging, but what we haven't really talked about much is the humanities research workflow. And at Mellon, we came to this functional diagram here trying to make sense of some of the grant making that we've been doing in humanities publication and in the digital humanities. And you will recognize some of these functions if you go back to John Unsworth's article about the research primitives. I haven't captured all, I think it was 12 that he identified, but you can see the line here. And when we've tried to present this to faculty, they get it right away. Part, the way that humanities work proceeds is that you start with an evidence-based, you gather sources, you catalog or organize them, not catalog in the sense of a library cataloging them, but organizing them with various kinds of retrievable metadata and so on. You manage those, you begin managing those sources either by translating or transcribing them so that they're usable. You have to spend lots of time identifying people, places, other entities that are embedded in those sources and then you begin to annotate and interpret them. I've left off this slide of workflow, the publishing part of that workflow, but the main point here is that over the last two decades each of these functions have been embedded in digital services, with digitization being a new way of gathering sources, various kinds of online description mechanisms to catalog them. The ability to mechanically translate or transcribe using optical character recognition, various kinds of entity-based system, linked open data for organizing those entities. And then more recently, standardization of annotation models. And if you go down to sort of turning these services into products, if you look around the digital humanity space, a lot of these functions have now been turned into various kinds of products. I've listed here a bunch of them that Mellon has been supporting over the years, but there are lots of others. And so the question here is, having this kind of maturation in the humanities space, are we now ripe for the same kind of consolidation and organization of these products that Roger has pointed out is happening in the sciences. And so that leads us to a sort of broad set of questions. What is the problem here? And we wanna open this up to you and hear your feedback and engage your thoughts here in these questions. The main point that we've tried to articulate here is that there's an uneven development in the academy. And that when we talk about this kind of commercialization, we're talking about a sector of the academy. Lots of money there, a big sector, no doubt, but it's a sector, not the entire academy. Does that portend what's gonna happen in these other sectors that are less mature? Open question. And you can see here the other kinds of questions that we have raised. What are the institutional interests? When you have competing companies, like what you see in the consolidation that's going on in the sciences, what is the institutional, the library's interest, the university or college's interest in working on that and in resisting it or encouraging it or shaping it in some way. And does it matter that it's being commercialized? And is this connected so closely to scale issues in the web that a commercialization, whether it's for-profit commercialization or not-for-profit commercialization, is that inevitable in the way that this dynamic is currently working? So those are the questions that we wanna pose to you and we would like to hear from you. Please. Thank you everyone. Thank you everyone. Thank you everyone. I do think that would show. I'm sorry.