 So, we'll get underway, we gave you a mix of announcements earlier, and we'll list the heightened section in session, having just now had to cancel, but we'll do a bit of Robert with us, so we'll get underway just in a minute or two, and we can take a wee bit more time to discuss it again, but we'll give it out, give it out for some Bruce, we've never had an iron brew, what would you call it, the Scottish Delicacy? Should you take that? No, no, no, it's not a bad thing, it's just like a drink, it's a soft drink, it's not making me drink, but it's flavour with that. So, just think of it as a kind of Scottish delicacies. Do you want that? Yes, when it swipes it is huge. Do you try and pronounce? Yes, but they will have any programme that I can use. So, I'm not trying to say anything. Do you want to use that on yourself? Yes. I'll just do it in the same way. You have to do this. I'll do it like a movie. Yes. I'll do it like a movie. We'll get involved in that. We'll get involved. We'll do it once. We don't share the word. I've got to give it out. I have to ask you. I'll show you that. I'll do it. I'll do it. Okay, hello everyone, thank you for coming along, my name is Rock, I've been involved in variants of authentication of research projects and I'm part of the business community of GEN, which we go to last year. Today, I'm going to talk about on-call systems and network actualising and education planning projects under the Erasmus Plus strand. And the idea of many on-call is, first of all, it's a network that supports up to 8.5 and also supports up to 6.5. That's very important. So, we do long-handedly to different groups, then sharing information, but probably, for the developers, to support these roles, it is, for the partners, we've really got a mix of business and institutions. And organizations, also some technology, some infrastructure, and so on. And so, for this project, such as the partners, and several hundred people have published my networks and meetings as well. You can just see, as well as what I was talking about, ideas for ecosysteming, perspectives on education. And the whole idea behind this on-call bus is, to take the OER situation in Europe at the level of an ecosystem. How is it all explained? How is it all set in each other when you change one thing? You've got five key challenges around the outside. And there really is a lack of coordination in a way that I regard as implementing across Europe as a whole. So that's sort of fragmented stakeholder groups, lack of consistency in the strategy between different countries. And a big thing to look at, as well, is how successfully is the OER position being shared to outside education? It's a business, it's not a strategy. Every spend is such a transaction. It's actually quite hard to find anyone who can do it. That's why I didn't want to turn this around. So I'm going to go on. I'm later looking at the slides, really, but most of what I was doing is saying that we're talking about, I think, about what's the relationship to the what about this in the next slide? At one level, innovation is kind of about powering people to do things differently than they've done before. So it's up to the ways that OER can be done. Things like lowering the cost of education, increasing the risk of nonformal opportunities, extending the education to a certain level of access, supporting diverse inclusion, more generally, because I guess we're talking about barriers to collaboration between different stable types, and in the institutions between which OERs are so developed and need for information to be in the countries. Do you sometimes say the same sort of things? Why that's interesting about your education? I suppose the same for America, it's a great deal of linguistic and cultural diversity by comparison, the same sort of area. So it's some of these things, that is our next question, but why that expiring condition? You know, it's very necessary to translate that well. So just a word around kind of innovation as a concept relating to OER. In a separate standard work, to the one I'm talking about today, myself and some colleagues at the University have been doing that and have a big structure of you, and looking for drivers, barriers, challenges in the neighbourhoods, all relating to innovation and so on. And what you find if you go and sort of look systematically a bit of literature is there's an ambiguity where people talk about OER innovation. So a lot of the time, people just talk about OER as the innovation. So this is number one, these two definitions. And so people will say, hey, OER is the innovation, it's connected to its behaviour. And it's true in the sense that compared to traditional approaches, traditional pedagogy, starting to use OER, even if you're doing nothing differently, except you've got open devices, resources, that's the innovation. Okay, fair enough, that's true. But there's also a different sense of OER innovation, which in a way is the one that's a bit more interesting, which is how people use OER to support downstream innovation behaviour. Those two things are conflating, you're trying to find literature. And so people tag it to keyword and say, innovation, just they're just using OER, which if you're familiar with OER, it's like, okay, I'm not blowing, right, you're using OER. But if you're not familiar with OER at all, that is an innovation. So sometimes it's useful to be aware of that sort of site ambiguity with innovation. So some of the areas where you might find innovation happening, I mean, I would say it's kind of, I mean, it's not really the resources themselves, and it's just not going to get out from small information, like information one. And so some of these things are to do with voice editing, training rather than teaching. And these are sort of areas that are going to be quite interesting. I mean, I might be over many of the questions that people are currently about in practices. And this is, you know, if you're from England, you can kind of plan strategic objectives, if you're from England, if you're from the United States. There's a lot of interest in the ways that OER can support these bigger societal changes. But it's actually quite hard to find concrete examples. You step outside of the OER meetings, quite hard to find people knowing how to do things with it, consciously moving that direction. So one of the things that we're trying to do below, we're doing OER, it's kind of free-fold. So one thing is we're trying to come up with a systematic way to understand how innovation works with OER and how you can evaluate it. So this is really about getting the concepts right, about innovation. It's a kind of script. It's one kind of script. So this is innovation. It's often a value judgment, right? But you say this is an innovative practice, or this is a kind of, you know, a significant new change or something like that. It also is necessarily the best innovations that we've got the most while we're in the fight. What we're about to remember is that it's an accident. It's an accident. It's an accident. It's just what's going on in the name. So in complex, it's the way to evaluate the system. Probably one of the things that we're talking about is the sort of conception work that's been done to try and sort of create some categories that you can understand this time. So coming off the back of that, we're developing a framework for evaluating which is OER, which shows innovation. So what I'm going to do is I'm going to take you through these two things together. I'm sure we'll use them a bit so the framework and talking about the concepts behind that. The third sort of part of this is the difference research using those concepts, using those questions. We have some case studies that I know is all about some of the past that are emerging from that. So it's kind of three things for the price of art. It's kind of some things. Um, what was that? It was a time of science for me. Basically, music, which is the future of innovation, should make you free. Fast, fast, fast. Yes, essentializing innovation itself. Talking about OER itself, how people choose OER, obviously that's massively by the SAMR framework. I'll sort of put more of that in a second. But when it comes to thinking about, you know, most of the resources that are a bit available to sort of theorizing around this stuff come from business studies and they're normally framed in the language of competition. So innovation, what's the point of innovation? It's the thing that lets you beat your competitors because you're one step ahead of that. You've got the slightly better technology, slightly better practice. So a lot of the language, the resources of innovation come from that kind of sector. So one underlying question here is, is that the right thing to be talking about? When we often don't have the size to be open, here's the more collaborative aspects, rather than, you know, we're all fighting against each other, which is the kind of classic business studies. And I've also got a business model of typology for me, which I'm sharing with you today. This is really the size of the existing ones that go by. Thanks for rationalizing some of these things. I'm a bit aware of the importance around stakeholder models. And I do try to find a generally yet simple stakeholder model along that meant, right, where it's just like a universal thing for stakeholders. And so the one that we've been using here is called sometimes the UTC, which stands for users providers, for instance, governments, or customers providers, and it's a slightly obscure list, but I've had those used, because of what I've had these things to do with them. So I was thinking of some of the aspects that we've found around and I know it's a slightly, also what we're able to build in the cells and then compare with what they study together in the same module. So I'm also going to be releasing stuff, what should you place? Are you focused on, this is my pro institutional level, Mezzo's regional level, that pro is national, I think it's national. So I was going to start off by thinking about which audience we should rest in the place, or if you're trying to do any of these challenges, what do you create all of this? And then the next section is based on a classic thing from business studies, which is Miles and Snow, 1917, Respectors and Defenders. And if you are familiar with that, which myself, I've talked a lot about some of it, but I guess it was about five years ago. It was also based on some idea of Miles and Snow. So here, through the set of binaries, say to people, okay, here's what you're offering, as we're making a lot of service, something that is, you know, cross people, right, it's basically, you know, shouldn't you see the core questions of, maybe one of them, are you offering something that way, or is there a response to that? And so each of these binaries, which was highly, actually basically a very traditional idea for self-reliance, self-care, so different, it's comfortable, it's your own history, traditional. So if we teach each of our people a binary, I think you can see the aspects of it in this one, so I'm not going to say this at the moment. So this is a lot of different ideas into a small thing. So far, I've been able to, I haven't found anything that challenges everything that's in some way. If you know something that doesn't fit in here, I'll just tell you quickly what these things are. So externally funded, you might get money from philanthropy, you might get a grant from New York Foundation for instance, you might get money from the government, or you might basically offer a route to advertising to your learners, so commercially money is coming from outside, but it's not that you're not necessarily setting the data, it's more like the base of the model, and you're sort of offering a route in to advertise. Eternally funded, you might get money from your institution, you might be given the choice if you say, well, if you say money somewhere else, yeah, you can have some money to spend on where we are, why not? There's also the worth of the pays model, it's not popular, it's basically pay for itself. But a lot of the time, this, you know, no one's really saying, yeah, we're doing this, but if you think about it in time rather than money, loads of people do this. You can contrast these with more sort of community-based approaches where stakeholders kind of own the structure, that's what keeps it going. And then you have what we call service models, and some of these are kind of like moves, that kind of thing, or you might have something free, this is like open line, but you've got some content free, people like it, they might carry on, and then you start charging them, and you offer various services, or you offer a way for, you know, you sell the data that you collect, and you really, for instance, so these are different ways of thinking about business models. If I was a skeptic, which I am, and a peddler, which I am, I might say, these are actually great, but new models. They're not true business models, because they're not conserving costs, they're not really conserving, but these are coming to you. Probably am I just saying, we should practice people on the combined as well, that would be too complicated to take up, it's starting to be, which is the most important thing. I've also asked about what kind of pedagogy we could use in terms of cultures. Do you have a big list of technologies that have been used so far? I do also have other people that are on the pedagogy as well, just want to say, you know, is it closest to this or closest to that? So I mentioned the SAMR framework, it's really hard to find a really concise way, to talk about all the different ways that people use OER. But finding this to be a fairly useful one. So the SAMR framework is a model of technology for acceptance. So basically any educational technology that we can use in the classroom, you can understand it, going through these steps. It would say to people, are you basically substituting OER for commercial content? You could be doing that, but with a few tweaks, with a few changes, you could have a significant redesign of what we're doing, based on the value that we are. Or you can completely reconceal how you're using, how you're teaching, for instance. Now you think about something like text books. You know, at one level, yeah, you can just do a straight swap, and have stuff where there's some stuff online to support it, or, you know, maybe do a little bit of tweaking or reading scenes. You could have that taken to another level. But then you can start thinking why would you use text books at all, right? It can be a route into reconcealing how you're doing. So it does that quite nicely onto lots of different ways that you could use them. State order route. So I'm going to give all the pieces on the board, so I can then talk about saving my lunch in the information. So this is the way that we've been developing our state order model on board. The U-Pit model. So users, these are the people who teach OER. Providers, provide OER. Influences kind of affect the discourse around OER and kind of what people actually end up doing. And then governance basically set the rules and regulations around, you know, institutional needs, so long as institutional needs to go on. Imagine if you could have asked me to find an issue or an attitude about it. But we do say, like, if people are using the framework themselves, you don't have to use these categories. You could build your own state order listing and use that instead. But it's just to give the equal thing. So then cross asking people, for these different state order aspirates, what is your value for this issue today? And what is the impact it's having? And I guess it's why are they matching up? Like, are you really delivering the thing that you say you could hold people? And similarly, so this is the future of innovations, stuff I mentioned before. You can say, okay, for these different groups, what are you really offering them? Where is the point where you say, this is why it's relevant to you? So these are the five categories that, in Rogers, are used to sort of explain why some innovations, you know, doggies, others don't. So thinking about just the needs of that system, that's the things that say, okay, that's something I'm supposed to do. And I mean, there's barriers and enablers that people, you know, say, dense by their own pattern. So these are just the categories that it fits into. But even imagine it's quite a broad range of things that can be. And the answer to this is just to say, okay, I am into all that stuff. So I was going to do some of that, but I was going to do Wendy, so I'm going to place these on the side of that sort of problem. So that's the sort of rough outline of what framework is going to be involved. So I did learn the case studies. So first of all, thank you to those who took the time to give you some things. So that was pretty essential for me. And it's like always a fun thing to do with surveys. So we've got a spread of organizations where somewhere, now just providing to a few dozen people, maybe in at the last round, up to millions of users every month and people in the last year or so. So again, you can see some of the options. This way, you can see there's a mix of different things, different size organizations, some new projects, some local things. Where are they representing? And yeah, basically some of the other stuff. So also, I'm sorry, three last dictation. So what's coming out of the survey? Some of this stuff I did genuinely is quite interesting. So to give you a sense of what's in the data set. So we asked people, what kind of, how would you describe your operation? Are you more like a project? Are you more like an institution? So I want one business only. Projects and initiatives are kind of time-bound, right? They're not ongoing forever. They have an end date. Most of the people said other, but basically profit. So they weren't sure where they're going. You can see here, like, international is the most common focus for the people that are passing. But we do have pretty good spray across the others as well. And really how long they've been going for. You can see, like, for the internationally focused people, about half of them would be known for more than five years, which is significant. I wouldn't expect that necessarily. But yeah, quite a bit of spray across the different, you know, kind of barriers that people could have been going for. So this is where you get into the more interesting stuff. So we asked people, which is your main kind of OER implementation? This is the SAMR, that's brilliant. And we also asked them, what's your business model? Which is it closest to? And so what you can see is, for substitution, it's much more common to be in this institutional context. Brilliant. So you're already using the textbook, and then you're moving to the open version. It's the kind of classic example. But then as you move down into more kind of, what we might say is more innovative use of OER, you also see more diverse business models emerging as well. And for people who thought that really what we're doing is kind of redefining the way that we teach people, you're seeing some, you know, so much more of the examples of how they see their sustainability work in the future as well. And you can sort of understand this as a kind of progression in a way. This is the temptation, right? As people become more experimental in their pedagogy and they're using OER in kind of different ways, they're also becoming a bit more experimental with their business model. You maybe they're forced into these things, right? Well, I think that's interesting, but sort of bounce off this. If you're familiar with Garwish, paper from a few years ago, this is a good idea of edu-prinertia. And it's not that easy to read, it's quite a detailed table. But basically it says, you know, as you use content in different ways, your revenue models also change. And they become more complex or more kind of distributed or decentralized in these kind of things. And it moves away from, you know, kind of here's some content. And more into the direction of we're connected to lots of different things, including the job marketplace and, you know, there'll be a sort of coherent system for the way information is shared between them. So this kind of gives some support to Garwish's model. Because what we see is as we move through the, you know, she's first of all saying, I'm assuming that these can be mapped, right? So static content, interactive content, dynamic content, transformative content, saying can be mapped to substitution, implementation, verification, and definition. That's an assumption I might have. But if you go after that, you get partial support for the idea that Garwish puts forward, which is that as you move into more kind of interactive content, more kind of inhibitive ways of presenting content, you're also moving to more inhibitive ways of understanding how your revenue faces. So that's the challenges that you face, specifically Garwish. And the sort of answer, I'm assuming, is that you've narrowed to what's being involved in this. Do you think you could say it's tiring at the sort of same thing, right? You know, like on my edits, people just don't know what we're doing. That stops us from doing what we want to do. That's just an issue. Changing culture, practice, is a barrier. There's a temptation here, I think, some people might have sort of thought we were asking about in general, what are your challenges, or in general, what's stopping you. You did ask in terms of innovation, these are the answers people gave. There wasn't much to do with the situation before, the skills to learn, and so I'm sure it's just my question was a separate answer. You could also, I just thought, the size of the institution, so the size of the focus, so what they're trying to do, they're trying to agree. And again, you can see there's not that much difference based on this. It's mainly money, awareness, and pressure, changing people's culture and practices. So I think you're going to have this one quite a few choices here. This is the results that we have on the asking. And so, being in the yellow is prospector. That's considered the more innovative approach, whereas green, the fender, is the more traditional approach. And so these are now ranked, according to which were the ones where people thought they were most prospectors. And so people thought it's really about our competitive advantage. That's where we're innovating. That's where our focus is when we're trying to invent something. Secondly, the value chain. So we've got the value proposition people are making. Moving down to communication channels, sustainability networks, so on. Down at the bottom, the target group shows the highest portion of defender attitudes. What this means to me is they're still focusing the traditional learn. It's not like they're still trying to break into some new idea of who should be learning and who should be using early on. This is my interpretation. This is quite interesting because you're trying to compete in new ways that you think the same audience is. So that's a remarkable finding. I should say that for sustainability, this was the one where I think probably 12 or 13 people gave no data for sustainability benefits. So I guess they couldn't really know if they were more of a prospector or a defender. But I think it's interesting in conjunction with previous slide about challenges. Where budgets can finance with the number one challenge. And so challenging, they didn't even know what their approach was to sustain the goods, maybe. And so you can appreciate that this is just the top level breakdown of this stuff. When you start connecting with different variables, it's an interesting task. No, we're still in the process of putting that together. So we ask people, the barriers of the neighbors, what's enabling you to innovate. Maybe surprising. I've been sourced off by a number of them. And I guess it's the kind of thing that it's a little bit invisible. You shouldn't really think about it. You know, it's like, don't really think about it. How does my computer work? How does this server run? But this is what people say. They also said leadership was a very important maybe in fact. And I say, you should be pointed out, people completing the survey kind of the leaders of their organizations. So it may be a little bit of bias in there. But it's still interesting. And the idea of personal characteristics driving things. So not necessarily a strategy, but more like individual creativity, individual drive, that kind of thing. And evidence, yeah, important, maybe not the most important thing. And so on. So yeah, you can see for yourself, there's a range of stuff here. And I think the interesting thing is going to be relating these to the different plans to the other answers, to see what kind of configurations emerge. So we also have a lot of questions about people's organizational functions. This is something science and history has really got to work back. And we'll be honest with you guys. They would say, okay, so this picture, why don't you just get out of here. Okay, be gracious to the model. Be gracious to the function. We are writers. Be gracious. I'll start with R and R and so on. He's a very part of our activity to be innovative. We're not quite the same as this, but this is where the bias is. Bias is the most. And again, these are things that, in the innovation sort of literature, people recommend some of these things. Using KPIs to track innovation behaviors. Not that popular. Management assistance, which I don't want to do that. It's not cool, right? It's not fun to have a KPI for innovation. You might have more of a kind of like, we're doing something cool, we're creating, we're being innovative. But also, again, that idea that personal drive and personal leadership seems to be a more important factor and a system for innovation or a system for managing. Just a couple more slides to show you a bit. So what you do, put all this stuff together around the stakeholder group. You can get some nice combinations. So here you have the stakeholder categories across the top. So you can say to people, what's your value proposition to each of these? Frontiers beyond minds, design. What's your value proposition for each of these? What impact are you having for each of these groups? And where is your focus with vast and sort of diffusion of innovations? How do you do this? So that somehow this, this, and this all line up nicely. So this is one of the things the framework is intending to do, is helping people about this. So what else I said is, you know, we can put together this, stranding from that kind of thing. So by the general attributes, you want to do that on a big basis. So basically say, these are the most important aspects of each party. So that's important. And there's not a massive difference between them, right? So I think we need to do a bit more work on this again in terms of the granularity of it. We also ask people, are you achieving what you want to achieve? I think we're going to publish that in a case study. It'll be interesting to see how people suggest or knows that question, how they saw this, how they saw, you know, the impact of what they were doing. So what I was going to do from the case study that I was showing is trying to find, based on the data from the case study. So four qualities. First of all, transformative, focused mostly on the M and R, the SA and R. So less on substitution and more radical redefinition. We can see what's going on. A practical, in a sense, targeted, merely deduces and providers less to influences in governments. Making it observable, observable, observable, simple and capacity. These are the ones that can cross the most important infrastructure. But also this idea that there's an ongoing interest in expanding the offer beyond just necessarily where you start with the use of providers and making it more of a kind of strategic than expanding that to a wider audience. So I think it's just quite interesting to start with. Yeah, I was saying before, like, it's a very, very important to inspire a lot of people to be able to see the information so I'm just very interested in trying to join some people just to have some kind of a better understanding of what's going on. Right, it's quite a hard thing to get a grip on. So, for the coming publications, the innovation work's going to be on call. So the thing that I've been talking about today, the innovation framework, this will have a kind of blank form, if you like, for people to fit in themselves. But also all of the case studies as well. So the idea is you can compare your own responses with the responses in the main data set. And we'll also have a bit of commentary in there about the results and everything. I mentioned the desk research report we're doing. That's a long, long bit of work. It's quite a complex bit of work but we're getting there. So the idea again could be to kind of have these sort of generalized understandings of what are the challenges around innovation, what are the barriers, how do you overcome them. And so from the case studies, we're also going to do some more developed cases and there'll be a showcase for our innovation if you're coming out later in the project. So thank you for your attention. The BOTCORP project does have some of the best outcomes of three world-wide integration and it's very big. The best is in deciding what's also going to be the best of the project. So we're at a five-percent sort of an event worth a seven. So I encourage you to check out the website of this BOTCORP on most of the board that you're going to have. If not, we're at an organization to see what's happening. So it's BOTCORP project. Thank you very much. Thank you. This is going to be the second presentation session. Take whatever questions you have and then you probably still finish me there already for a bunch. And I think it's this general set of questions. Thank you so much for the presentation. Robert, I have a question that is embedded with a commentary and it's around the concept of innovation. It's part of my research and I was wondering how you approach to the concept of social innovation because sometimes innovation can be focused on technology, appropriation and business models as you said about competitiveness and this can be intentioned with part of the openness and the movement of what is education about. For instance, social innovations can be a little bit more nuanced. It's a theoretical approach to education as a phenomenon as it might allow to understand innovation not on the technological part and the appropriation part which leads, for example, to the appropriation of some are a sort of framework to measure innovation but rather towards the social aspects that enable both transformation in the structures which has part of what openness is about. In my own practice, I have approach and I made a mistake as a practitioner of OER to approach innovation in the tech way through my non-profit organizations and I know that it can be like an innovation that is not impactful because it's focused on content and technology rather in the social practices that under being a long lasting change. So my question is around the extension between innovation and social innovation and to know why have you opted for this kind of surprise or the other one. Yeah, thanks. It's a fairly interesting time. So I have allowed so far some of these problems to do. So it's a series for the image agenda which is around supporting rates of investment which are largely a sort of transition between innovation and it's really a response to find ways to to to to re-order processes that are very obvious that are very obvious that are very obvious So that's a simple answer to my side of the side of that my side of this is the other side of the side of the way of enforcing the way which we're making. So my interest in that is to see what actually as well as this might, you know might be iterations and so one thing that I found which I I'm spawning up against this reaction is pretty well, you know which one basically which you follow no no I'm just I think it's just another one um power one it's a sort of a position where you know your education and you know you can re-order online with the sponsors because the sponsors are just not talking to you know what you just think about and it's um not the the sponsors but it's it's it's it's it's not about it's it's especially if you're on by this is facilitating right it's just going on it's it's outside as you know sure so that's about how I think I've such a information stuff that hasn't reached a million before that just rising by this as you say and um you know this is a whole lot about now it's it's I'm trying to sense it's it's just not what you're saying it's to you about um I'd like to talk about it for sure sure thanks this is impressive and it's going to to change a lot of things um and we have a special uh piece of work associated with which you you don't only evaluate and describe what's happening with the landscape before you are but also you actually provide a framework for those system organisations who want to take full of their own roots because I see there is um you know it's very focused it's very important to understand the landscape then you have provide something for those who want to start doing things how many of these have next are we probably threw up framework for the future making the presentation and then the other question is open something whether or about this yeah it about this about three percent percent so um we so here we are on some focus on some that there's some people there basically basically they're basically stars right they don't they don't they don't just trying to be understand what's going on can't understand it where's the money coming so that's really I'm actually a little bit off of people when I say about cabs is there um but it's just high on the point so what happens next because you know if I want to make my my my my balance a lot of time is something like that so it's just where you can start um so often it's not it's not it's not it's not it's not it's not it's not it's not it's not it's not it's not it's not it's not it's not it's not I can't be I'm you know workshop you know I'm I play I play kind of I can't just so yeah I think um some way my my my my my cause with so so this is exactly the same we do it's free about the paid money it's not often worthy and it's that measure some people don't it's not often it's really what all the considerations is what it's gonna get the background get it's not So I find it's a useful response, people say they can't understand how can they kind of work, how we are, where's the money coming from, so we're open source software, it's exactly that. It works exactly the same principle, you can still be really aware of it. So I find it quite useful from that point of view, because it's massively successful. I'm not going to deny these successful practices. I'm sure that fits. Yeah, no, no, no. There's another question over here. Yes, Rob, thank you for your presentation. At the beginning of the presentation, you presented two types of the output. Kind of an intermediate OER innovation OER. So that's the OER type one was adoption. Two was the use OER as a driver as a tool for other innovations. And isn't that the second one is actually contributing to the adoption? Yeah, quite possibly. It's really just something that it's all noted when we're doing the literature. It's just searching for papers where the key word is innovation and OER. But you're getting a lot of stuff where it's just, we're a college in North America and we adopted OER and that's an innovation that you cross. I'm not just sort of disagreeing with it, but it's different. So we're using OER and it's really transforming the way that we're approaching things. So it's just trying to sort of separate out those two things. But I think it's important being to be aware of anyone who goes off and starts Googling OER innovation. You might just get stuff where it's like we would open OER. Yeah, but maybe the focus for the OER community to widen the doctrine of OER should be more on this second phase. I think it's the more interesting one actually. Yeah, but also appealing to for instance decision makers. For instance, when you say OER can contribute to the question of flexibility of education for them, that's on the mind. Yeah, and it's a little bit of a shame that the test research was happening in parallel with the survey. So it wasn't that we had all the concepts worked out first. But I think you're right in the sense that for the substitution, people with an interest in the substitution and implementation, maybe they are more interested in innovation at one. But the people who are more interested in policy makers, that kind of thing, maybe number two is the more interesting process. So yeah, that's an interesting book. Thank you. I think we'll get on to 22. So I think we'll probably do it. It's my colleague's opportunity to demonstrate that. You're allowed to shake. Yeah. But thank Rob for my statement. It's fantastic. Thank you very much. Then it's a long break now until two in the next session. It's time for lunch.