 So, hi, I'm Nicholas Koloff, I'm the director of Arcidius Foundation, which is based in Switzerland, it's a private family foundation. We support enterprise support organizations in Africa and in Latin America, of whom too are represented here, so Allie from Village Capital and Alexandra from B-Piece, Business Council for Peace. And we work very closely, we feel like a twin to a small foundation, who Karina is represented here. And we're going to talk about the five ways that may help enterprise support organizations and their funders create more impact. And who's this session for? Well, it's for both enterprise support organizations. It's who want to think about what they do, how they do it, what does the evidence say about how one might improve the quality of your performance in helping enterprises. It's for funders who obviously work with enterprise support organizations to help them think through how to help those organizations get better at what they do, and perhaps make better choices about who to work with based on the evidence. And if you're an entrepreneur thinking about business development, sports services, these characteristics might help you find the right one for you. So hopefully there's something in this session for everyone. So why is this important? Why is this important to us? Well, about 10 years ago when we started supporting small and growing businesses of which a significant subsection of our social enterprises, we didn't know actually what worked. Did business interventions actually work? Did accelerators, for example, actually accelerate? Were they just good at picking winners and then doing stuff to them, which made absolutely no difference to their performance whatsoever, but at least kept the accelerator busy. We didn't know, nobody knew. So we thought, OK, well, if we're going to spend money and resources and time and effort helping enterprises, we'd better know whether business development services work, and if so, how? So how did we go about finding out? Well, we supported over 50 organisations who were running over 100 programmes in over 500 cohorts, which represents about 10,000 plus businesses. And we measured the same thing. We measured three points, revenue and increase, full-time employment and capital raise, because that might indicate what did resilience and growth in enterprise look like. And we evaluated individual programmes. Several of our partners suffered our evaluations and we looked and we talked to entrepreneurs in particular about, so what was it about those programmes that you felt actually really helped and also what things actually didn't really help? So we looked at those and then we also sponsored research in the field. So amongst around specific interventions. So we helped develop GALI, the Global Accelerator Learning Initiative, of which Village Capital was an early adopter to see whether accelerators actually accelerated and did they work? And the outcome of GALI was, yes, they did. If they did X, Y and Z, and X, Y and Z, we'll look at in great detail, great detail this afternoon. And then finally, we kind of went out and collated everything, as far as we could find everything that other people were learning. So everything from a random control trial in China, around business networks, or one in Mexico, looking at the benefits of individual consultancy. We looked at businesses at different stages and different ages and a whole range of different kinds of intervention. And you could have ended up with one glorious mess of data and confusion. But no, we ended up with a series of patterns emerging about what does good look like when it comes to business development services. And in order to make this digestible, and because of the industry in which we work, we came up with an acronym. What else? And the acronym was SCALE, which we thought was kind of appropriate since that's what we were trying to help businesses do. And SCALE stands for Select the Right Enterprise. Charge the Enterprise, what you're doing, not necessarily the full economic cost, but charging creates a client-commercial-committed kind of relationship. Address problems because we learn when we're problem-solving. Most people, and particularly entrepreneurs who are incredibly busy, want to solve a particular problem. And then you could invite them to learn how to solve, not have that problem again. So if the problem is cash flow, solve that cash flow problem, and then invite people to learn what does cash flow mean, how to do better, so they don't have the same problem. And learn by evaluating enterprise performance because you want to learn. So what does your monitoring, your evaluation, your learning system look like? It doesn't have to be complicated, but it needs to be there. And as an organization, lead by example. So if you're helping businesses develop their strategies, do you have a strategy yourself? If you're building a quality team in your organization, in the enterprises you support, what does your team look like and are you building one that's effective? So we put SCALE with the help our friends at Dahlberg into a report and tools, which you can find on our website, rgidius.com. Now, I can't claim that this report is bedtime reading unless you're an insomniac, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be a series of explorations around how to think about your programs and how to do programs better. And it's not designed to be a prescriptive framework. Follow SCALE and you will do good. What it is, is a series of lenses to help people think about what does good quality look like. So with that, what I will do, I'm gonna ask Ali, first of all, to talk about Village Capital's results and what are the key characteristics of success that they've noticed about the work that they do in supporting enterprises that they work with? Great, thanks, Nicholas. It's great to be here, excited to have this conversation. Today, for those of you who don't know Village Capital, we are a supporter and investor in seed stage impact-driven entrepreneurs around the world over the last decade plus. We've trained about 1,100 entrepreneurs on investment readiness and other technical support. And we're also working to build more robust and inclusive ecosystems around those entrepreneurs. So the 1,200 entrepreneurs, I'm sorry, I said 1,100, it's actually 1,200 now and we've supported how it got on to raise collectively $4 billion. And according to the Global Accelerator Learning Initiative, they're raising more capital than the average entrepreneur. They are generating more revenue and creating more jobs. What's particularly unique about Village Capital is that we deploy a peer review-based model to make investment decisions. So we have a process by which entrepreneurs not only learn what it means to be investment-ready, but evaluate both the merits of their own business as well as their cohort members' businesses and then assess the investment readiness of the entire cohort to make a selection of two to three entrepreneurs per cohort who receive investment. So through that process, we've run about close to 90 programs using that process and facilitated more than 100 investments through that process as well, both from our Affiliated Adventure Fund, as well as from other co-investors. So I'll pause there, Nicholas, and happy to kind of jump in where you wanna take it. I think you're on mute. Nicholas, I'm not hearing you, unfortunately. Are you hearing me now? Oh, great, super. So Ali, if you were thinking about the changes that Village Capital had made to its programming over the last few years and you were thinking about what you'd learned, which a couple of things really had learned that had most effectively helped entrepreneurs, which you think that not just Village Capital, but more broadly for other enterprise organizations, what would you pick out as key things? Yeah, a couple of things and sort of going along the scale metric, to scale diagnostic. First, when it comes to selection, starting early and inviting collaborators in to make decisions on how to go about selecting a cohort of entrepreneurs to support. So we start immediately from identifying a potential problem we wanna solve. We find other experts, other funders, other potential partners, customers of these companies, corporates, potentially people in the public sector to help us really refine a problem statement that we want the cohort of entrepreneurs to be solving. And so we start very early on in bringing in different perspectives in the selection process. That group also then gets involved in our multi-stage selection process to help us evaluate the potential for these companies to not only become investment ready, but to be a really diverse set of entrepreneurs who can make good decisions because we use the peer review-based process. So number one, I would say continuing to think about how to bring diverse perspectives into the selection process and expert perspectives into the selection process. Another is in the process itself. So we started the peer review-based model from the earliest days, but what we found was not only are we helping companies better understand what it means to be investment ready, but by creating more interactions for entrepreneurs to learn from each other versus far less time of us lecturing at them, that was really transformational for these entrepreneurs is facilitating a place for them to learn from each other was just as powerful as us delivering content. So we dramatically reduced the amount of content that we were delivering in our curriculum and really focused on how do we create an environment where the entrepreneurs can learn from each other. So those are a couple of the things that I would say we've really leveraged. And as I said, you were an early adopter of Galley and it might be scary to script yourself to external scrutiny. I mean, what happens when you get the results? So what's important? What was important in allowing yourself to have that data scrutinized externally? What were the incentives to do that? And what did you learn through that process particularly when it came to monitoring and evaluating your own performance? Yeah, it's great question. And yes, it is scary to sort of say, okay, we'll go for it. We will be okay if the results are not great and we'll be excited but also want to learn. And the spirit of Village Capital has always been about learning and transparency. So the original idea of pure selection was sort of, and maybe by some still viewed as a bit wacky and sort of not the normal path for making investment decisions, the idea that we can flip the power dynamic. So it was sort of embedded in our DNA to say like we want to find new and better ways to do things. And if we are not also sharing that information with others, then we're doing ourselves a disservice and we're doing the sector a disservice because we want to find transformational way to get to entrepreneurs who have really great solutions who are often overlooked by the early stage investment ecosystem. So I think that made the decision to participate in Gally a lot easier because it was part of our ethos to be learning and innovating and really sort of make public about what we learned. So one of the things we've done, both with the Gally learnings and trying to figure out sort of are we, is it better, for example, is it better to have a high volume of applications or is it better to have a low volume and high quality? Of course we found the latter. So we really refined our recruitment process to say, how do we actually find the entrepreneurs who are very suited to the problem statement that we've established instead of saying like, hey, we want to have a big PR blast around this application process. We of course want to be as broad and inclusive in recruitment, but we know that the best quality cohorts come from having the most aligned entrepreneurs who are part of the application process. So that's definitely one of the things we learned from Gally. And we also sort of saw that there was an improvement in the performance of entrepreneurs, but we really wanted to understand how peer selection also made a difference in both predicting the potential of a company to generate revenue and also to raise additional capital to continue to grow their businesses. So in addition to the Gally data, we did our own sort of external evaluation of the peer selection process and we were very public about publishing sort of what was working and what wasn't in peer selection as well. Hey, that's super. And when I asked my board that we would actually publish every evaluation that we made, I was expecting them to gulp and say no. And in front of that, they just said yes and absolutely important. And I think it's been really important to be able to do that as a service for people to see both the things that work and successful or things that are less successful and to encourage people that just because not everything goes according to plan, that's an opportunity to learn rather than to hide. I've got a question in the chat about from Jimena, I hope I pronounced your name correctly. It was in LATAM, Building Program for Entrepreneurship and he's saying they find it difficult to create spaces for entrepreneurs to interact and learn from each other in an online learning program. So do you have any suggestions on how you might do that? And that's certainly a challenge over the last couple of years around digitalization because a lot of, as we know, a lot of the learning that people do is informal. It's over the coffee break, waiting for the person to start talking. What's your problem? Oh, I'm having this problem. How do we solve it? So how do we now? How do you think we can do that better online? It's a great question and it's not an easy one to answer. I wish I had a magic solution. One of the things we did when the pandemic hit and we knew we needed to transition to a fully virtual program was completely revamped the structure of our program. So we didn't revamp our curriculum per se, but we said, okay, normally we do one week of eight hours a day of in-person programming and then the entrepreneurs have a break where they're working on their businesses and sort of doing their homework from the first week. That model and then sort of two more weeks with a month break in between, that model wasn't gonna work online. You can't ask people to be on Zoom for eight hours a day. That's definitely not gonna facilitate great learning or interaction. So we shifted the structure of our programs where there were some intense sprint weeks, but we weren't keeping people online for more than a couple of hours a day. The facilitation of learning in smaller groups required more human capital from our team. That was one of the things that we found as we needed to be more involved in facilitation of the learning sessions and making sure that people were having conversations and sort of shifting and steering the conversations and that they understood the frameworks. So we did, I do feel like we've lost that sort of informal, we do some virtual happy hours and we have some interactive games that we have people play to just to get to know each other and to build that trust, but we really are hoping that we can ultimately get back to somewhat of a hybrid format so that we can facilitate more of the in-person peer-to-peer learning. Certainly, I would suggest sort of trying to, not trying to keep everybody in one place for too long in a virtual format, creating more structured activity for that learning. So it does require more facilitation instead of that sort of natural thing that happens when you're in-person, as we were talking about, humans being loud when we're in-person at a dinner and being really much more intentional about creating those spaces. And we will continue to share what we're learning as we always do. So happy to follow up on this too in the next six months. Thanks, Ali. Karina. So you're on the other side of the, I'm not saying the fence because you're not divided by a fence, but anyway, you're a funder. So what does this work mean to you and how would you apply what's been characterized as scale in the work that you do at Small Foundation? Sure. And maybe I'll just give a very brief intro to what Small Foundation does and how we look at kind of business development, support organizations. So Small Foundation is an Irish based charity. We focus on the elimination of extreme poverty in Sub-Saharan Africa. And we do that very much with the ecosystem building lens. So we are aiming to increase access to knowledge, technology, markets, skilled human resources and finance for what we call rural impacting micro, small and medium enterprises. That's a lot of words. But what that really means is that we support a range of intermediaries with business development, support organizations being a key component of that. And our goal is really to increase the sustainability and the impact of those particular organizations. And I know Nicholas, you mentioned that we're kind of like twins, but I would characterize our Gideas Foundation as maybe the slightly older and more sophisticated twin who does things first. So we have been learning from our Gideas Foundation for several years and I appreciate the intentionality with how you've been measuring the progress and impact and results of the different business development support organizations and come up with a scale framework because for Small Foundation, the scale framework has helped in I think three key ways. I think the first is really for us to incorporate it into our evaluation process of looking at business development support organizations. It allows us to really have a common language, not only internally amongst the team to talk about, well, what do we see are the strengths and weaknesses of the different organizations, but also externally with the actual business development support organizations themselves to be able to talk about how are they having impact? How are they thinking about their scale? And I think the second big thing is having that conversation with those business development support organizations allows us to dig into very specific areas. So with a scale framework, we can say, you know, with S select, tell me a little bit more about how you are thinking about your pipeline selection. Tell me who your target market is, how are you, you know? So it lets us to get down to a level of granularity or within a consistent frame. So we really like that. And it also allows us to draw on kind of best practices that we're seeing in the market. So we can say, oh, well, you know, we're seeing, you know, in the select, you know, component, these are some of the strategies that people are using to overcome some of these challenges that you might be having. And I think the last bit for us, the scale framework, also allows us to really pinpoint where small foundation might be able to support a business development support organization. So like, how do we want to point to our funding? What areas do we think will really help the business development support organization scale? So, and actually we are working with Village Capital to develop a diagnostic tool that incorporates scale more intentionally to actually see those specific areas for improvement and to understand the market landscape for these business development support organizations. So I think there's a lot of different ways that the scale framework can really help funders like us and people who are in the, you know, trying to build that intermediary market. Yes, thanks. And that's certainly how we've tended to look at it. We've been able to look at an organization, see its strengths and weaknesses, have a conversation with the organization, actually invite organizations to actually self-evaluate. And then you can begin to talk about, say, this is how we can direct the support to you to strengthen your organization in these areas. You're very strong in these areas. Let's strengthen you in these areas and then move you forward in that kind of way. And if you looked at the sort of funder landscape, how do you feel with doing as funders and thinking about effectiveness? That's a really good question. I think we could do a lot better. I mean, like I said, Nicholas, you guys have been at the forefront of really being intentional about what we're measuring. And I think effectiveness is hard to measure because there's such a diversity of approaches out there and actually different needs amongst the enterprises. And I think that the scale framework also helps us think about segmentation and how you might be thinking about effectiveness for different types of organizations, whether it's a tech-enabled, high-growth enterprise that's really looking to scale incredibly or a smaller SME working in a rural area that's never gonna achieve significant scale but still contributes a lot to the economy. And effectiveness for each of those will be slightly different. So I think it's a start of a conversation that the funders have been having, but I think there's a lot more that we can do to actually dig deeper into what really works. Yeah, and certainly one of the things we want to try and do next year is to think about how to turn scale into a tool that entrepreneurs can use. So because so often people, when you're talking to anybody, they say, why did you select this organization to work with rather than that organization to work with? And people go, well, I heard about that organization or they were the only ones that we thought were available. And so to help people because that matching, that matching of organization and enterprise is one of the things that is so important if you're gonna have a successful kind of relationship. So, Alexandra, I'm gonna ask you. So you were our first test case really on scale in the sense that we just sort of worked out this pattern and then we sort of presented it to you and said, well, what do you make of this and how do you think about your program now? And you made one or two very simple changes. Well, simple in the sense of it didn't cost you anything. And so how did that work? So what did you notice when we first talked about this with you and what changes do you make and what was the impact made from those changes? Sure, thank you, Nicholas. And again, delighted to be here and share some of the VP's experiences. I will just give, for those of you who don't know VP, swallow just a slight overview. VP's is a 20-year-old global nonprofit. We work specifically in crisis-affected communities to help small and medium businesses create jobs and grow. Our model really is to deliver high quality customized business consulting. Connecting them, matching is kind of a keyword we're using here to expert volunteers. And those expert volunteers provide pro bono services to them. We're working primarily with food processing, manufacturing, pharma health and services. And we do measure impact by three key indicators and that is job creation, revenue growth and access to finance. And to your question, Nicholas, you're absolutely right that we made two key kind of pivots with respect to the scale, using the scale framework. And one of them was around a shift in free to fee, I think we can say. And that really centered around the premise that our programs were really free, right? They were, and to a certain extent to the businesses we supported, were very much beneficiaries. So that simple shift in charging for our programs really brought them in as key stakeholders, clients. I think you mentioned that earlier, Nicholas. And they were very vetted and also very invested in participating in these programs and getting the most in terms of quality out of these programs. So their engagement clearly not just increased, but I would say it also created efficiencies with our program that our team and our staff didn't have to chase the businesses to participate or to engage or to even share data, which is really critical for us to be able to measure our impact. That pivot came through a lot of due diligence. We had to get buy-in from our fast runners, we call the businesses we support. So the buy-in came in having really constructive conversations around how they would embrace fees. They also, it's important to note that they also are our largest referral system. So we really, until this day, even when we made that pivot, they are bringing great candidates into our pool. So we didn't want to lose that. We didn't want to lose their engagement. So bringing them into the conversation was absolutely paramount. And they understood that we really had a clear business case. The business case was that our experts provided services, expertise, that really were out of their reach. They were working in conflict communities. So again, we work with PWC, with McKinsey experts, and they just do not have access. And access really was the key fundamental thing that kind of stood out. So being able to make a business case around a value, we put a monetary value in terms of what those consulting fees would be, which we estimated around 30,000, versus a nominal fee that we would charge, which was anywhere, again, scaled around revenue, anywhere around 500 to about 1500, depending on the revenue tier, annual revenue tier. And that made complete sense to them. It was as clear as day. So that buy-in was essential. Buy-in from our staff was also super essential because they were then shifting their mentality. And to a certain extent, had a resistance that, now we have to sell our programs, right? And I don't have any sales experience. How are you putting me in this situation? So buy-in from our staff was absolutely fundamental. And they were really pivotal in doing all of the due diligence, talking to local chamber of commerce, membership organizations that had fee-based models, looking at the services they offered also in the landscape. And then also for them to kind of come to that shift of, wow, what we really provide is not just really valuable, but we see the differentiator in terms of the services we have. And this is a nominal fee. And I think those two fundamental things, getting buy-in from our businesses, the fast runners, buy-in from our staff, was absolutely key, as well as providing a tier-based structure that was really, really important. And then the other shift to Nicholas was around a few different things, but one in particular was our learning, right? We talk a lot about learning, evaluating. I think a fundamental strength that VPs has is that we do have field staff in the areas that we work, and we spend a lot of time building trust and building relationships. And because of that, we understand that a business is not just a business, it's a human, right? Human start businesses. We also really do kind of bring a culture of transparency, confidentiality, because again, we also did learn that we were bringing all these external, great high-end experts into the equation. But similar to what Ali, and I think Karina had mentioned before, these business owners are experiencing challenges that are very similar, the local cultural context that exists, political context that exists within their framework, they are key kind of knowledge, transfers to each other. So that peer component really stood out for us in being able to be effective in how we shifted our programming from timing, for example, it used to be an 18-month program. We had all of these elements that were really, really intense. And the business owners said to us, it's too much. We need to take a step back. We'd like to shorten the program. We'd like to bring in the peer element and have that time to talk, to share challenges, but also to inspire each other. And as well as what we were asking was a lot in terms of the data collection. So keep it simple. And those really are kind of those three elements around the scale component around free to fee and then how we learned in general. No. And I remember that that intensification, I mean, the intensity of a program is really very important. So you can do too little and you can do too much. And you can expect entrepreneurs to be learning too much. And what we've seen is you need to give people the time and space to actually implement what they're learning for new challenges to emerge and then people to be able to help them address those challenges. So intensification is really important. But what happened to the impact between our first cohort which was, could do better and the second cohort? Yeah. I think that was really one of those aha moments for us because there were a lot of reservations around that, that free to fee model, a drop-off in applications. I think Allie, you mentioned the quantity, right? It's not, that's not what matters, but the quality. We definitely experienced a drop-off in terms of the number of candidates that were initially brought in. But the quality of applicants was significantly higher as well as the fee-based model really bringing up the engagement and kind of that client shift in mindset that I wanna make the most out of this program. I wanna make the most out of all of these interventions that are occurring. And really the results were phenomenal in terms of increased job creation, increased revenue, incremental revenue growth and access to capital. So it was ultimately, I would say, about 60% growth in job creation and almost double in terms of revenue creation. And that was just over 12 months. What we are seeing, and again, this has to do everything to do with kind of the relationship with the businesses, we do track their data over longer periods of time. We're able to continue to, even if we say there's a two or three year post-program requirement, we do invite them to bring it to continue to share our data because we're also giving a value add to them by benchmarking around their peers, by also giving them historical kind of context in terms of how they've grown or where there were potential ebb and flows within their performance and say to them, okay, you had a drastic drop-off, what happened? And sometimes we uncover very important things around non-diversification of revenue as it represents their clients, right? They're heavily invested with two clients versus having a robust portfolio. So we're really able to continue and to intervene and to offer value to them throughout a longer trajectory. And I think that has enabled us, one, not just to collect the data but to also continue to elevate them and really get their mind shift to say, this is important, we want to do it, we want to incorporate it and we also want to continue to share. No, no, it was that moment of your data when I fell off my chair and thought, gosh, I've been doing this stuff for 25 years and I've actually stumbled on something that really does work. I mean, and again, it's not prescription, it's just looking at this through a series of lenses and going, oh, this is something we might like to adjust. And in that adjustment, really being able to serve one's clients better. So a couple of questions in the box, say another question from Latin America, which is if the focus is on low income populations and there's been discussion about charging and this is a question to everybody who might have some wisdom on this thought. And so how and when to collect fees and how much to charge. And I think we already asked, will you get less candidates? Yes, possibly, but possibly better candidates or more committed candidates. Any suggestions? So open to the floor, the quick suggestions on charging. I can start. Jimena, we also work in Latin America, particularly in Central America, Guatemala and El Salvador. So oftentimes we do work with businesses that are challenged economically and we do take that into consideration. I think one of our considerations is to balance our portfolio. I think we talk about diversifying our own revenue as organizations that support entrepreneurs, but I think it's also really important for us when we're selecting businesses to also diversify your candidate pool so that you can make these changes and can make accommodations when necessary. So perhaps a strategy for you would be to identify a certain sector or a certain industry within that rural context that does have the ability to potentially pay more that could offset maybe the co-op or the really rural business that doesn't necessarily have that ability to pay a significant fee. And then I think we all talked about tiering, tiering that fee-based model based off of what the annual revenue is. But asking these questions, I think to be able to understand where they fall in terms of those tiers, in terms of revenue is how you're gonna be able to come to, I think an easily sellable fee-based model. Yeah, and I think certainly in the context, it's really important to thank investors as the importance of charging as a signal to the market, not in terms of your own revenue. And therefore it's nominal, but significant. So if one's thinking in a low income community context, think in terms of, well, what would be a meaningful fee which may sound entirely meaningless in relation to our own sustainability and our own financing, what is actually meaningful to the potential client because they will think that this is something they have to think they're thinking carefully about, do I want to do this? Is this the right thing to do for me at this moment in my entrepreneurial enterprise journey? And do I want to commit myself to this? And having done it, does this help maintain that commitment going forward? So here's probably one for you, Ali, which is about the correlation perhaps between the maturity of the company and the impact of the support. And is there an inflection point from which companies are far more likely to benefit from acceleration programs? Yeah, it's a great question. And I would maybe reframe the first of the two questions around a correlation of maturity of the company and the type of support that's needed. So I think all companies at multiple stages benefit from a peer-to-peer environment. That's sort of been our experience, I'm curious for others as well. But the level of depth of where a company needs support certainly changes over time as a company matures. So we focus largely on very early stage entrepreneurs sort of generally post revenue and post idea stage, but they're typically when we're investing, we're one of the first checks in. Some of the companies we've supported have raised a bit of money and we focus on investment readiness very specifically because these are companies who will be seeking capital to grow their businesses. But that doesn't make sense for every type of company or every maturity. There are different programs at other organizations that focus on digging into specific aspects of the business that a company needs to address at a later stage of the company in its maturity or companies who have different growth profiles need different types of technical support, which is why it's great that there's this incredible ecosystem of BDS providers that have different skill sets and abilities to meet those needs. So I don't think it's a matter of impact versus maturity. I think it's a matter of what is the right support for the company at that particular time and based on their particular plan. And so I sort of answer the second question, acceleration programs, I think benefit companies typically at an earlier stage, I think you have to kind of reframe a program from acceleration and a cohort like model to a different type of support to accelerate a growth of company at a later stage, which is why you don't see a lot of accelerators that are focused on sort of post if we're using sort of venture rounds, although I think those are kind of meaningless at this point, but if we use post-series B companies, those typically are companies who need a lot more hands-on support from investors and probably are less likely to benefit from a more traditional accelerator model that's sort of the three-ish month model. They have different types of support that they need. Yeah, no, that's great. And we set out to look and see whether we looked at formalizing businesses, looked at dynamic businesses, we looked at venture businesses, said businesses of different ages and scales, we looked at different kinds of intervention because we were trying to think when we started our strategy, ah, it's going to be acceleration and venture businesses. That's where the impact's going to be. And then we can pour in and do all of that and forget everyone else. And in private fact, we found impact at every level and the disaggregator was not either the kind of intervention all the night for the business is were they following this pattern that we've come to call scale? That may be the difference in terms of quality rather than anything else. Question about, yes, a response to Lisa who asks, you know, the three metrics that we used more financially in business measures and that was deliberate because we wanted, we had a very narrow question which is what's a good business intervention look like? But any thoughts on the effect of accelerators on social environmental impact and how would we know how we look at that? How do we look at that? And we've got two minutes, I think. I'll jump in very quickly and be far less than two minutes because we do focus on impact-oriented companies who are solving problems in economic opportunity and environmental sustainability and say that I don't have a great answer beyond making sure that the businesses are very focused on solving those problems and helping them define the type of impact that they wanna have in the world and the belief that if those businesses are successful, if social and environmental impact is at their core, that there is a benefit to helping them grow their companies, helping them raise the money that they need, for example, in order to have that impact. Certainly not every entrepreneur support program is thinking about the types of companies that they're supporting in the ways that we do but they have different sort of community and social impact metrics. So I'm sure others have thoughts on this, too. Any other thoughts? Yeah, I'll add that we really do make social and environment a component of our selection. So when we're filtering candidates, we do ask the hard data and then we also take into account the soft components around what their policies are around gender diversity and inclusion about what if they have policies or at least are willing to implement policies around climate. And I will say that oftentimes, even if the candidates do not, they are doing things because of the nature of where we work to develop the economies. They're hit by climate change, they're hit by many social, economic, and gender-based issues that exist. So oftentimes it's just bringing kind of that business case to them that it's not affecting their bottom line but actually going to increase their profitability that really does allow them to kind of have that shift of focus but always maintaining that, I think, that balance, right? Where we're not trying to instill all of these new policies or best practices or governance that's really going to negatively affect the business. Yeah, and we've been looking at certainly how to help our partners think about so what are some of the basics of what the minimum standards work? What does decent work look like? Because we are focused on creating full-time employment but that only matters if the full-time employment is actually a good job, not just any job. And how do you have conversations with the enterprises you're working with to take people on a journey of thinking about what does that look like and how do you incrementally improve over time your workplace and the employment you're generating? But certainly for us, we wanted, yes, as I said, we wanted to find out what does good look like because I could have gone to my board and said, yeah, we've got this fantastic social enterprise and it provides team drinking water for a million children in Uganda. I wouldn't have known whether the partner that worked with that made any contribution whatsoever to that success. And that's the thing I wanted to know. That's what we wanted to know and that's what we brought scale to look at in that kind of way. And that's why it's been important. So I think we are out of time, we're about to be out of time. I'm not entirely sure how this technology works but until I'm cut off, I'm gonna say one more thing. So my favorite learning from scale was that 90% of people learn because they have a challenge or a problem. 10% of people enjoy learning for its own sake. That's my guess really. They really enjoy learning for their own sake, particularly for an entrepreneur and particularly for a challenge in terms of time and pressure and so on. And the way we encapsulate this was to ask people how many people when they buy a car or plug in their new washing machine, do they read the manual before they use it? And usually about one in 10 people put their hands up and say, yes, I do. And the other nine people say, no, I just wait until the red light flashes at me and I want to know what it means and I read the manual and I fix it. And that triggers that sense of, and it has a jargon, it's called reverse curriculum. So you help person solve a problem, they're excited about solving the problem and then you enable people to learn around why not, how to not have that problem again. I think one of the challenges around the design of curricula is the people who design curriculum and the people who love the one in 10 who love learning for its own sake. And therefore can't understand why people particularly time constrained people actually find themselves not doing that and learning picking up against your own experience. So I'd like to thank you all for participating. And if you want to see more on scale, it's on the website, go to our Gideos.com, go to learning, scale is the first piece we'll find on learning, download it, share it with your friends, read it at night, read it during the day and enjoy. And hopefully it will be helpful in thinking through how to develop better organizations.