 The next one is Mr. Chris Genoine from Safeway. This is a situation where the organization was already kind of embedded inside of the, we were in there, we were helping Chris automate a lot of the functions that he was in charge of. And this basically takes us into the mid-2014 timeframe. And when we went through there, we looked at a lot of their, I'll show you lots of detail on this one too, because he's published this. After we went through the process and we presented our rationalization results, he presented this twice, once at Discover Barcelona in Europe, and then again in Las Vegas. And this is key to remember the Las Vegas one, and I'll come back to that in a moment. So after we kind of got to his value proposition, we were able to present the story a number of times. So there's situations, shadow IT competition, this need to kind of automate. And Safeway was actually going through this merger with another grocery chain called Albertsons. So their IT situation was gonna get worse. It was already, they considered it bad with all the duplications and things that they had that they should have gotten rid of with that merger. It made it much worse. This right by the way, are excerpts from Chris's presentation. So I gave this twice, so I know it pretty well. So this just gives you a little bit of a metric on his environment at Safeway. This is again, pre-merger, but it gives you a snapshot of how things work. Pretty large complex environment. They used IT for IT in this case to rationalize the tool sets, very similar, but they were much larger than the first example. They saw lots of redundancies and also lack of management of the specific functions so that they had a bit of a sprawling situation. And what they did was when they brought in IT for IT, it became more than just a rationalization. They saw it as a new way of working and automating things. Gave them that backdrop, that template which everybody was able to kind of focus on the areas to automate and rationalize. Yeah, there's a lot of things internally for them. The big thing was there's a lot of organizational fear to kind of go through this process because it was kind of top down, sponsored in this case by the CIO. There was a lot of financial impact. We actually were able to, we spent about six weeks with them, with their financial organization, doing the numbers down to the end detail on every software license and every server which equated to power, cost, and the data center. So we did some really, I would say, detailed analysis on the impacts that going forward and rationalizing the portfolio looked like. This kind of details out the whole thing, but 74 different departments, 120 people, and lots of data. And again, we had to go through that data, so it sounds exhausting, but what we found was people were calling the same thing by different names. And just by interviewing all these people, we were able to find tons of tools under people's desk, like these one-offs that folks either downloaded and they ran from a deployment perspective or monitoring or whatever. There was just a lot of stuff under people's desks that were operationally dependent on, but nobody really even knew. And of course, there's a little bit of open source in there and licensed software. So this is, again, you guys are familiar with this. This is, again, an older version. It's a little bit newer than what I showed you, but a little bit older. I think it's 1.3 version. The emblem is sort of predating the open group takeover of the IP. And this is what their environment looked like. So we plotted and we documented all the different tools and when you looked at it in a graph like this, what stands out? You got, for some categories, like monitoring and deployment, there's a heck of a lot of tools. That's a lot to manage, a lot to pay if you have multiple vendors in the mix. And what we did was we mapped that to the IT for IT, it was version 1.2 on this one. We mapped it out to 1.2 and then we found out where there was issues. Too many things and even areas where they weren't, they didn't have a tool. That was kind of interesting because they weren't automating some functions that could have been automated better if they just bought something there that was specific for that purpose. The result, this is another way of looking at their data which is very interesting. If you look at it by product. So this is a value. This is like a high level dollar evaluation against vendors and the different functions along the way. And you can see who bubbled to the top. You know, I'm HP, this is, you know, Rebony kind of bubbled to the top in this case. To me, from a EA perspective, I'm just there to figure out and help them sort out the mess, right? I figure, you know, we figure if we are there having those discussions, some opportunity will come up. Maybe not this year, maybe not next year, but eventually we're having a discussion and we're improving the operations and therefore we might actually show up on that radar at one point. But these are the, I would say, the biggest spend areas, right? That we identified. You can see how many different vendors, you know, it went way down into the list of individual suppliers.