Ep. 24 - Innovation is a cosmetic word for making change happen

Need to be seen as the, as the trusted investor because that truly should be your intention and to create value because that's why you take the risk. But also that there's. It's still just another. Yeah, it's still some emotional intelligence is also needed, not just quantification into a deal structure. And that's also, I think, the, the difference in between sometimes good negotiation and bad negotiations. Right. So you can have an incredible deal with incredible value and the other party might walk away feeling complete. I wouldn't use the word rape because I don't know if I want to use that word, but feel manipulated. And you also don't want that feeling. Right. So it has to be fair conversation and a good negotiation for both parties to walk away that. It's like a marriage. Right. So we're in it to win it. We're not half pregnant. In depth interviews with the most influential innovation executives of the tech arena. Exclusive data and insights on major and emerging ecosystems all around the world. The hottest news on technology and open innovation at a global level. This and much more in every new episode. Welcome to Open Innovation Talks. Mind the bridge chat with industry leaders.

Our telcos are struggling with innovation. Our telcos are moving forward the innovation agenda Today we will discuss with kpm and specifically my guest today is Benji Cotti. It is the Chief Strategy and Development Officer at kpn. Welcome Benji.

Thank you Alberto. Good morning.

So first of all let's put things in order and first of all let's try to again people know whose KPN is but maybe a couple of words in sense who KPN is might be useful for our audience to understand what you guys are doing. But again beyond that I would like to know first of all organizationally speaking where innovation activities are placed. I know that are placed below you, you are chief Strategy Officer, which is the role of the chief Strategy officer I think is an interesting question. And then the next immediate question is what kind of innovation activities of the overall open innovation activity spectrums are run currently at kpn.

All right, so firstly let's start with kpn. So KPN stands for Koeniglikapus Network van Nederland which is one of the leading telcos in the Netherlands. It used to be a multi country telco, also government owned, now publicly listed, but only in the Netherlands. So we simplified our operations globally to focus on the Netherlands. Very proudly to say that we have won multiple awards as the leading telco in mobile networks. But also we are currently leading in the fiber rollout. Also in the Netherlands and fully aligned to our purpose to connect all of the Netherlands to a sustainable future. So everything is compounded within our esg and the current strategy which we launched late last year from 2024 to 2027 is Connect, Activate, grow and that's all about connecting with our customers, innovating our infrastructure, assets and people, and therefore growing with the Netherlands and society. So it's a great, great company. We have more than 10,000 FTE, not only Dutch, as you can hear, I'm international and South African and I'm very fortunate to work directly with the executives of KPM, in particular the CEO. So within the CEO's office we have the Strategy and Development office. And that office is split currently into several departments. One is with startup and liaisons. The mandate there is to align and to facilitate both the ecosystem within the Netherlands and beyond. That could be relevant for the telco industry, but also for our customers. That also goes beyond our own operations. So we're not completely inward focused and that is not only to facilitate the ecosystem but also to try and bring more inspirational entrepreneurial mindset thinking throughout the organization. Right. So and the second department is the Innovation partner and strategic partnerships within that team they work with a radar. So both within the industry, innovation radar and also beyond. So that we create a little bit more of a forward looking view. Some topics sometimes creates a bit of confusion within a big corporate like kpn, but that's good if you feel, if you see people a little bit uncomfortable with the topic, you know that you're doing the right thing. Some discomfort is always sometimes good and there you can think of, for example, quantum technologies, cyber security, I mean the AI trend, etc. Is it a high percentage? What do you do there? The team is very much focused on the forward looking themes, but they also get very much involved on the operational level as and when needed. When we see that certain initiatives that we've labeled as innovations, which we'll get to the topic a little bit later, are either stuck internally. Therefore the team is on there as conduits and ambassadors. The third subunit that facilitates innovation is the Ventures team. And there the Ventures has a very clear mandate with a fund isolated to invest in, not early stage, but already ideally revenue generating stage. And there again the mandate is a complement to KPN's activities, ambitions and notions. We used to do indirect fund investments, now we only do direct investments. And we see that it was also a lot more valuable one for the venture that we invest in for scale, but also for us to Feel a little bit more skin in the game directly with a connection with the founders. Typically see make it work in KPN or for our customers. And then of course there's other units in the strategy but those are typically the ones that are focusing on innovation then generally as kpm. And a definition of innovation is always a topic of conscientious feelings because anything can be innovation, right? The definition of innovation is really flexible and elastic depending on the person that you're speaking to, depending on the situation. Is it innovation if you go faster in the process? Is it innovation if you unlock value? Is it innovation if you reduce costs? Is it innovations if you reduce frustration in people? So I see innovation more as a cosmetic word for making change happen. And hopefully that change just makes things better. And that is a culture that we try and insist on throughout the company. So yes, I might have some teams focusing on innovation but they can't do it without the rest of the organization. And that's really fundamental and it's nice to know and I think it's good for all of KPN and also for anyone in the market to know that if in the event that there is a struggle in the company to not make the change that makes things better, that the chief Strategy officer can also be the chief solution officer to say okay, let's get it done faster and quicker. Why is this taking so long? Right. So I hope that gives a. I.

Love the definition of cosmetic war for making change happen. This is something and I recall from fun conversation we had that you sometimes you're struggling with the definition of innovation because sometimes we we label with innovation things that probably as usual, right?

Yeah.

I remember you told me sometime we call innovation robot but actually it's just a development pipeline so there is no innovation into that.

Right.

Last time the word innovation makes things a bit more cool and sexy on the one hand and maybe, maybe, maybe because again the corporate world is pretty still very risk averse. Give a probability, probably an extra protection, you know, if it doesn't work it's because it's innovation. And so because typically you are not allowed to fail. And so that is why if when you use the word innovation still failing is not an option but it happens is because of innovation.

So yeah and I think very good point. How I have found that to of course most corporates are risk averse and there's a reason, right? We have fiduciary duty, we have shareholders, we have stakeholders, we have a responsibility, we have accountability etc and instilling that culture of not risk taking, but experimentation takes some time and therefore I also use the vocabulary. Okay, well let's test this. Let's see you treat it as an experiment, right? So let's invest a small scale to see if it works. And if not, it's also be okay to moss ball it when it's not living up to expectations because you also see a lot of. Well, what I've observed in my career, not only at kpn is that there's a typical darling projects, right? So people will bring something live and they've invested a year or two years and getting it there because it's not always easy in the bottlenecks. But then when it doesn't live up to the expectation for whatever reason not to blame anyone or misconception or assumption, typically there's they don't shut it down or mouth ball it for. Maybe it's ego, maybe it's seen as or fault as a failure of themselves. Where I encourage more. Well, it takes honor and courage to say hey, this was an experiment. Try to do as fast and clean and light as possible. Monitored now for a year, okay. We try to adapt once or twice to see if it'll change. Is it our approach? Is it a customer journey? Okay, if it doesn't then work, then okay, switch it off. Right? Because otherwise you're also keeping a lot of complexity at times alive in an ecosystem where you, where every little, every little thing that you say yes do you say no to something else. If you continue to say yes to something that's failing, you're actually saying no to something that could be winning and opportunity cost.

And actually what you were just saying just pop ups to my mind. A conversation I just had with your peer in a big multinational insurance company and you would say we actually we're struggling to find the KPIs to measure. On the one hand our venture client activities and also sometimes we buy some companies and then they become service B, service C level and then we are struggling because we tend to measure the outcomes based on the standard way corporates do apply for measuring activities. And again and I believe what I want to hear from you here is that there is a big misconception because innovation and again I agree with you that sometime we use the word innovation probably too widely. But the pure innovation is something that works according to the power law. It doesn't work linearly while corporate way of thinking is linear. So each project that has been approved, particularly the one that passed through pilot POC validation, they are certain point the launch of the market or you do the due diligence for acquiring something, then you get some expectation and your expectation that anything that is launched should work. But the reality is still there should be a power law of that working then. And some of them might be the ones, probably a few of them, most of them will probably produce nothing or they will just go badly up. But this misconception remains also when you deal with mature innovation, but still also the mature innovation is subject to the power law. And that's the part that I believe corporates don't get it and it's creating a lot of issues. How do you.

Yeah, I would say a little bit of devil's advocates on that one. Because anything that you invest in, be it small, large, be it indirect, direct, be it by time or money, there are some parameters of what success would look like. Right. Why you do it, there's a value case behind it. Right. Maybe the value case is based on assumed churn prevention, which is very typical what we see in business cases. Right. It'll keep our customers for longer. Right. And if I count up all the business cases of all the innovations that will stop our customers churning, we'd have negative churn. Right. But that's not always the case because. So within those parameters of success, I think it's very important, regardless of the state of the change project, I would call it, that instead of innovation would be a time frame and a realization and certain assumptions with obviously your low case, your base case and your high case and a timing framework. And that's I think the place where you need to be flexible with the assumptions is to say, okay, this is a very early stage project, so the likelihood of success is much lower over this time frame. Therefore you have a higher discount rate. So only at this point should we expect a positive benefit. And until if you don't have proper business case management and portfolio management benefit tracking, of course it's going to fall privy to the typical corporate slice and dice. Oh, this isn't working. Yeah, but we forgot that we said this is going to take seven years to take off. Right. Similar. Even if you in YSA devil's advocate, whether it be a small investment or a partnership or a big investment like a merger and acquisition, if you don't have the full scope or timeline or horizon in mind for success, you're not going to create value. So for example, in emergence and acquisitions, one of the biggest mistakes that a lot of corporates make is they underestimate the post merger integration activities to capture the synergies that were simulated in an original business case when you made the offer. So more than one and a half decades ago, I wrote my first corporate finance thesis for my masters on the fact that do fairness opinions create value in M A Or do M and A does M and A typically destroy value? And the findings were which is the same as an innovation project investment if you do not have the right horizon and assumptions and expectations in place. So are you fair on the synergy assumptions that actually validate the value of your investment at day one to see if you made a return by day 10? For example, if it's a 10 day horizon, if you don't do the right things and you don't have the right assumptions, then of course it's not going to realize expected value. So it's exactly the same thing. So I think in the parameter setting and the sensitivity and the likelihood, that's where you set it. But then within the corporate cycle it's to have that sponsor that says yeah, but we, we agreed initially this is going to take two years or three years. But then also if you said two to three years, if it didn't happen, do the post mortem understand why and create the learning loop for others. Right? And that's throughout, like I say, from a venture all the way to your M and A activities, your divestment activities, etc. Etc. So that's just good hygiene which you can instill even in the strictest of corporate setups, right? And then inspiring your executive to say okay, what, what's the one or two extra measures? But if you can divert that into a benefit metric, then I think you're winning.

Yeah, I agree. And I think you say the right word, set up the right expectation about the right horizons. Because again, innovation, unless you're working on very H1 innovation very adjacent to the core, something that actually you deploy and off you go with a clear immediate value. Anything is this horizon two and horizon three takes some time to, to get to the point that will become a real value. The value will be the strategic optionality that you are getting. But you get one optionality out of three attempts. You don't get optionality out of, out of all of the three. And sometime this misconception because at the end when it goes to the M and A, most of the corporate treat M and A of your stuff or innovation, call it whatever you like at the same table. So they're struggling with the valuation that are obviously they are in certain way. I see many company that feel raped when they buy a startup because the traditional M and a matrix just doesn't fit at all. We can buy a startup with a negative ebitda, all that value and, and at the end. But they got it. They force themselves and then, but still they need to also for compliance reasons they need to put something and then they go stick with that. And at the end.

Yeah, and I think that's also how you, how you. I mean in any deal structure it's also how you incentivize both sides. Right. I believe in fairness in all transactions and, and that makes a big difference to. Okay, yeah, one, there's always the compliance aspect, there's the valuation aspect with the vanilla or traditional approaches, I would say it that way. But then there's also the. All the tools and options you have like you mentioned optionality to engineer the post closing success. Right. So of course it depends if you do a full out or not, etc. Etc. But I do believe that there's quite a lot that you can gain just from some emotional intelligence that the founders on the other side or the owners of the other side still have some inherent interest in the success of what you're doing. Be it buying a failing business and you're going to do a turnaround. They still inherently would like to see it as a turnaround. Right. Because it's whatever the case may be, their, their baby project or whatever, or if it's a joint venture or if it's a partial acquisition, etc, you need to be seen as the, as the trusted investor because that truly should be your intention and to create value because that's why you take the risk. But also that there's, it's still just another. Yeah, it's still some emotional intelligence is also needed, not just quantification into a deal structure. And that's also I think the, the difference in between sometimes good negotiation and bad negotiations. Right. So you can have an incredible deal with incredible value and the other party might walk away feeling complete. I wouldn't use the word rape because I don't know if I want to use that word but feel manipulated and you also don't want that feeling. Right. So it has to be fair conversation and a good negotiation for both parties to walk away was a good feeling. And I think that also is like the this, especially if it's a partnership like a venture investment where we take a minority stake, whatever the case may be that it's like a marriage, right. So we're in it to win it. We're not half pregnant and hopefully win together because if they win we win. And that's something that we obviously work on and. But also it's like I said, it's not always the case. There are some ventures that we've participated in that have not turned out as we'd hope. But not every, not every princess becomes a bride. Right. So it's also a reality that we're all aware of.

Let me go back to another topic. I think that our prior conversation got my attention was the. Your role of leading innovation. But actually you are not owning the results. You're not responsible for the results. And again you say I'm an impartial voice of reason to the CEO. But at the end, whatever we do, again we. We put the speeds, but at the end the outcomes are not on us. Can you elaborate a bit more about that?

Yeah, that's a dichotomy of being this. Well, the sparing partner not only to the CEO but to all executives. One is to obviously inform, inspire and support them both on change projects or innovation projects. But also far more than that, sometimes also just helping helping them solve a problem in the business day to day and the racing map. Just because in the racy map the strategy team, because I won't say only myself because it's a team effort. Right. I just happen to be a proxy. Just because we're not have the responsibility and accountability tick doesn't mean we don't feel the responsibility and accountability. Often we are consulted. That is technically where our tech sits in the raci map and we keep others informed. Right. So it is an interesting department to be part of. However, if I had to say as an organization, do nothing and do not have a team that is impartial, independent and don't have pet projects etc etc to facilitate, stimulate and encourage curiosity on certain topics, I think you would slow down a lot more than not than having it, would you make it responsible and accountable? No, I think we all share responsibility and accountability for the success of the company. Right. So if we define like we defined a new strategy at the end of last year, in the next four years, how will I determine if I was successful as a strategy officer? So one, how did the strategy land? Two, was it implementable by the business? And three, was people motivated to continue with it when sometimes it doesn't go as planned. Right. Because realities happen. So yes, I am not. That's why we have great executives to make that happen. But at the end of the day, indirectly, I will know when we look at our financials, whether our participation and influence and input and structuring of the strategy, because of course, it's the executive strategy. The CEO strategy was a good enough narrative and plan. So I, I would say that it is difficult to manage at times. However, then it also comes down to the CEO's mandates because the CEO will of course, when there's something that doesn't go to plan, say, okay, what's going on? Let's solve it together. And that's where it's important to be that sparring partner independently to all Exco members that they feel supported to solve it. Because at the end of the day, we're in the same pot together. It's our, it's our company that we want to make great. So I see it that way and I wouldn't want to.

I think it makes a lot of sense because at the end you are, you're providing the tools, broader set of tools at the end is not up to you if the tools will be used and how they will be used, but it's also up to you because again, you are also the enabler, you are the culture change.

Yeah. And I think it comes down and.

Again, if you do properly your war, you have a bigger chance that the tool will be used and you will use in the proper way in the proper time.

Yeah. But they are a lesson that, are there a lesson that I've, I think we've learned as a, as a team and as a company is that when and if you bring something to the table, regardless of which change project it is, what is the narrative and what is the case behind it? Because if you're able, if you're unable, sorry, if you're unable to get the executive of this particular segment to believe in the narrative or the change project or the innovation project that you, you bringing to the table, you will not be successful. It will not be successful later on. So it's also about did we select the right things to invest in, why? Start with why and then be consistent with that. Because it's very difficult for a leader that is responsible and accountable for something to be delivered to change course if they actually are an ambassador for the things on their, on the roadmap. Right. So it does come back a little bit to, you know, how effective of we are, we as strategists to ensure that that narrative and that belief is true and it stays and it's clear as to why we do that. And if it's not clear, then we shouldn't be doing it. Like I said, again, whatever you say, yes, you say no to something else. So that to Me, I also believe is very much being that sparing partner. All of us strategists is okay, are we still doing the right thing? Why? Okay, are you in or are you out? No, half pregnant here. Right. And if you don't feel like, if you don't believe in it, then also part of our values is trust. Trust, courage and growth. Then okay, what? Do you not trust it? Do you not have the courage to do it and be transparent about it? Right. So I think that's also very fundamental in the company culture that you don't. That it's process, it's not personal. Right. And that's something sometimes very difficult for a very emotional person like myself because I, I do really put my identity sometimes into things. But that's a good reminder. Okay, why, why do you not believe it? Can I adjust the perspective? And if not, maybe I should adjust my own perspective on this particular case or assumptions.

Or maybe it's not the right time, or maybe it's not the right people, Maybe it's not the right unit or maybe it's not the right contingency at some time. I believe that the role of people working in innovation, open innovation, change as you prefer to call it, is also to pick up the battles that you need to fight. Sometimes there are some political internal conditions that do not allow the battle to be won. Sometimes there is not the right people. Yes, the time is now, the need is there, but the people are not the right ones. So if I play with that team, I lose. And so it's better to divert when there is definitely larger chance of success.

No, I think there's always. Yeah, sorry. There's always choices and yeah, of course timing is really important and team and culture. But there again it's also up to the executives to, to create that right nurturing ground. So fortunately, I know for kpn, our executives are very open. So that helps. But not always on everything because they also know that they have limited capacity, limited people. Of course we don't have all the competencies that are possible to do everything. I mean that's impossible to have as a company even though we have incredibly smart, hard working people. So that's also. Sometimes it's just not now. Right? It's not a no, but just not now. Or sometimes it is a clear no, but okay, so you have to respect that as well.

Let me bring you to another topic that I think is super relevant. It is innovation. KPIs measuring the outcome that you are producing. Let me quote you again. You sometimes you say That I don't believe in the absolute impact of innovation. So can you help me to elaborate this topic now? How do you measure innovation? How is measurable innovation outcomes?

Yeah, so it's Measure what Matters is a great book. Right. So but in innovation it depends again on what is the definition. Right. So if it's a change project, when do you start measuring? Firstly, that's also something that I struggle, that I personally always struggle with. When do we start measuring? Is it from the moment that we start exploring the concept, engaging with a company or engaging on a UX design? At what point do you actually start the tracking period? Right, that's the first one. The second one is then, okay, if we know when we're at least going to start tracking, then what are we going to track? So first the when and then what are we going to track? And the what then links back to the why did is that we believe we want to do this right. So okay, this is going to really speed up our ability to launch a value added service to our customers in the, in the checkout. Currently it takes us three months. You want to do it in three days. And that saving of two months and 27 days will equate to X thousands of euros. Okay, that multiplied. Okay, cool. That's clear. Time saving time dividend of developer hours. Very clear. How are we going to measure that? Okay, it's very easy. We're going to say once the capability is launched, what is the average speed of the bus? Is there a delta? But then I have the question, okay, we now do it in three days. Fantastic. But where did the two months and 27 days of developer hours go? Elsewhere. Right, so did we actually save it because of course it's still man hours or did we reallocate it now to more high performing projects? Right, because ideas to free up time and capacity, which brings value. So I think there it's really about when do you start what to measure? It's very project specific. And then quantifying. Okay, what is the objective why of that project? And it could be time hours, it could be churn, it could be whatever. But being very clear. Okay, okay. Is it now started? What is the delta that we target? And if that's not achieved. Okay, but do we actually feel it and where. Right, so. Or did we just not fill up the engineers backlog with more stuff? Right, so they don't feel the difference. They still feel like we're stretching them all the time for working late hours because we're just not creating more demand for them. So I think that's a, It's a very difficult one. But this clearly has to be some value, otherwise why do it in the first place? Right? If we say, okay, the value of this project is going to improve. Employees work from home office Internet connection. So okay, what does that mean? Okay, well, it might reduce churn because obviously employees get very stressed when they're working from home and the Internet connection is not good. So therefore we can indirectly assume if we had to be able to do that or support, support that through some kind of technology and give that surety guarantee as a free additional value added service. If you're a customer at kpn, you're more likely to stay with KPN because you feel that we care, that we know that your job is important to you. And therefore, in the new world where we all work hybrid, we ensure that you're able to see so you can then create that business case again. Okay, how much churn do we think we prevent by this? How many call drivers are there behind? Because, oh, I'm doing a teams call and I have an unstable Internet connection. So you can make assumptions and then say, okay, do has the number of calls of this topic reduced since we've gone live? Okay, not really, but okay, how many users are using it? Have we activated it? So then you can start the dissecting process. But you do know that the ultimate goal was less churn based on home connectivity when on a work call. Cool. And then. So it does take a little bit of dissecting, but setting it up in the beginning is very important. So that's a struggle that I sometimes have also with my own innovation teams or in general in a corporate. We. It's, it's very easy to be like, oh, we just do it because it makes things better. No, there has to be value behind it and you have to determine it beforehand. So how are we going to measure if this is a success or not? Even if it's just one stupid. One stupid KPI, but already in the beginning set what is success going to look like? And that's just basic hygiene and setting goals. Be it in your personal development, your career development, your, your romantic life, your work life, your business cases, right? Have a metric of what success looks like or at least know what you'd want to avoid. Right. By not doing it or by doing it. This is at least what I'm going to avoid. Right? So I think that's a very important thing in the beginning of the process. Right? And if it's not clear, keep Coming back to it until it's clear if.

You don't have KPIs at the end, you, you cannot unplug it. And that's the problem that we were discussing before, that at the end we keep being, continue to do things just for the sake of doing and not call it. Yeah. The problem that I see and that I struggle with many of your peers is again, draw some tangible outcome, some tangible dividends, the way you call it, that you can get and you can measure, but there are more intangible dividends that you are producing that are very difficult to measure and to anticipate, but they are. So I think about what you do as a branding impact, as a strategic transformation impact, as potentially a cultural impact. How to measure this kind of dividends that you are producing that are intangible by definition, but they are material, they are outcomes.

Yeah. So that makes me think of our corporate citizenship contribution as a corporate citizen society. It is a very difficult measure. However, the litmus test for anything is always that it does have a positive contribution in general other to society, the environment or governance and safety. Yes or no, Right. It's a simple yes or no. Positive impact, yes or no. That's the litmus test. I think the what is the purpose of measuring that secondary impact would be okay. Do we continue with something? Yes or no? Right. So even if the project maybe is not achieving its financial metrics, but its indirect impacts are extremely positive. Right. For example, even you can think of certain innovations that you support in areas of conflict. Right. So of course financially it doesn't always make sense. But your corporate citizenship makes a big difference to a certain part of society and you still have a role to play as a corporate citizen. I think those metrics to measure the impact or the influence is a case by case method. But you do need to be open to it. But that can't be the criteria that you use to start an innovation.

No, no, it's not my only concern. And then where I like to end this beautiful conversation is since again, we for a living, we support many of you in your daily job and most of the time we see that many of you lose the top level buying support because they are not able to justify the value that you're putting on the table. And the reality is they are putting value on the table. The problem is just difficult to measure. So I agree with you that without a good KPI you shouldn't even start. You say also stupid KPI, but at least we have, because we need to have at least the attempt to measure what is measured, measurable. But there's something that by definition, in essence is difficult to be measured, that at the end is the essence of your job. And if you are not able to prove it at the next government change, you might be.

Yeah. And I think that goes back to. And also just to summarize that, I think it comes down to company culture and belief and a purpose. Right. So our whole strategy at KPN is very purpose driven. Connect all of the Netherlands to a sustainable future. So we take our role very seriously in this area. However, that litmus test does help, right? Whatever we do is a positive or negative. And then in the event that we see that there is an opportunity to step up in an area where maybe certain stakeholders are failing, be it governmental or not, or private, or even our, our conduit throughout a competition, of course, you know, you have the responsibility to say, okay, what can we do about it? Right? But then it becomes, okay, is this our role? Yes or no? And if it's not our role, okay, but how big is the investment needed for us to still play that role? Right. And if, yes, it is a role for us to play, okay, then it's a normal business case. Right? So I think that litmus test days, and it's also about. I think it's a good thing that you work in a. Or you operate in a society that is democratic and open and changing and you need to adapt to, to new requirements and influences because it keeps you honest, keeps you relevant and it keeps you innovating, actually. Right. To be adaptable in changing geopolitical scenarios, for example, financial scenarios, also shows your flexibility muscle. And that is, I think how you truly know whether you're innovative or not is that you can adapt. Even it's not only when it's all sunshine and roses, but sometimes also when there's some unexpected things on your path that you're flexible enough, but also steady enough to. To overcome them and come with a solution. Good for society. That course, good for you as a company and for your shareholders. So, yeah, I think that's also because.

We, in the end quoting you again, we're not talking about innovation, we are talking about change projects. And changing is. Most of the time is good, is a good thing. So thank you so much, Benji, for, for your time.

Thank you, Alberto.

Me keep up our conversation because again, in a while I will have some more inputs from you.

Thank you. Lovely to talk. Thank you so much for the time. Thank you for being with us today and see you in the next episode of Open Innovation talks. Mind the bridge. Chat with industry leaders.