Hi, everyone. Kumar Dattatreyan here with the Meridian Point. Today we're exploring a fascinating convergence between an approach that we've taken at Agile Meridian - the Disruptor Method - and something Glenn Marshall, who's been on the show a lot, maybe he was inspired by us. I don't know. But he has come up with a similar disruptive method that approaches the whole problem space of transformation and alignment from maybe a slightly different angle.
So the Disruptor Method and the NLCC method - I don't remember what it's called. He just told me and I forgot. So when we get him on stage, he will tell us what that means. But they're really two sides of the same coin where the Disruptor Method approaches change and transformation from leadership on down, building alignment with a leadership team or a product team and making sure they have the tools and the techniques that are needed to support change in a small contained space, contained thread if you will, from the things that they have influence and control over.
Glenn approaches it from the opposite end, saying, "What is the biggest problem you're trying to solve and who are the people that need to solve it from a tactical perspective?" Before I butcher too much of NLCC, I'm going to invite Glenn to the stage here and we'll get started.
Bottom line up front is this: both methods seem to end up in the same place. Disruptor Method starts higher up, it starts with leadership, builds alignment there and builds a steel thread from the top down. Glenn's method, the NLCC, starts from the bottom, starts from the team sort of, and works in iterative two-week increments to build a capability and build alignment from the bottom up.
So let's invite Glenn. Hey, Glenn.
Hi, Kumar. How are you?
Good, good. Glad to be here. What is NLCC?
Next Level Co-Creation. But you've just given me an insight. Obviously, if people can't remember it, then you need to change the name. Disruptor Method is easy, so I need to come up with a disruptor method-like thing that sticks in people's minds.
Yeah, NLCC is... Yeah, I mean, I like Next Level Co-Creation. I mean, why abbreviate it?
That was my laziness trying to get into shorthand. As long as Next Level Co-Creation isn't too much of a mouthful, then you're right. We're done here.
Yeah. I mean, we could call it the TDM, and actually we do internally. We say TDM, but with our clients, we say the Disruptor Method.
Got it. Right. And it's because TDM is like, "Okay, what the heck does that mean?"
Yup. Speaking of abbreviations, not to go and take us too far off our topic, apparently humans aren't the only ones that like to abbreviate words, language. Birds do the same thing. Apparently they've been studying songbirds - birdsong, songbirds, I guess birds that make songs. And they found patterns where birds of a population will paraphrase or create shortened versions of the songs as they sing them to their flock, I suppose, right? And I suppose these songs, like language that we use, have meaning and birds do the same thing we do. They abbreviate their songs.
This is classic brain efficiency and optimization. It takes time and energy to go and give a long song or a long phrase. So we're naturally always looking for ways to shortcut and habituate and things like that, increase efficiency by reducing the actual brain work.
Yes, I can see the value. And eventually, you know, when you go into an organization right there, you're confronted - any organization, you're confronted with this lists and lists of abbreviations that you have no clue what they mean, but it's for efficiency. It's because people in the know, people in that organization, they know what these things mean, what these abbreviations mean. And for you as an outsider, you have to learn all those things. So maybe eventually it will be fine calling it NLCC because it would be a household abbreviation. Everybody knows what NLCC is. Until then, maybe the lesson is keep it at Next Level Co-Creation.
There's a great example of radar. I forget what it stands for. Range Activated something or other, but it's an acronym. But now we just think of it as a word.
That's true. That's true. That's a very good point. Interesting. I like to go in... I have a small expectation of people that I'm new with that they will explain their acronyms. And I have a little bit of a joke that I use because some people use it to... it's a bit of an "are you inside or outside" game a little bit at times. So whenever I come across a strange acronym, I just look at the person: "Hmm, MLA. Hmm, MLA." And nobody knows what MLA is, but it stands for... and now I'm going to ruin my joke... Multi-Letter Acronym. But if you go with a very serious tone, "Hmm, MLA. Hmm, MLA," they think, "Ooh, this is very significant. But what does MLA mean?" So you turn it around.
Yeah, I wonder if birds do that as they enter a new flock and they encounter a bird song that makes no sense to them because it's abbreviated. Hopefully the birds are more thoughtful than humans and they will give the full version.
Probably they are. Probably they are.
So, Glenn, I had an epiphany preparing for today's session. We've been talking about Next Level Co-Creation as fundamentally different from the Disruptor Method. I think we're maybe looking at it wrong there. I would think that they're two sides of the same coin. Would you say, or maybe just starting from opposite ends?
I would absolutely say that. And I also want to acknowledge those who came before, including you. I have shamelessly borrowed all of this stuff from my work in the industry. The value add I hear is packaging it all together and... again this came from you... having the courage to guarantee it. With a certain set of sponsors' behaviors, I am confident that I can guarantee results every two weeks.
Yeah. So let's talk about it. So Disruptor Method, and for those of you... even though the show is all about disruption and innovation, it was born out of the Disruptor Method, which is something we created. And it was, again, a case of maybe convergent evolution, if you will. I was inspired by Peter Merrill's XScale framework. And he talks a lot about the steel thread and that sort of led me... and my partners to think about... and my partners had no knowledge of XScale or the steel thread, but the steel thread concept is that you start with a catalyst group of people, the people that really want some of the change to happen, right. The people that understand the burning platform behind the change. And you start with that group and build a thread that connects the vision and what the company needs to accomplish with the people that can do the work. And you grow that thread all the way from vision to execution. And then when that team or teams have achieved a state of maturity, you divide that.
And so Disruptor Method was kind of born with that same sort of impetus and vision. Again, you start at the top. You start with leadership. And you teach leaders that may have forgotten because bureaucracy has taken hold of the organization what it means to truly collaborate, what it means to make things visible - the challenges in a company visible - and then you implement simple systems. Under the surface, if you will, we don't beat people over the head with agile frameworks and methods, but we teach them how to use and think, adopt a mindset of agility to get what they need done and implement things like simple Kanban systems at the leadership level so they can keep track of the things that are important and make sure that they focus on the things that are most important.
So that's the Disruptor Method. So maybe, Glenn, maybe go with the approach that the Next Level Co-Creation takes that is maybe different. So you're starting with the team, if you will, right?
Let me just ask a clarifying question. But you're right, where we differentiate is I just need a sponsor at whatever level. It could be middle management, as long as they're willing to do things differently in a series of low-risk experiments. But as long as they have a budget and a bit of impetus to, you know, "there's got to be a better way," that's all we need.
In terms of the Disruptor, you come in at the C level, and I guess your first team is the VPs. How quickly do you reel down to something actually being deliverable or do you just leave it at that level and trust that you'll ripple down?
Yeah, there's an element of trust and an element of... so we teach them techniques like DRI, the Directly Responsible Individual, which again, I don't know if it was created or just borrowed from Peter Merrill who borrowed it from Apple or wherever - the Directly Responsible Individual. And this is probably more directly attributable to Peter Merrill and the XScale framework - the doer/decider, the coach and... I forget what the other role is in the team, the group.
So essentially at the leadership level there's someone that is the decider and all they decide is who makes a decision. Their job isn't to make the decision, it's to decide who makes a decision. And so there's an element of servant leadership there. And we encourage that in the team wherever we come into the organization, typically C-level, sometimes the level below that, the VP or the AVP level. And what we do is we implement these frameworks to allow leadership the flexibility to figure out what works best for them.
And now these leaders are all leading their own teams. And so what we do is encourage them to implement that in their teams. And so what we see is a trickle down effect to where these methods are trickling down and changing the organization, much like a sort of the butterfly effect. It takes longer, but it does work. It does happen. I'd say within six months to a year in that thread.
But you don't actually talk to the... but typically what we're trying to do is build a team of coaches, right? Our leadership team is the extension of us. We don't become embedded in the organization coaching that... where they become so dependent on us to provide the catalyzing vision for change, because then they depend on us. When we go, then that catalyzer is gone and kind of like a rubber band, they snap back to where they were before.
Got it. This way we are influencing these leaders, helping them become the coaches and amplifying our efforts.
Okay. The similarities are striking. The key difference is I'm kind of bottom up and you're kind of top down.
Yeah. So let me give you an introduction to Next Level Co-Creation. The basic idea is that somebody has an itch. They want to make a change. They have a little bit of capacity, a little bit of budget, and they're willing to engage in a series of small, low risk experiments, all carefully constrained to show provable progress in two weeks.
So the minimum is we need somebody who has an itch that they want to scratch. One consultant business consultant coach from Next Level Co-Creation will come and relentlessly prioritize very quickly - in a couple of hours at most - slice the top, the top of the highest priority into a series of tasks at most two days, agree upon some metrics, boom, and then we're off. We start just with the sponsor. We want to move quickly.
But the idea is that fairly quickly we'll need a team. And then we introduce some new practices like the notion of cross-functionality and persistent teams. That's where we get into purpose, vision, and mission. So the sponsor would have to have some kind of a purpose and vision. And it needs to be emotionally resonant that everybody can buy into it. And there's a bit of a trick to that. As long as everybody shares the vision, we can span silos. We'll honor the silo, but the higher level purpose is the purpose, vision, and mission. So pick whatever discipline you want - audit, accounting, whatever. We're going to respect how they do things there, but please let's align it to our purpose.
Where we get into the steel thread is on that first team, just like yourself, we don't want to go and become embedded in a permanent fixture. We choose the team carefully. So it's cross-functional and it has at least some enthusiasm and energy. We're not discriminating against people who are more cautious, but the net balance of the team has to be okay. "Yeah, we can do this. Let's let's go for it." As opposed to hyper risk averse. A little bit more of a balance on enthusiasm on the first one to get a quick win.
But it's critical that you have a positive, enthusiastic mindset on the team, even if that means less skill and experience. Anytime there's a specialty that's not on the team, if you can quickly and efficiently delegate it, go ahead. But particularly, for example, architecture or security, you tend to need them fairly, a reasonable chunk up at the beginning.
So under the Next Level Co-Creation model, they are assigned to the team part time. So you can directly contact them again. Everybody's on the same purpose, vision and mission. So none of this "throw it over the wall and wait for security to get back to us." They're actually on the team. And the sponsor will make sure that we have the capacity before we start the project. "We're going to need ten percent of security expert for the next three months. So get that ready." So these are all lined up in advance so the team is never blocked.
Here's the key steel thread component. Each team has two client trainee coaches on them. So as the team learns how to work together, they learn practices of prioritizing, slicing and focusing, for example, this notion of two week cycles and those habits become ingrained. The coach will pull themselves back and encourage the team to run by themselves. Once that happens, graduation, if you will, with the initial team who's a bit more enthusiastic, that'll probably be around three months, average six months, possibly as long as nine months. But you can't rush that because this is where the habits are entrenched and you can pull back and they'll continue doing... there's been studies on this. Basically any habit can be entrenched, you just need to repeat it enough times and that's all we're talking about here. Have a mindset.
Once graduation occurs then the process repeats. Those two trainee coaches start their own two teams each of those with two teams and... And I pull back if I was leading this engagement and I'm the mentor to those coaches. So one, two, four, eight, and this just repeats with the initial coach pulling back after eight because it's kind of hard to go and be on top of the sixteen teams.
And then with sponsor support, we go up one level into the next level of management and create... repeat the exact same process. And just like what you were doing, creating a team of next level up managers, again, aligned with the purpose, vision, and mission. Get them working, again, with two training coaches. And then you go across that layer. And with the sponsor's approval and support, this will go all the way up to the board.
So you're not really building a steel thread as much as building a foundation upon which to build the next layer of the foundation and the next layer of the hierarchy, if you will, in the organization, ultimately transforming the organization from the bottom up.
It's funny you say that. It's underneath the sponsor. So wherever the sponsor is, it's everything underneath that. So if the sponsor is the product leader for some product line, it's building the foundation of that product line and then going up and up and up until you get back to the level where the sponsorship starts.
I was intrigued by Peter's introduction of the notion of a steel thread. And maybe this will bridge the different interpretations here. This originated with the first transatlantic cable. There was a ship laying literally one strand of cable. And apparently it's kind of a big deal and the cable is kind of heavy. So they laid one strand and obviously they do clever things about joining the cables together and that. And then it went down into the water, but just a little bit onto a second ship, which then took that steel thread and wrapped another thread around it. And there was like eight or ten ships. And the resulting cable was just ginormous. And that's how crane cables are. If you look at them, they're strands. And within them, they're strands. So you can keep doing that indefinitely. And although you start small with a somewhat fragile steel thread, by keeping wrapping it and wrapping it and wrapping it, it grows exponentially. And as the circumference of the circle increases, it's not a linear increase. And it becomes as strong as you want to make it, strong enough to be a steel thread from one end from North America to Europe, right? They handle shifting continents, but maybe they have a bit of stretch in there somehow.
But I thought that was a powerful notion. But the critical point is start small, get it right, be sure it's right, and then carefully, methodically expand it. But none of this big bang, "Okay, everybody, we're all going to change to the next version of whatever on Monday." That's crazy.
Yeah. No, I mean, I definitely see the similarities and the parallels between the approach that Next Level Co-Creation takes and what Disruptor Method's trying to do sort of top down, bottom up in a way. You know, there is a version of Disruptor Method that starts at the product layer, if you will. So product leadership building a steel thread for that product and all of the layers between product visioning and design and all that stuff, all the way to the implementation of that product implementation, deployment, user experience testing and research and all that sort of... there's a thread there, right? That connects the people that are thinking about these products and what to bring to market and how to improve it.
And products of course have a life, they have a life, they don't last forever. There's always an evolution there where you're thinking about replacing the products, maybe the next version of it or something completely new. And so there's that. And so I'm intrigued by the approach that you're taking, which is more around building a strong foundation of teams and then a strong foundation of middle management and then a strong foundation of whatever's next, you know, sort of program portfolio leadership in that under the sponsor and then going up to the... do you stop at the sponsor? You said all the way to the board. Does that imply something different?
No, no. With the sponsor's approval, "Hey, look, I've done this great thing. I'm... I don't know, a director, say I've done this great thing. You've been... we've been talking about, you've seen how great it is. You supported me as I expanded to all my teams. Now, if you will allow it, I will introduce you to the business consultant coach and work with you to apply it at your level." If you agree, if you don't, we're done.
Yeah. That's interesting. A couple of points here. The business consultant coach pulls back, but maintenance is strongly recommended where you come in once a month and just make sure things don't go off the rails, nominal cost. And this approach is a meta approach. Whatever you're doing, wherever you're doing it, including bringing on Next Level Co-Creation itself, is done using this method.
Yeah. I definitely see the parallels because I'm looking at the success we've had with the Disruptor Method sort of that top-down approach and how it... we're not going in and saying, and we're not coaching the leaders to assume that they know what's going to work. We're coaching them to be more curious and empathetic about what the teams that are implementing the work are facing and having them confront those issues and remove those barriers, those roadblocks, if you will, right?
And in a way, you're doing the same thing. Leadership is learning from what the teams are experiencing. The team, starting with the one team that you set up and the two trainee coaches, leadership is being informed by the experience that the team is going through, right? And so it's having that effect where what the team's going through is informing leadership to change how they behave. For us, it's leadership, what they're learning, by implementing something and getting feedback from the teams as to what works and what doesn't, and they're adjusting their approach.
I'm almost thinking that Disruptor Method combined with Next Level Co-Creation could be a very powerful thing.
I think it can. But I'd like to go back for just a second on a couple of things. So I'll give a little teaser right there. We were very inspired by Apple, of course, Tesla, Twitter, and Buurtzorg, the nursing company in the Netherlands. For those who aren't familiar with it, Buurtzorg started in 2016 and they were a group of nurses who started a steel thread. They have universal community based nursing in the Netherlands. Had it for a long time, but it was very inefficient. Buurtzorg was started, they did it using these principles. And now they have the majority of the market in the Netherlands started in 2016. And now they have over ten thousand nurses and I think something like eight hundred and forty teams. Don't quote me on the number of teams, but it's incredibly powerful. And it's coming or it has come to North America as well, hasn't it? I know they're expanding. I haven't heard much beyond their expanding.
Yeah, so it's quite a story. A twelve person team is completely self-sufficient, self-contained, operating independently with great success, providing exemplary care to their patients. And very... I mean, they're sort of autonomous teams that operate with very little what you might call corporate oversight. What corporate does is provide them the support that they need to be successful. And that's about it, right?
Okay. We'll do it that way then. There's a couple of ways to go through these points. I'll talk about that. A key attribute that I do need to mention is what I'm calling the three A's. Alignment to the organization's purpose. We talked about purpose, decision, and mission. So you absolutely have to have alignment to that. And you have to be accountable and produce metrics, reasonable metrics, not silly metrics, but metrics that are truly focused on the end user. In the case of Buurtzorg, it would be satisfaction from the clients, which is off the charts, by the way. They used to hate it before because different people were always coming in and they never knew who was coming. But with Buurtzorg, they establish a relationship. And here's the crazy thing. They save money. If we reduce the overhead financially, this is a win-win.
But that gets to the third. So it's alignment to the purpose, accountable with reasonable, sensible metrics that are co-created, and then autonomy. Accepting that you're basically creating a container. "Here's what we need. Figure out the best way to do it, honoring these principles and our purpose. And we trust you. And by the way, we're, of course, watching because we have to. We're government funded. So you are accountable. So we will be talking to your clients. So please make them happy and please make sure they don't go in the hospital or the hospital and stuff like this." So that's how it works.
There is a subtle switch in leadership. The traditional leadership is directive. "Okay, you do this, you do that, you do the other thing." This is more facilitative where you create the container. There still is a need for management, but traditional management needs to transition from direct to enable. And people need to be treated with respect in leadership. Perhaps they want to go and start their own team, whatever. There needs to be a clear path forward and people always treated with respect, so no mass layoffs.
Yeah. That is a fundamental condition. Buurtzorg has probably taken this to its logical conclusion. They have, I believe, fifty coaches that are available at any time for any of the eight hundred odd teams. And the number of people in head office is under fifty and they're primarily doing billing. CEO, of course. So this is a rather like an ecosystem in nature. You have birds doing whatever they do, insects doing whatever they do. They somehow work together and it kind of works. And if one needs to adapt or change, they just do because it's changed and it all just works. It's truly an organism rather than an organization, right? It functions as an organism with all of the pieces and the parts autonomously doing their thing and providing support to the larger organization while benefiting from some of the structure that the organization provides to them in terms of billing support, coaching support, leadership support, things like that. So it's quite unique in that sense, the ecosystem.
Organism is a powerful notion. I submit that organizations are an organism even though they're not formally recognized as such. The guy in accounting, "Oh, we have to get this done quickly. Just go talk to Bob in engineering. He'll get her done for you." That's the organism working. There's the formal hierarchy and there's the informal hierarchy. And if you ignore that informal hierarchy, you won't get anything done. They know how to... if you treat Bob with disrespect, you know, he's not going to go and do what you want.
So this encourages cross silo cooperation and organizations have this to a degree. They don't have ironclad walls between the silos. There are bridges across. I would say healthy organisms... almost healthy organizations resemble organisms because there are pathways for information and learning to flow, whether they're formal or informal, right? There are pathways for them to flow. And I would say unhealthy organizations may resemble organisms that have some parts that are cancerous or that are dysfunctional or whatever it may be. And you see lots of organizations restructuring. That to me is a symptom of an organization that isn't operating with those three A's. Another acronym, by the way, alignment, autonomy, and accountability, I think of what you said.
That's actually a great analogy. An organism that is unhealthy will die fairly quickly. And I agree with you. I think this is cancerous. The notion... Peter Merrill captures this, I think, very beautifully. Networks cooperating together for mutual benefit.
Yeah. It has to work for everybody. You wouldn't do... you'll do the odd favor because you're a nice person, but you know, if you're doing twenty favors and you're not getting any favors back and it's sucking your time, well, you gotta say, "Guys, come on, like, let's have a bit of quid pro quo here. And could you help me by doing this?" And organizations do that. Unhealthy organizations put up walls and they die fairly quickly, particularly the areas where change is changing very, very quickly.
Yeah. Yeah, I want to, in the interest of time, we're at the thirty-two minute mark here, sort of wrap this up. And I know we have more to talk about it. We can always extend this conversation to another session or two or three, make a series out of it if we want to. I'm wondering, not wondering, I'm thinking that there are certainly similarities between the Disruptor Method and Next Level Co-Creation. And I think that some of the common threads are, that each of these methods tries to tackle change and transformation in a way that's different from what most places... what most transformations go through which is this sort of this big bang "let's change everything all at once" approach, right?
Both the Disruptor Method and Next Level Co-Creation is saying, "Okay, let's pick leadership team, product team, whatever..." Leadership team is probably more umbrella term like if we get to sort of work with the leadership of the company, the C-suite, then it can have broad implications. It just takes longer. But even when we work with the leadership team, we ask them to pick one thread of the company to start with, and then we expand from there.
And then each of these methods, both Disruptor Method and Next Level Co-Creation looks for proof over persuasion, if you will. Right. So what is, where's the proof, the metrics, the numbers, the accountability that this is actually working. Right. And in the case of Disruptor Method, the proof is in, how the leadership team improves the way they operate and the metrics that they come up with in the beginning of the engagement that they want to see, whatever sort of business results, and for the most part in our experience they get that and more. They are... in one example EBITDA grew thirty three percent every year for three years until they were acquired by a larger firm because of their extreme growth while they were using the Disruptor Method.
In the case of NLCC, I can see the same sort of thing. It's about proof. It's the team delivering. And if so, how is it, how are they delivering? What can we learn from it? And how can we, if we're going to expand to two teams and then four teams, what are we learning along the way and how is it informing behaviors at the leadership layers above them? How does it change how they prioritize work, how they vision the work, how they fund the work? All of those things I would think would come into play. I'm gonna stop talking and let you sort of give your closing.
Okay. This will tie through a number of things together. Next Level Co-Creation is laser focused on getting something into the customer's hands, whoever that is, internal customer or external customer, presumably somebody wants to make the customer happy. That would be an attribute of the sponsor. So we laser focus on that and just carve off a slice and get into the customer's hands as soon as possible. And that's our fundamental delivery mechanism. And the customer has to go, "Yes, that is what I wanted. Thank you very much. I see it's incomplete, but you've got the heart of it. And then you'll be putting on some muscles and bones. Great. I see where we're going."
Also incorporate feedback, traditional agile practice. "Oh, this isn't quite right. I was looking for that instead of this." "No problem. We'll incorporate it right away." With a critical core value of quality. No compromising quality. This means bugs, as soon as they are found, are fixed immediately ahead of anything else.
In terms of how do you organize the work? It's just about adding new features to a product or whatever you want. Traditional backlog, prioritize and slice it into bite-sized chunks so we can get it moving through the combine board if that's what you're using.
In terms of financing, finance the smallest thing that you can get. Everything is incremental. Incremental architecture, incremental design, incremental funding. "We'll get something out there. Just give us enough to get something out there and then we'll come back for the next piece." We don't want a big five-year approval process, vision plan. You'll need some of that, but no more than is absolutely necessary just to fund the next step. After funding would come planning and roadmapping and so on all the way down the line, but just the minimum so you can get something out quickly.
One important attribute that I just want to reemphasize, this is always co-creation, meeting people where they are, changing at their rate. You simply can't go beyond that because digestion rates are what they are. If you try and ram too much food down somebody's throat, they will choke. So there's no point. So just slow down and meet them where they are.
And with one additional comment that will perhaps tie this all together, the notion of continuous improvement. Organizations invariably experience organizational debt over time and technical debt over time. This is about recognizing that's a reality. It just happens. Nobody did anything wrong. It's just that things kind of slowly shift. And then, "Oh, you know what? That decision we made three years ago isn't helping us now. Then let's change it."
So a constant percentage of capacity is dedicated to technical and organization health, speaking from the positive. And that is always, that applies to every team and every role individually. The notion being that only the person doing the role actually knows what their blockers are and what they could do to fix them. So they have capacity and they prioritize this percentage of their work to go and make things better for them and their team, which builds engagement, which companies love when people show up early and we want to make a difference. We want to change. So it all kind of feeds back in on itself.
The notion of continuous capacity for continuous improvement is sadly underutilized in the industry, in my view.
Yeah, I agree. All right, Glenn. So how can people find out more about Next Level Co-Creation?
Let me go and send you a link after we...
Yeah, I'll post it to the show notes for this episode so people can find out. And of course, I'll also post links to the Disruptor Method and the quiz. There's a quiz, a short quiz for you to take, for listeners to take to determine whether you're a disruptor or you're going to be disrupted. And I think the disruptor quiz would apply to both of these methods, right? So depending on where you want to start, if you have a budget and you want to sort of get something done and you want to start with a team that's ready to go, then call Glenn. He can help you. If you're thinking your leadership is just misaligned and you need to start there, then call me. We can help you. Either way, you're going to be working with either maybe both of us eventually, because I think we can close the loop, if you will, and create that steel thread combining these methods.
So hopefully you enjoyed the show. I enjoyed talking about it. We might have another episode to delve into some more of the details in a future episode. So thanks again for coming, Glenn. Thanks for watching. And we will see you next week. Bye all.
