 Welcome everyone to Transformation Talk. I'm Tairo Hassan, the director of Brightline at PMI. Our Transformation Talk today will be about open strategy and resiliency. I would like to welcome Christian Stadler in the conversational Transformation Talk. Christian is a professor of strategic management at Warwick Business School. His award-winning book, Open Strategy, Mastering Disruption from Outside the Swiss Woods, helps to adjust to a new and more open world. In 2021, Finker 50 shortlisted Christian for the Strategy Award. Welcome, Christian. It's my pleasure, Tairo. Let us start. And Christian, of course, we talk about the first thing that came to me was, why strategy? What drove you toward the strategy as a topic? Wow. I don't know. I need to go back a fair bit. Right after I finished high school, I did one year in the army and I became an officer in the reserve army in Austria. So I guess that might have been the early days. Or maybe even earlier, I enjoyed the chess a lot when I was young and many people associate that with strategy. But it's super cool. I mean, you have to admit, how else can you engage your mind as much as thinking about the big questions what an organization can do? It just gets you up in the morning. Wonderful. Wonderful. And then, of course, we say strategy is one way of at least calving or shaping the future for organizations. And we know implementing or implementation of a strategy would be something that is key. Now, I mean, I know, I mean, I've met you and when we were at the Drucker Forum last year in Vienna, and I saw also the book Open Strategies that you released. The first question that people ponder or ask themselves, what is open strategy? It's actually pretty straightforward, yeah. So usually, strategy is made by a relatively small group of very senior people. They sit together in the boardroom and they think about what should the organization do. The proposition I make in my courses make is we need to open the much larger group of people. And when I first heard that, actually, I wasn't a bit reluctant myself. It's my courses. They met a couple of years ago, a few more years ago, in Munich, and they talked about this topic and said, let's get Christian into this. He has been involved in writing some books, et cetera. And when they first approached me, I thought, really, I mean, strategy is, as we all think, something for the top leadership. But I was intrigued enough to actually participate in looking into the topic. And as I engaged in it, I noticed over time, wow, this stuff is powerful. It helps you with two of the most fundamental problems that we have in strategy. The first one is, where do we get fresh ideas? And by reaching beyond the usual cohort of people, we're more likely to get fresh ideas. Open innovation people know that for a long time. The second big problem, which I think is a topic very dear to your heart, is the execution side. A variety of surveys show that usually strategy goes wrong during execution. And by involving people, they buy in automatically. They also know what it means for them if they get engaged in the strategy making process and how they need to translate that. Hence, it's for execution. So from an original skeptic, I guess, turned into a profit. Interesting. And then, of course, we talk about moving from idea to reality. So the concept of open strategy, how did it evolve from that idea to having more organization using it in practice? Okay. So one of the courses, actually, is the management director of a small German consulting company. They're called Innovative Management Partners. And they have worked and helped companies for many years to open up their strategy. They have done over 200 projects that helped organizations. Now, we, as we started to work on our book, we reached out beyond that. We searched for companies who have done this thing. We found very extreme examples. Who would have thought that the CIA previously opened up some of their strategy making processes? Who would expect the Navy to do this? We found large companies. We found small companies who do it. We found people who do it using more digital tools. We found others who use more of a workshop type model to do it. But it's actually, it's further spread than maybe I initially thought. Around a third of all strategic initiatives are open to some extent, at least that's according to a survey that we did. That's decent. And what's more, about 50% of the revenues and profits that organizations make come from this one third of initiative. So not only is it actually a bit more common than we thought, it also does make a real difference in the bottom line. Thank you. And now, of course, as we talk about strategies, sometimes people will say, if it is not broken also, don't fix it. Right? So maybe if we look at the traditional way that people implement strategy or develop strategy, what were the shortcomings that you were seeing there for traditional, what are called transitional, quote unquote, strategy development? Yeah. So, you know, first thing, we invest a lot in strategy. I think just on consultants, the companies spend about 30 billion a year. Nonetheless, a lot of this stuff goes wrong. It depends on which server you look at. But somewhere between 50% and 90% of strategies don't deliver to the extent that we would hope them to deliver. Now, you know, there's not the right balance between the sort of money we put into this and what we get out. I stress in the beginning already that I think the kind of core problem is this disconnect between those people who come up with an idea and those who have to introduce these ideas, where design and execution is separated. And if that's the case, you know, I know I'm preaching the choir here when I talk to you. But when you have that disconnect, it's not surprising. You know, one of the sort of favorite things I came across was an initiative in Barclays, where Ashok Vasvani became the leader of the retail business for Barclays in 2012, it was. And, you know, I had a conversation with him where he said, you know, Christian strategy in the end is fairly simple. We want to know where I'm at the moment. I want to know where I want to go. And I want to know how I can go there. And people at every level of the organization have answers to that. Now, why not involve them? You know, it seems to be so obvious. He did that in a massive, massive initiative, where they set up a strategy jam, think of it a little bit like an online conference type setting involving all 30,000 people in Barclays and results were phenomenal for them. They they kind of saw this real link that we were hoping to get between the big ideas. We're sure, you know, this is going to come. But what does it mean for me? Somebody threw up this question in the mortgage group. Dominos Pizza can tell you when you order pizza, when the pizza gets some ingredients on, when you put the pizza in your oven, when the pizza comes out of the oven, when the pizza is on the way to your way in the mortgage department, we can only tell you we got your mortgage application. And in the end, we either, you know, thumbs up, you get a mortgage under whatever conditions or thumbs down, you don't get a mortgage, but nothing in between. Just no longer and think, yeah, and actually digitalization offers methods to do that. When you look at the results of this initiative here, where I talked to a variety of executives there, they were saying the vibrance you got around the strategy topic inside Barclays retail, it was unmatched. You know, they've never had that before. And, you know, just the other day, I was actually sharing this example in my executive MBA class, and somebody put up the hand and said, yeah, I worked for Barclays at that time, and it was amazing what happened. They introduced the first mobile app shortly after the jam, you know, almost overnight got a million users. Today, nine million users makes it one of the most successful FinTech apps in the United Kingdom. Return on equity went up in a really pretty tough market environment, so it pays off. And, you know, it seems so logical. Why not engage the brain of everyone in the organization? Interesting. Now, this is great. And I know, you know, in 2017, we did release what we call Brightline Guiding Principle. And one of the things that you were saying, the first principle, strategy delivery is as important as strategy design. So it's not just the thinking, but actually making sure that that thinking, that idea becomes reality. Let's hear from Atenezia. Let's have a first poll, because you will explain what is an open strategy. Let's see how organization might be receiving or receptive to open strategy concept. So we're looking forward to hear from you. How receptive do you feel your organization would be to the idea of open strategy? Wonderful. So this is what we get here. So about, I would say, 83% say that your organization will either be receptive or somewhat receptive. And then we have... So now we have to admit, you know, as a professor, I see that we, of course, have a biased sample here. We prompted them beforehand. I was advertising the concept so much that everyone, you know, almost was afraid, I think, to say no. I mean, people are straight here, as we say, straight talk. And of course, I was looking at the onset here. We said where we were talking about the data. And the data, I mean, from one of the surveys that you had, was saying after 200 corporate leaders were surveyed, they were saying like, although 30% of the effort used open strategy methodology, those same initiative nevertheless produced 50% of the revenues and profits. Can you share us more on that one? Can you share more? Yeah, maybe we also had a separate survey that we did, where we looked a bit more into the benefits as well of open strategy we've touched upon this earlier. I already mentioned that I think it's primarily sort of execution and new ideas. The survey gave us some confidence in that direction as well. We had, of those surveys, 70% said that opening up increased the commitment to the strategic initiative. And it's not surprising, you know, if people have a voice, then they feel more likely that they should be supportive. And 69% of those surveyed said that they get more and even more importantly, more diverse ideas by opening up the strategy. So, you know, points in the same direction. And I'd say, you know, if anything, people are even more abrasive and sort of positive about the power of openness. Some of it might have to do with this digital technologies enabled to do that. And many of us became just much more comfortable in the digital world during the pandemic, where we had no choice other than use all this stuff. So that might help. I wonder maybe at the moment, there's a lot of sort of unprecedented challenges where I think many leaders wonder, wow, what do I do? You know, I have inflation that is changing things substantially. I have a massive disruption to supply chain that I need to deal with. I have problems to find enough people to work for me. And then there's the still sort of, you know, big topics that previously organizations were already starting to think about, like climate change. So, you know, with all of those things, not really really having many examples of how to deal with them, it's maybe natural that we are looking for more advice and maybe from advice from corners where we didn't look before. Yeah, great. And of course, it's just a simple survey that we just ran about 61% or so. We're saying the organization would be somewhat open. And 17% were saying the organization would not be open. And not saying this is a scientific poll, but to the people, it could be somewhat receptive or not receptive at all. How can the organization prepare themselves to take an endeavor such as open strategy? I'm looking more like a couple of points about this. The first one is if the leadership is not into it, don't waste your time. You know, it's really it's not going to work without the leadership. Because in the end, open strategy is not a suggestion to turn a company into a democracy. It is a way for leaders to engage a wider group of people, but they still call the final shot. So if they don't really buy into it, it's not going to work. I know one example from a German engineering company where the leadership was sort of somewhere, well, you know, we can give it a shot, but really, I don't know, it's a cool tool. So let's let's try it. Yeah. And then when you look sort of one layer down, there was more or less a split between those who thought that the ideas that came out from a process of that kind were good in the other half or not. It was basically a push into more servidization and a lot of the core guys were engineers who didn't quite feel comfortable with that. And because there was never food buying to this, this didn't go anywhere. So in other words, don't start trying to do this if the leadership is not into it. We can talk a little bit later afterwards how you might get people on board, if not. That's the first thing. The second thing is don't take your core strategy and straight away open up everything around this core strategy. My suggestion would be to take maybe one of the project initiatives or a smaller business where you see some promise, which maybe you can expect some disruption and see how it works. Dr. Utka, that I get it out, a German company that is big in food production, they've tried it out first in the cereal business, which is one of their smaller businesses. They really liked how it worked. They got familiar also how to do that. And then in the next step, they opened up the pizza business, which is their biggest business, frozen pizza. So experiment a little bit. That would be my core points here. Only do if you're really into it and experiment in an area where you don't kind of straight on go into the big, big territory. Wonderful. So I'm here in leadership first, so getting them to own it and to lead it. And then of course, don't take the core strategy out right away. Take a small piece and then maybe open that one and then see how you progress. I have a question here coming from Richard Diller. And I want to remind attendees that you can continue to ask questions or engage in the chat here. And Richard is asking, how does open strategy differ from open book management or the great game, the great game of business by Jack Stack or Hoshin, Cameron, I hope I'm spelling it right, where you play catchball between senior leaders, senior leaders are setting the strategy and everyone else get the strategy in terms of the negotiations of the means and so on. So he gave two or three other references. What difference do you see with open strategy? But in general terms, open strategy for me is almost a philosophy that you do strategy making in a different way. And then there's many, many different techniques. And it's possible that the ones that he mentions would be some of those techniques that helped the organization to open up. I have some of those tools and techniques that I've come across and then shared with people. But that by no means that this is an exhaustive list. And in fact, this reminds me, Julia is one of the people I worked with here. And I had previously talked about creating a web page where we collect all the different tools and give people an opportunity to share as well. So I think I picked that idea up again, because there's certainly more out there than I would have been able to collect during the work that we've done. Excellent. And then, you know, when we talk about it also, people are looking for examples. And I remember starting reading the book, I think it was the opening by Gary Hamel or so, or were they a reference to Nokia in the days, what Nokia did and opened the strategy and so on. And that was what propelled Nokia to where they were. And then later on, maybe they didn't follow that. Could you share maybe two examples of companies and you can take different industry, two examples of companies that have used it? And what did they do that helped them? Okay, okay. Let me start with a slightly unusual story. So a few years back, there was a little online competition available for people, which invited them to contribute ideas that helps to capture the migration of Bison. So, you know, the idea seemed to be here that people go into national parks throughout the year and they take tons of pictures, they post them online. And these pictures that are posted, they have some sort of geodata there as well. If there's an algorithm that somebody develops that helps us to track that, we could better track the migration of Bison and then could potentially, you know, think about how to do a work on conservation. Now, we talked to the organizer of this particular initiative and he shared with us that it was a major success. They got a algorithm that was super efficient in a much shorter time that usually things are developed and much cheaper. It was, however, for a very different purpose than the one that they advertised. It was once set up by the intelligence community in the United States in order to find an algorithm that helps them from various online sources to track Russian troop movements in Crimea back in 2014. So, you know, this example shows us also how we can reach out to communities without sharing too much information. And then, you know, still getting solutions to very kind of tricky issues that otherwise we might have not found, we certainly would have spent more money on. But even in this particular case, it was important to dress it up as a different type of request because otherwise you can easily imagine that there would be operators from the Russian side who would maybe, you know, provide algorithms that look like they work, but they don't quite work, or if they know exactly how an algorithm works that they could adjust their strategic moves accordingly. So, it's sort of, you know, an unusual example that shows us that we can even open up in various sort of, you know, tricky situations. Another nice example is maybe I can share that and give you a sense of one of the tools that I like a lot with that second example. So, the second example is from a company called Gallos in Germany. And that's a company that produces printing equipment, so printing machines. And they conducted a nightmare competitor exercise. The way this works is that you bring people together in a three-day workshop, roughly sort of 50 to 60 people tends to be a good number, minimum I would say sort of 35 fish. Half of the people who participate in these workshops are inside the organization, and half of the people who participate in these workshops are from outside the organization. You then create mixed teams, and these mixed teams develop a business idea about a non-existent sort of imaginary company which would be presenting a massive nightmare for you. You know, they kind of would kill your business if they would actually exist. You then, you know, have people present the initial idea. You have around the voting where you vote out the less popular ideas. You form new teams where the losers join the winners, and then they work on developing a more detailed business model using this approach. In this case, you know, they came up with a nightmare competitor idea around a printing business model that was much more platform based than they've ever thought of before. I mean, they haven't done that at all themselves, and then initiate in them, you know, a start in working actually into this direction. This was supposed to go live actually during the pandemic, but then the pandemic sort of slowed it down, and I think this is something that is coming up shortly that they go live with this idea. So, you know, you drive out ideas that you wouldn't usually have bringing outsiders into this conversation in a, you know, set up that is very gamified. Wonderful. And thank you. Let us bring back the attendees again, because of course, when we talk about open strategy, we also say that we need to get the entire organization involved and we need to involve internal, external, and there are questions regarding what we should do. So, let Rohit bring us the second poll question just to hear what people think, because in terms of openness, is it internal? Is it external? The vast majority actually are saying both, so getting the external and the external and internal involvement and only limited people are saying just the external here. Any reaction to these numbers? Oh, here we have it. Oh, interesting. So, only external is small, fair number of internals, a lot of them both. So, I would say it depends on the particular issue or problem that you want to tackle, what makes sense. One way I like to think about it is also sort of boxes. Boxes in the sense, there's one strategy box that deals with the development of ideas. There's one box that deals with formulating and fine tuning strategy, and then there's one box that deals more with the introduction of these ideas to a wider audience, sort of the execution side. And depending on which one of these boxes are, you might have slightly different compositions. Now, if you look about the new idea generation, you would probably want to have a sizable outside community involved in this. The experience from IMP has been that in workshop type settings, like the one that I described is the nightmare competitor, you have to have a minimum of 50% of external participants. The reason is the externals are drowned out very easily in these conversations. We all know this, yeah? Okay, great idea, but doesn't work here. It's different for us. So, you need outside voices and you need enough of them and you need strong voices to overcome that. So, that's for the idea generation, yeah? For the formulation part of a strategy, you might have, it's like a smaller group of internal externals involved, because that's when you need to fine tune things in a way that it really works with all the processes, the culture, etc., in mind of how things are done in the organization. So, if you don't have enough adjustments to the organization, then that won't work, yeah? And in the final stage, when you open up primarily to get traction for your ideas, then you only need those externals who would need to be on board in order to make things happen. So, if you have a business that depends on a wider ecosystem, if you have business partners, then you would involve those business partners. IDM did one of those very, very big exercises a long time ago, actually, which involved 160,000 people and that also involved, I think it was 60 partner organizations. The reason was they initiated the whole process primarily because they realized there's a lot of cool ideas in IDM, but often there are duplications. They're all over the world. And for IDM to make a difference with something, you need to create bigger business units who work on the same thing. And you often need to create units that involve partnerships with outsiders as well. So, for that, that's clearly focused on bringing together things that exist already rather than coming up with something entirely new. It was important that you have those partners involved, but you wouldn't need externals involved in this process who have nothing to do with the business. Thank you. And then two years ago, actually, we released what we called the Brightland Transformation Compass. And one of the block in the Brightland Transformation Compass was about getting insight from customers and also the mega trends, meaning that it's not insulated. You're looking at what the customers are looking for. You're looking at also the mega trends and so on. And I want to dive deep into the part regarding the competitions, because when you're looking at mega trends, sometimes you're looking at including the competition. And you mentioned that in the book, regarding the importance of including competitors in your strategic deliberation. Can you expand a little bit more on that? I know you were saying maybe take a competitor and so how do you try to have the eyes of the perspective of your competitors as you're doing that deliberation? So, I don't want to overpush that point either. Obviously, some barriers we need to build with competitors and we can't just open our books and say, let's work on this together. But we are in a very complex world where, first of all, some companies which we compete with in some areas actually cooperate with us in other areas. So, in those areas where we cooperate, it makes sense that we open to that extent that it's necessary to involve them. The second thing with opening up to your competitor could be if we do it in a style like we have seen it earlier from my example from the intelligence communities, where others can be involved without knowing what exactly will happen with that information. That was a bit extreme, but the Navy actually has been more deliberate about opening up to quite wide community, asking them about what they think would be big trends that affect the Navy. And I'm sure that some smart operators from other countries would have had the option to contribute to this as well. The Navy even shared afterwards what the main trends were that they found, but what they did not share is what they did with this information. So, you open up but you don't necessarily tell them what exactly you do. The third consideration is here that if you invite some of your competitors to participate in one of those processes, through that process itself, you're already ahead of your competitors and you start implementing your ideas at the time when they start to know what you do. Now, they would probably very soon after realize that anyway, because you go to the market with something, but you will be in the market before somebody else's and speed has become a very crucial component of success in many market spaces. So, having that advantage of being first is one that your competitors cannot really make up anyway. So, there is room to maneuver to involve some competitors without going crazy and just saying, let's join all in a board meeting and you can hear what exactly we're up to. I would not go that far. Excellent. And we have a question from who on Miguel Robles. And I mean, he has actually two questions. The first one goes back to the foundation. So, maybe you'll help us in an MBA 101. Today, there's a lot of confusion regarding what strategy means. So, he's asking really, what is your definition of strategy? And then linking to, in your experience, how an open strategy is implemented when teams was open. So, you have a team that is open, but the area or the department aren't open. Yeah. Okay. So, I'm going to say something which is at first sound even a bit contradictory. In essence, strategy is about making choices of what you can do and what you should be doing. There's an excellent new book by Dick Romel, which is called The Cracks. And he has these two parameters that he looks at. How important is a particular issue that you face as an organization? And how addressable is this particular issue? So, you know, you should focus on those which are very important, but also addressable. If we just think about, wow, fantastic opportunity, but we actually do not have the resources to address them via La La Land. So, you know, forget about this. Likewise, if we have all the right resources, but we go after something that really doesn't matter, then, you know, waste your resources on the wrong initiatives. So, you know, try on the top line to find those cracks or these cracks, these sort of fixing. Now, and where I contradict myself slightly, I also think that strategy in the end is made up of hundreds, sometimes thousand small decisions in an organization. Yeah, so, yes, there's this one big headline, but really materializes through many small initiatives. And, you know, they're not all going to be lovely and perfectly aligned, but they should work in some sort of similar trajectory. And that's sort of again, where, you know, we come back to my earlier point, when you open up, people understand what that big trajectory is likely to be, and they're more likely to work in that same direction. We do want a bit of dissonance in an organization. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it shouldn't go as far as being chaotic. Great. And when you were saying many decisions, I was thinking again of a guiding principle, because one of the guiding principles about the six is about be bold and then move quick and so on, because sometimes in terms of decisions, people are afraid to decide. People feel like, okay, we can postpone, we can wait. And I mean, often we say, if you don't decide, actually, you decided. You made the decision to decide. And when you make that, then you cannot move. So great to see that actually, it's not just one, there are many decisions and then all of them actually help move toward the implementation and the direction that the organization wants to go in. Let me bring another one here. And this question is about the frontline. Because you were saying, in any case, it used to be maybe the realm of the remit of executives. And we're saying at the end, you need the whole organization for the implementation. So what I want to hear from you here, and this is more tactical, what are some of the tactics that you can use to engage frontline employees in the overall strategy development process? And how does that work? Okay, so one way is that you do it targeted, yeah? That you don't involve everyone, but you deliberately pick out some people from the frontline and bring them into this conversation. I shared earlier the Barclays example, but I only talked about the second stage where they had the big platform engagement. There was an earlier stage where they had workgroups. And some of those workgroups were people who recently joined Barclays. The idea was that those who recently joined, their thinking was not tainted by the way things are done in Barclays. They had a fresh mind on things. So really, in pretty general roles, they just came out of uni and you bring them in. It's a sort of selective group of frontline employees who are helpful. So that's one way. And the other one is primary then, yes, through digital tools, who involve very large groups of people. Telefonica does that really well. They have this online platform that it grew over time. Yeah, where it sort of just first started in preparation for their annual leadership gathering. They allowed some people to engage in a discussion forum. Then, you know, this works really well. Then they made it possible during the leadership forum for people who come in as well. And it's now a permanent feature where there's thousands of people discussing all sorts of things. And not everything will be just strictly about the big strategic ideas, but it does engage people around those topics. Now, it works for two reasons. Number one, you need to have somebody who moderates and looks after this. So if people start to talk just about lunch or football on this platform, then they need a reminder that maybe that's not the right forum to do that, even though very important topics, but maybe not for the forum. The second thing is the leadership regularly engages on this platform as well. So it gives that extra spark where you can think particularly with large organizations, people don't often have the opportunity to directly engage with the CEOs. So it's a cool thing. You want to say something. If then the CEO picks it up and responds to this, it makes you there. You go home and you tell your wife or your husband and they'll say, well done. The big shots are listening to you. So that is an important ingredient also to make this work. Excellent. This is really awesome here. Let us move to one piece because we were talking. Now here, I might mention by the way, I'm quite happy we are keeping the numbers fairly stable. We're not boring them too much. They're not dropping off in big numbers. So that's a very good one. So you just say that you want them to stay until the end, which is good. Absolutely. Let's move on to the next one because we talk about resiliency. Because when we mention open strategy and resiliency, I want you to help us connect the two. How does open strategy helps in ensuring organizational resilience? Well, you know, think of why are we often not resilient? We're not resilient because, well, we do it because we're told to. But in the end, do we fully buy it? I don't know. Do we fully understand what it's like? I don't know. But even if difficulties come, if pressures mount and we are fully on board, we will stand up. And we also know sometimes who else we can ask to bring into this conversation. Let me give you a nice example as well that sort of highlights a difficult context to introduce something where I think the whole process that was introduced and opened up made it possible to achieve the success that was achieved. So this is actually about deforestation in Borneo. And when you kind of go after such a topic as a Western NGO, often it would be experts who have an idea to introduce it to the local community and then hope it works. But, you know, that surprise, surprise doesn't work quite as well as it should often. So there was an American lady in the U.S. Web who decided to do this in a very different way. And she started her whole initiative attempt to save the rainforest by engaging the locals. She did something that she referred to as radical listening where she and the others in her NGO talked to 400 people in one particular area where there was a lot of illegal logging. And they asked them, so you are the guardians of this rainforest. What do you need from the world community in order to make it possible to stay as this guardian of the rainforest? And it turned out, people cut down trees because they couldn't afford medical care. You know, if you had a big medical incident in your family, the only option for you was cut down trees because there's no other way to get big amounts of money in the short term. So they set up then this NGO, a medical practice where people from communities where there was no illegal logging taking place got a 70% discount on treatments. On top of that, they were able to pay in kind. So, you know, they had an organic farming project. They started as well there and people could come and bring manure and, you know, pay that way for their medical treatment. The illegal logging in that area went down by 68%. So, you know, a dramatic success, which was possible because the solution was developed that was resilient to, you know, the sort of pressures that would really, you know, even though if in principle, you don't want to cut down the forest, you will be forced to because your family needs to survive. Here you have a solution that can help you with that. Thank you. Thank you, Christian. And then we have another question from Teddy, Teddy and Gu. And his question was, can you talk about the difference between resilience and risk management? I don't know. I might have to press you there. You're more of an expert on this than myself, the hero. I guess risk management, I would see it as more technical and often more associated with what is done in the sort of financial industries where you look at sort of, you know, risk management practices as far as any sort of outlying financial events are concerned. Whereas resilience, I see as a more organizational concept, we prepared for all sorts of unusual crisis to be persistent when these things change. How does that resonate with you? Yeah, I'll go along that. Sometimes resilience is also the result of risk management, because as you're managing risk and looking at what is happening in the ecosystem and you're handling what could be, what could not, and you're taking the action to be stronger than you are actually building a resilient organization. And I often say actually when we think about resiliency, Christian, I say it has to be deliberate. So it just doesn't happen. They need to be the first part where it is more about strategizing. So we're talking about open strategy, but form of strategy, but it need to be intentional. The second one, I say, of course, there is some time need to reimagine the organization. And that's sometime part of risk management where you see what is happening. You see what the world is telling you outside, and you don't just rest and say, let me accept what is coming, otherwise you're dead maybe. But if you actually want to actually survive and you want to thrive and you want to maybe achieve a business objectives, you may have to transform yourself. And as part of all this, you mentioned it, people, people, people. So what type of culture you need to have that resiliency? What type of leadership you need? What type of people with the organization that you need to make sure that it's happened? And last but not least, in the face of crisis as well, how do you handle crisis? How do you make sure that the next crisis or the current crisis does not take you out? And in that perspective, actually, I want to bring you maybe one of our last questions here is, how has the crisis and it's been a challenge for many organizations? The one that we are just coming out of because it looked like we are going to another one, but how did the COVID crisis affect the notion of open strategy in organizations? I think I mentioned before that from a technical perspective, it made it easier for many companies to do it because we are more familiar with this tool. It did remind everyone that it's possible that things can change quite dramatically and we need answers sometimes to things that we've never thought about before, where we haven't prepared ourselves at all. And when we are in those situations, we'll reach out to wider crowds and that's where openness helps us. I'm close to the guys from this consulting firm in Germany that their business has picked up substantially. So companies as they wonder about these things seem to hire people who are experts in using those tools. So the market seems to recognize that there is a need for these kind of things. Wonderful. I think we had a great conversation here. So I want to thank you a lot for spending this time with us and sharing the insight when it comes to open strategy and the connection with resiliency and so on. So we really, really, really appreciate it. I'm looking at the chat here. If there are any questions, feel free to ask. I know I saw a comment here. Who was that? It was Guillaume van der Schuren who said that I'm so I just based in order for the book on Amazon. So it looks like a mission accomplishment. I made at least one sale. Look at this. For people here, connect on LinkedIn as well. Just type Christian Stadler LinkedIn. It's always nice to make new connections with people. I generally write a lot on whatever ideas I have coming up and this way you can stay connected. Exactly. Thank you. Thank you. And then, of course, thank you so much to all for joining us. I mean, we were just under the hour here and we look forward to having you with us in our next transformation talks. There'll be a few series coming till the end of the year. And then I want to mention also that in case you miss it, if my colleague Andrea can go to the next slide, in case you miss it, we would like to recommend that you take a look at our the CTO research. We released a CTO research last month. There is a slide coming up, I suspect. And you may want to take a look because we were looking at what CTOs do, what they should do, and how it's helping, having CTOs could help organization in the transformation endeavors. This was a research that we've done with Accenture. So we highly recommend that you take a look at the research and you see what it means for you because, again, the world isn't flux. The world isn't flux means exchanging. I mean, yesterday or actually we are even getting out of COVID and then there's no people talking about recessions and then there's the war also that is happening. So there are many, many moving pieces. So how do we bulletproof our organization? How do we get ready for the next thing, which is something quite, quite important. So thank you. We are really happy to have you here and we look forward to have you in the upcoming transformation talks. Thank you so much, Prisham. Yeah, my pleasure.