 I want to thank, first of all, our panelists for joining us and talking about the topic. A reminder that we are taking our questions to the Slido app. You saw that in the loop. And please submit your questions. We'll manage them in real time here. I also do want to reinforce what Charlie said at the end of his presentation. The Digital Protection or Work Group is set up as a work group of the open group, and it's open to all our members. So if you are interested in this topic and you want to make this contribution to this document, Charlie said if you want to be on the ground floor of this body of knowledge, contact me, contact any member of the staff and we'll get you up and participate. So I would really love to have that broad viewpoint of this. So let me kick out some questions here. The first one I want to ask was one that I had some personal experience with. I think many of you know Jeanne Ross of the MIT Sloan School Center for Information Systems Research, the famous Ross of Wow Architecture book. And they do the symposium every year. And she mentioned this year's focus was on digital. And she said the traditional efforts to align IT with business has turned out to be a CIO trap. I called on the CIOs to become leaders of the technology-enabled business change. And are you both seeing a shift in that way of thinking in both your consumer side and also supplier side? First of all, thank you for the opportunity to join this conversation. And in the consumer side, working with enterprise architecture is not a very simple job. You need to convince, you need to talk with a lot of people. You need to talk with your executive and to put enterprise architecture in a discussion with your executive board. It is not so simple to do. And if you look at the moment that you're living in the market, you see that you need to work with this digital transformation. So if you get your CEO, normally goes in a conference and when he comes back, he says we need to do something because the market changes a lot and you need to do something faster. How can I do that? And it's not a simple way because normally the company are doing a lot of changes. Probably here, all of your company are working in some kind of agile process, working in some kind of technology, new technology, structural technology that you are implementing in your company. And sometimes it's very difficult for you to manage all of these things. As a head of enterprise architecture at Ccredi, just for you to understand Ccredi is on a million-side bank in Brazil, you need to work a lot to get all these expectations that you have in the executive point of view with that you have in your IT structure. And drawing both sides is not so simple, but working with enterprise architecture is possible to do that. In talking a little more specifically about digital transformation, you have our opportunity to, it's not possible to do that with the same thing that you have already working in your company. We had the opportunity to do a lot of benchmarking and research about this before starting with your digital transformation and you didn't have another option instead to create a new group and working to change the culture of the company. Because it's very simple for you to change the culture of your company. If you are working in a startup, it's a very small group, or if you are working in a CMB corporate, but I think you don't have here a startup or CMB representative. I think all of us are from corporate, large enterprise companies. For this reason, your initiative in digital transformation was to build another team to develop it and address what you want of your executives, linking what you have in your business approach with your IT approach. So if I understood the question correctly, which basically is, is the CIA trap real and it's still going on? So I work with a lot of organizations that do not necessarily make the news since the majority of the organizations where you have a CIO, you don't hear about them if they do a great job of transforming or a pretty bad job of transforming. So my observations have been this, you cannot escape the need for very strong leadership at the CIO or CTO level. What I mean by leadership is a combination of a few things. You definitely need to have a very clear vision of what digital transformation is for your organization, meaning IT, and for your partners, if you will, the business side of the organization. And the third part, which I actually have an issue with, or rather the challenge that I see with traditional CIOs is they have come from a background, especially those who grew in organizations. Their idea of an organization has not changed on how it has been for the first few years. They love to add the tag of digital, so they essentially go for what they call low-hanging fruit, and so they might pick some mobility, they might pick some areas that they can easily come and brand it within the organization that they have driven some kind of transformation or they're doing some digital transition. And as a result of which, in the combination of all of these things, what you typically find is the CIOs when they're asked to get to the next level of value delivery, a higher level of value delivery that goes beyond low-hanging fruit that basically translates into true transformation of processes, true transformation of the company's digital value delivery, they find themselves very short. So typically what happens is a recycle of people. Now, unfortunately, what I have seen is you could lose the old CIO, but the new person who comes and still comes from the same stock, if you will, for lack of a better word, and they still replace the same, kind of recreate the same problems. Maybe they'd pick a different area to do this. So what I would net net I come and say is that the CIO trap is real, and the biggest problem is that CIOs don't recognize that they are in a trap, and they typically tend to think that they are kind of changing the organization through putting things like business IT teams that approve projects and so on and so forth. But I think they're fundamentally not recognizing what digital is, not recognizing how they have to reinvent themselves from a thought process perspective, drive an organizational change with key champions, people who will then sustain the chain, and people who are toxic to the chain needs to be moved out. Recognizing all of these things that go behind an organizational change, that has to happen. If they don't do it, then you're essentially going to have the same problem go again and again. There are organizations that's phenomenal. I've seen PayPal do a great job. If you look at some of the publications that came out of the CTO stock, the recent CTO stock, you would see how he has changed organizational culture, how he has ensured that the millennials, if you will, or class of, are able to feed back into what works for them, how they can leverage their thought processes, and then at the same time having a mastermind alliance from a Napoleon Hill Court, how he can get more feedback from different people. All of this has gone into him clearly defining what a digital vision is. How do I drive change in organization? How do I truly identify the areas of change and then propagate it to other areas too? So all of these things have come together for one person, right? But for every one good leader, you have a significant number of leaders who have misunderstood what this digital is, and hence continue to do the same thing that Jeanie speaks about. I think from the supplier side, from the education side, I would think it's just coming from the leaders and also needs to be from the bottom up as well. If there is any transformation to take place, there has to be efforts or the desire to change from both top and bottom. So in order to make or facilitate that, I think having the right kind of education and giving the right kind of background to all concerned in any organization is important. Yeah, I look at the CIO trap in terms of, let's compare IT to HR and finance. And I think that that will help us understand statements like, but the CIO is going to go away. I don't think the CFO is going to go away, but there is a very different relationship in my experience around the topic of money in large organizations. If I'm a line manager and I'm in a conversation with the CFO, in general as a line manager, I'm going to be financially literate and I'm going to be able to have a very point for point conversation with the chief financial officer. The trouble in IT is that when that same line manager goes to the chief information officer, there has been a power imbalance because the chief information officer deals with complexity and concerns that the line manager feels very unfamiliar with. And I think part of digital transformation is overcoming this power imbalance in part through the creation of digital natives and people who simply understand that actually creating a new digital system, well, yeah, there's some complexity there, but there are certain aspects that don't have to be spoken about in a technical way and yet need some professional understanding. But at the end of the day, the chief, the CIO cannot manage all of the information and computing any more than the CFO manages every last financial aspect in a large organization. It's more of a governance role. It's more of setting standards and guidance and guardrails and making sure that bad things don't happen. But at the end of the day, the organizational units need to have independence of their information strategies just as much as they needed for what they choose to, how they're going to manage their PNL and what their staffing strategy is going to be and so forth to bring in the HR side. A couple of times in the presentations earlier today, we heard that, say a little bit more about what you mean, is being working at the edge the same for, say, an Amazon or a shell? To give you more liberty, you need to change how you manage your team. You cannot do the same that you did before if you wanted to implement some digital transformation. You need to draw in part of this team, must be in place, not just in a speech, because you have, normally in a large company, you have a large office speech about this, but sometimes you don't have this or where you're already implemented in your day. So you need to do that. But you need to change the culture of this level too because it's a very good point about the CFO. You need to work with your CFO, CIO to try to sell a digital transformation project and to help them to give this information to the company and to empower your analysis, your operational forces to follow you. Without a leadership in this situation, you'll not be possible to change in a digital transformation. So I think one of the part of the question was, is the edge that's the definition different from an Amazon to a shell? Yes. The concept of an edge might be the same. What goes within that unit of the edge would obviously be different company to company. And the idea of empowerment obviously also changes according to that. But it's definitely markedly different from how we did business before. A key part of empowerment is one, clearly understand what's the framework they operate in. Not a restrictive framework like ARBs and so on and so forth. Essentially come and say, you are responsible for working or you are responsible for delivering a product that supports this particular market segment. Could be, for example, could be Amazon's Prime that focuses predominantly on, let's say, okay, the Amazon Delovers. That's a group that delivers and drives the coordination between groceries and delivering it at home. So obviously it's very dynamic. It changes on a day-to-day basis. So the team that delivers a product has to work very closely with the guys who manage the supply chain, look at the whole picture, and the guys who are coordinating constantly with the local grocers and so on and so forth. So they can dynamically deliver certain, could be promotions, could be change in market conditions, could be routing, could be using a freelancer to deliver products versus their own supply chain or truck person. All of these things are pretty dynamic. So the edge team should be able to deliver or change their platform appropriately. At the end of the day, they still have to meet the requirement of I am supposed to ensure that the customer gets the product, the groceries in the appropriate time. They're supposed to get it in a manner where they are not really pissed off and call Amazon again and again. So there are certain framework components that they can have to deliver. At the end of the day, they should have the ability to go ahead and use the information they have, change the platform appropriately and meet the customer expectations. That's the nature of freedom I see in the Edge organizations. Yeah, I really don't know exactly details, so I think I'll pass. Empowering the Edge, I mean there's a couple different aspects to it, but I think it really speaks to the need or the recognition that the people who are most familiar with the problem are the people who are dealing with it every day. And this is an insight that was pioneered at Toyota, for example. It's essential to lean philosophy and lean thinking. More recently, there's been some interesting influx of observations from military doctrine and military theory. One of my favorite authors is Don Rynanson, who actually is ex Marine Corps and now is focusing on product development. He's one of the leading theorists of product development. He points out in one of his books that the Hollywood caricature of the military is completely commanding control is actually not true, at least in the Marine Corps, where there's an emphasis on initiative and team autonomy while maintaining alignment to overall commander's intent, mission intent, and actually orders are considered incomplete without a statement of what the overall objective is, rather than dwelling on the specific tasks that might be planned out, because as we all know, no battle plan survives contact with the enemy. So I think that there is a lot of discussion in Agile and DevOps and lean circles on this topic in particular, and given the fluidity of the current economic and technological environment, I think it's one of the overriding factors that leads me to think that, you know, no, AI is not going to automate away a lot of these jobs right now just because the reality is moving far too quickly, and it's going to lead to increasing intention to human-machine partnership, rather than just assuming that we can automate stuff away because it's simple and routinely understood. That's actually a very good way to be. The one who put me aware of this was that a big challenge in gas industry is how you actually empower some of the control operators to do things like move IP around different systems and actually take your, how you make bread or whatever that is. So, you know, while, yeah, you know, not every organization is digital, right? You don't deliver digital product and services to your primary interfaces in digital. That's probably not true for some of your primary interfaces, some sort of a valve and a pipe, right? But still, the need to actually give tools to the teams at the edge has a lot of similarities between what we're seeing in the purely digital world and even in something as far away from that as the operational world. Yes, I can talk about one thing that I think is interesting. I think it's very funny when you look into Amazon with another company, Apple, and you just try to get the inspiration that you are going to change in our company. But in my opinion, this is different if you try to cop. It's not just a cop and patch process that you can do in your company. I had an example that I was discussing in Brazil one time ago. If you have some problem, if you are spot-fied and for some reason it's not possible for you to earn music, no problem for you. But I work in a bank. Ah, I just... I lost the transaction, okay? I have a transaction for you, but it's happening, it's normal. Okay, it's no problem. So the environment must be related with your business. I'm not saying that it's not possible to implement this in a banking. No, no, you must implement this in a banking. But you need to see your business strategy, your business, and not just to get experience from another company for all the industry and try to do the same things in your company. It's only the experience that you had in your bank. I have a couple of questions that are more on opening the process so if you don't mind I'll field those. People are asking about how will this influence other opening standards like TOGAP and do we see it influencing standards outside the... DPWG is explicitly set up as a working group for the opening so we can in fact get people in from these other groups and connect the dots. There's a very explicit section, for example, where architecture... So the answer to that question is it will influence this. More time, it's probably going to be a two-way street. Right now it's kind of inbound. It may turn out to be. As to outside the organization, absolutely yes on that as well. That's a longer road. We do think of it, it's called the DPWG very deliberately to think of it for us to start thinking of it as something like, you know, PMBOT or SWEBOT or something like that. And that will, we hope, over time start to influence broader swaths of the industry. And we've got a number of guests here today from other standards organizations specifically to do that kind of coordination to raise awareness of what we're doing at all parts of the opening group to make sure that we keep all these things aligned. So back to audience questions. So it's the... And it's, I think, something you started at Venkat. The power and simplicity of smartphones, driving and cultural expectations that enterprise systems should be similarly powerful, interoperable and simple to use. And is this something that the DPBOT team should investigate the cultural impact of all these smart devices? I think we are, definitely have a section that talks about cultural impact and so I think there's nothing that precludes from specifically looking at a major social trend like the impact of social, I mean, smart phones, right? So in about three, four, five years, my son will probably come to college and then five years from there, he's probably going to be in the workforce. And so he's going to be a lot more... He's going to be part of the most productive, you know, workforce that's going to be there at that point in time. Usually the first 10 years of life is where you do a lot of the trench work and you're kind of delivering value. So from that perspective, I think there's nothing that precludes the DPBOT from looking at a particular cultural trend and understanding what's the impact of it. So that's the first part of the answer. So there's nothing, you know, I think we definitely can if that's an area of interest. The second thing I think you asked is the power and simplicity of the smart phone, right? At the end of the day, if you go back to Steve Jobs, the guy who kind of popularized the idea of an iPod, a small device, again, it translates to something very simple, its experiences. The reason why you are able to love the iPod and kind of develop that kind of passionate liking for it, sometimes irrational liking for certain devices is because of the kind of experiences it provides you. So if you are an owner of a business application enterprise system, then if you replicate better experiences for your users, you can still develop that kind of passionate liking to use the system, right? So that's, so the simple answer is yes. There's going to be difficulties or complexities associated with implementing those things because a number of people are larger. It's just not personal. It's organizational, corporate, you know, regulations and so on and so forth. But the fundamental premise is if you can replicate experiences for every person participating in a process, but guys expect to deliver kind of value, I think it's durability and its use is going to be that much more better. First I'm going to start with the Venkat perspective. Do you see any skills gaps in the people you're bringing in that you recruit for your digital projects? Is there any key skills that you wish they had? And so the second part of that question which I'll direct to Charlie and Dr. Misry is from an academic perspective, you get feedback from your graduates that are entering the workforce about, gee, I wish I knew X or I wish you trained me in X, what do you hear there? So let's start out with the customer perspective, always the driver for the rest of us? I really think that this is the key point to implement a digital transformation. It is, I'm not saying difficult, it's quite impossible to work and to find a lot of people with the skills that you need for a digital transformation. And normally the company says, no, no, I don't have the skills here, so are you hiding new people? But a new people for you, it's all the people in the another company. No, no, no. So are you hiring only millennials? That everything is going to be okay? No, you need all of them. You need millennials. You need some consulting people. You need your own people to work in digital development. Any work with skills like this, it's very, very difficult. And in our digital transformation journey, you have specific tasks to develop these people inside the company, because it's not possible to hire everybody you need completely. You need to train, you need to promote new participation of other groups. Open groups, it doesn't matter the way, but it really is very difficult for you to complete your team, you have the correct skills in digital transformation and you want to change the culture and the visual of your company. So I hired two kinds of resources today. In fact, I used exclusively only hire from my advisory practices, enterprise architects who are pretty experienced. But ever since I think Dave Hornford came maybe in a conference or before that, Konexium presented on if you want to grow your EA practice hire a millennial, something to the defect. So what I have seen after I started bringing in some millennials into my organization to kind of get their viewpoint and then grow them into the next generation EAs that would advise my customers. Actually, as I looked at both the resources that I end up hiring, I actually find that the biggest skill gap, actually I find is not obviously modeling and programming skills. Those things can definitely be thought. The enterprise architects were experienced. They have the higher, their ability to adapt to this world. The changing digital world is actually far less than the ability for the millennials to actually absorb. And again, it might be a little bit of a hard statement, I've been hiring over the last 12 months in this new mixed format, if you will, and the failures, if you say, as a resource in terms of delivering the value after appropriate coaching has been on the EAs side and the experienced enterprise architect side. The millennials have their own challenges and that everything is super free. The idea of structure is a little bit difficult, but the value they bring in in terms of understanding the culture, understanding what it means to relate to the market today is phenomenal. And obviously, the moment you establish a credibility as a valid mentor, they learn things very fast. There's no question about it. So if you ask for a skill gap, I think if you're an experienced EA and you feel that you can do more and some of this kind of a challenge in terms of meeting, I can do more versus I'm not being asked to do more, it's a good idea to go back and look, am I adaptable? Am I understanding what's going on in the market and am I reflecting that market change and then marrying my experience to that and delivering a higher quality of value than I did before? Millennials, to me, they can train fast. They bring in a very valid social impact and kind of a perspective that is phenomenal. Yeah, I think that's a very relevant question. Actually, we need to keep our education relevant to be useful in the profession and in order to do that, we constantly survey our graduating students, students who have worked for several years. We also consult with our advisory board. We are constantly trying to see what is it that we may be missing or what is it not there. And we do get a lot of feedbacks and in spite of our best effort to make the best professional education possible, we do get lots of things and we do correct ourselves. And instead of going into specific, I think, I'm just trying to say we are conscientious about it and we always try to correct ourselves. We do incorporate change based on the feedbacks. Charlie, I see our lights are flashing here. Sure. This is not an easy question or an easy problem. So just in brief, I mean, there's a long discussion about education about vocational versus core principles. And it's a discussion that will never go away because this year it's going to be React and next year it's going to be Angular. Last year it was, you know, Vagrant. This year it's Kubernetes. And all of this stuff just continually keeps turning over. But there are certain principles where education, I think, did fall behind a bit. And certain principles that I have no trouble saying, we need to base ourselves on things like infrastructure as code, continuous delivery, the importance of the team experience and product development. These, I think, are longer cycle dynamics or longer cycle principles that we can indeed, you know, stake our education on. But it's not easy identifying them given how quickly, you know, the ephemera of technology seems to be coming and going all the time. So it just takes ongoing attention and work and thought and discussion such as we're having in the DP box. Big round of applause there. Apologies for...