The Digital Supply Chain podcast

Survive (and thrive?) using Industry 4.0 technologies in your supply chain - a chat with John Robinson

July 10, 2020 Tom Raftery / John Robinson Season 1 Episode 52
The Digital Supply Chain podcast
Survive (and thrive?) using Industry 4.0 technologies in your supply chain - a chat with John Robinson
Chapters
The Digital Supply Chain podcast
Survive (and thrive?) using Industry 4.0 technologies in your supply chain - a chat with John Robinson
Jul 10, 2020 Season 1 Episode 52
Tom Raftery / John Robinson

I came across two excellent articles on Industry 4.0 recently in the Future Factory blog (a great blog if you haven't come across it). The first was What is the future for Industry 4.0 in the post Covid-19 paradigm? and the second was The key to manufacturing recovery and Industry 4.0 adoption: The advice of Henry Ford.

It turned out both were written by a colleague I had not come across before (there are 100,000 people working for SAP!) called John Robinson, so I reached out to him to ask him to come on the podcast to discuss the articles, and his vision for how Industry 4.0 technologies could help organisations survive and thrive in these disruptive times.

John, who heads up Strategic Business Development for Manufacturing and Industry 4.0 for SAP gracefully accepted the invite, and we had a deep dive into Industry 4.0 and strategies companies can adopt to get through the next 12-24 months (and beyond).

This podcast is significantly longer than the norm but I was loath to cut it because it was all good stuff!

I hope you enjoy listening to it. If you have any comments/suggestions or questions for the podcast - feel free to leave me a voice message over on my SpeakPipe page or just send it to me as a direct message on Twitter/LinkedIn. Audio messages will get played (unless you specifically ask me not to).

For more information about Industry 4.0, read the 2020 global research study 'How to drive agility and productivity in Manufacturing with Industry 4.0'

And if you want to know more about any of SAP's Digital Supply Chain solutions, head on over to www.sap.com/digitalsupplychain and if you liked this show, please don't forget to rate and/or review it. It makes a big difference to help new people discover it. Thanks.

And remember, stay healthy, stay safe, stay sane!

Show Notes Transcript

I came across two excellent articles on Industry 4.0 recently in the Future Factory blog (a great blog if you haven't come across it). The first was What is the future for Industry 4.0 in the post Covid-19 paradigm? and the second was The key to manufacturing recovery and Industry 4.0 adoption: The advice of Henry Ford.

It turned out both were written by a colleague I had not come across before (there are 100,000 people working for SAP!) called John Robinson, so I reached out to him to ask him to come on the podcast to discuss the articles, and his vision for how Industry 4.0 technologies could help organisations survive and thrive in these disruptive times.

John, who heads up Strategic Business Development for Manufacturing and Industry 4.0 for SAP gracefully accepted the invite, and we had a deep dive into Industry 4.0 and strategies companies can adopt to get through the next 12-24 months (and beyond).

This podcast is significantly longer than the norm but I was loath to cut it because it was all good stuff!

I hope you enjoy listening to it. If you have any comments/suggestions or questions for the podcast - feel free to leave me a voice message over on my SpeakPipe page or just send it to me as a direct message on Twitter/LinkedIn. Audio messages will get played (unless you specifically ask me not to).

For more information about Industry 4.0, read the 2020 global research study 'How to drive agility and productivity in Manufacturing with Industry 4.0'

And if you want to know more about any of SAP's Digital Supply Chain solutions, head on over to www.sap.com/digitalsupplychain and if you liked this show, please don't forget to rate and/or review it. It makes a big difference to help new people discover it. Thanks.

And remember, stay healthy, stay safe, stay sane!

[00:00:04] If you had clients x SAP's with MacKinnon's is their consultancy firm, SAP with IoT sensors, that may not. Delivery firm software, they say, appears there may be IP I.T. then the platform SAP with, let's say, Siemens, who provide most of their Scotter p.l.c. equipment and let's say Tetrapack, if it's a soft drinks company, packaging company, if the client SAP with that collective and said this is our goal and objective and it's incumbent on you guys now as our primary suppliers to deliver that. [00:00:35][31.0]

[00:00:39] Good morning, good afternoon or good evening wherever you are in the world. [00:00:42][3.0]

[00:00:43] This is the Digital Supply Chain podcast. The number one podcast focussing on the digitisation of supply chain. And I'm your host. Global Vice President of SAP, Tom Raftery. Hi, everyone, welcome to the Digital Supply-Chain podcast. My name is Tom Raftery with SAP and with me on the show today. I have John. John, would you like to introduce yourself? [00:01:05][21.7]

[00:01:07] Yeah. Good morning, Tom. My name is John Robinson. I'm responsible for the industry forward. Now go to market strategy for EMEA north as part of the North Digital Supply Chain Centre of excellence. [00:01:18][12.0]

[00:01:20] Okay, super. No Industry 4.0 is escapee's terminology. Your own da industry 4.0 programme. You wrote a couple of articles recently about Industry 4.0 about the pandemic and how that's kind of thrown everything up into the air. A bit about the background of 4.0 as well and the future. [00:01:42][22.1]

[00:01:43] Let's let's let's start at the beginning, I guess, Industry 4.0. [00:01:50][7.2]

[00:01:52] What what do you define it as? Because everyone is kind of got their own definition. [00:01:56][4.4]

[00:01:57] Yeah, well, it's a good question. And I think everyone really does have their own definition in some respects. I mean, there are certainly academic and technical definitions of what it does. [00:02:09][11.2]

[00:02:09] But I don't think that's the more important thing. I think in essence. I think I suppose the first thing to say is industry for from its origins and in the global manufacturing sector is a very Germanic and European use terminology. Certainly in North America and Asia Pacific, it's less so. It's more referred to as IoT or industrial IoT. They're not as. So it's not a true global terminology. So even that yourself gives a little bit of leeway in terms of interpretation. But in essence, if you think of it as it's the collection of disruptive technologies that have emerged in the last 10 years and what they enable people to do. So certainly know cloud computing, augmented reality, IOC platforms, RPA. You know, there's a whole raft of disruptive technologies which could be applied to to improve manufacturing performance, essentially. And when they are applied in the manufacturing inside the four walls of manufacturing, again, historically, industry four would have been the application of those disruptive technologies in the manufacturing environment to essentially bring about a major shift in the way that manufacturers operate versus the legacy processes and systems, essentially. [00:03:28][79.3]

[00:03:29] So disruptive technologies, I guess. Disruptive technologies. Okay. [00:03:33][4.4]

[00:03:34] And it Dedede the terminology and even some of the technologies have been around a while. Where are we on the the the uptake of Industry 4.0? [00:03:45][11.6]

[00:03:46] Well, this is one of the things I was majorly focussing on in the in the articles that I wrote. And again, there are all sorts of things that have affected it at the same time, essentially, but. If you look historically at manufacturing, certainly more than what I present to clients and what I've observed. And again, just just to say at this point, again, just for context, I've only been with us HP for 12 months. [00:04:13][26.5]

[00:04:14] And I started my career in manufacturing a long time ago. I'm not a techie or an engineer by definition. I'm actually marketing by background. [00:04:21][7.0]

[00:04:22] But I worked in manufacturing for 10 years. I was involved in ERP implementations with I moved into manufacturing I.T. at the p.l.c. Scotter MERS Lim's level. So basically all the technologies inside the four walls of the manufacturing facility. And then from there I, I spent six years after that Wonderware as part of the global MERS team again. And that's where I first began partnering with AP around a concept called Perfect Plant, maybe two thousand six seven, which was a precursor to industry for the idea of ERP to shop for connectivity. And then I spent six years at atonce. You are a big global MERS and SJP partner, global head of the MERS portfolio and latterly part of the industry for team atolls. And then just prior to joining A.S.A.P., I spent two years at a Y some more. So one of the big four more in the advisory sector. And the thing that I've observed, which I wrote about in the articles, is that all manufacturers I work with globally, very fortunate to travel globally, followed now for major investment trends that have been aimed at improving their manufacturing performance. These are three industry, four trends. So they've all if you look at any global manufacturer, look at what they've done strategically with the likes of McKinsey, Koenigs, BCG, et cetera. They've assessed that global manufacturing footprint with where to manufacture, which markets to serve, emerging markets, where to procure a global supply chains. There's been a whole raft of strategic initiatives that they've taken. And again, these have been in response to things like the financial crash in 2008, Brexit, or all sorts of things that have changed the way that they operate and why they manufacture and their global supply chain. But that's nothing to do with I.T. or technology. That's just strategic direction. So that's one trend. The second trend has been a big investment in I.T., which is escapee's traditional domain, and most have implemented the global ERP programmes. [00:06:27][125.2]

[00:06:28] So a big investment in I.T. with the CIO. The third thing that they've all done is they've all introduced operational excellence programmes. So again, based on principles like two, it's a production system. Kysen, a world class manufacturing Six Sigma Principles, Witchey, they've all done that. Again, nothing to do with I.T. or technology. These are manufacturing pillars around service improvement five Astal Autonomous Maintenance. So these are the principles that they the operators work to. And the fourth big investment is beaning operational operational technology HOTI, which again is all the stuff inside the four walls of the factory. So process control, automation, measurement and control and systems, new OEM equipment, high speed production lines, automation, robotics, HDB funding in automotive, et cetera. So they've all invested very heavily in those four areas. Now, every CFO I speak to have spoken to in my career would tell you that that business is definitely better performing from each of those four investments. But none of those four investments have really delivered the value that they thought they would. And the question is why? And the answer is, I wrote in The Ascoli, I believe it's down to silos. So, again, if you look at the organisational structure of most companies, the strategy work with the CSO is do with a big consultancy firms then is the strategy that operations have to work to. [00:08:00][91.5]

[00:08:01] They are supported by the Operational Excellence Programme and the principles that needs information and data. So the business looks in two directions for enabling technologies and information, which is the CIO and I.T. But also, as we know, the CIO doesn't build new production facilities in BMW or Volkswagen or BASF, Heinicke and any of the big global manufacturers. The production facilities, chemical plants, packing lines are built by engineers. Process automation, etc.. And in my experience, usually Baz's a smile in the room when I talk to clients about this. But I.T. and engineering don't often collaborate very well inside the client. They're often actually in competition with each other. And I always use the example of a just a term like real time means different things to them both. So real time. And then I say P Well, the IP world is usually transactional. Some things move from A to B. A different value, real time to a process engineer could be milliseconds guns on a chemical reactor to make sure it's in control and doing what it should do. So even some of the terminology means different things. So if you then look outside into the external ecosystem, then it's actually a mirror image of the same silos that you see inside the plant. So at the CSIRO level, we have the big consultancy firms. The ones I mentioned earlier at McKinsey, BCG and EPA Consulting, etc.. We also have the consulting arms of the Big Four Deloitte, a y PDMS KPMG and also the consulting arms and advisory arms of people like Accenture and Capgemini Outsource, who obviously lots of other assize who have consulting capability. So they're all vying for the attention of the CSO on the strategic level and on the I.T. level, where I say he is obviously a dominant player, Oracle, Salesforce, a lot of competition in that department as the delivery partners Assize and the I.T. ecosystem. [00:10:02][121.3]

[00:10:03] So again, there's a whole ecosystem of logos anchored around the CIO. But then when you look into the Otey ecosystem, it's a completely different set of logos. It seems that Schneider Electric Rockwell there are we? Oh, yes, I there's a whole raft of technology providers. [00:10:21][17.7]

[00:10:21] And also, as the OEMs are in that light touch of back and Crone's and others who are providing all the equipment that actually makes cars and brews there and does the other things and SICP as is involved in that area, but not as dominant as we are in the you know, we play very strong in certain areas. But it's a different ecosystem. And then back into the world of operational excellence is back into professional consulting capability. It's not really technology driven. So the external ecosystem is for silos, rather like the client's internal force silos. And in my experience, pre industry for not many manufacturing companies have truly broken down the silos between their internal mechanics and also with the external ecosystem, the suppliers. So that was the status quo pre industry for now. Then industry core emerged, I think, as the term was coined in 2008 2009, but really came to prominence in twenty thirteen, fourteen fifteen on what SAP's when it was in the height really started. And again, if you go back to what I said earlier in terms of disruptive technologies, again, 3D printing, augmented reality, virtual reality, you know, Big Daito, all these types of high anxiety platforms, all these types of new technologies that enabled us to sort of coalesced around this industry for concept. And it certainly, again, pre recoded crisis. There was a bit of a bandwagon growing around industry. And that's most of the work I've been involved in for the last four to five years. But again, in truth, most of the work I've seen done that I've been involved in and I've seen done by partners and other people outside of this IP on this IP has largely been. Interesting poses some really cool ideas, some very interesting and valuable solutions have been developed. But I heard a phrase I can't remember into the eyes of many said it. But I thought it was a fantastic description of industry for free code. And they describe it as speedboats pulling on an oil tanker. Because if you look at most of the big global manufacturers, the juggernauts of manufacturing is still largely what it was pre industry for that. They have some interesting postseason concepts. And if you go to Howells, a massive you'll see lots of really cool tools and toys around. But, you know, our any of them really adopted into mainstream manufacturing in our mission, critical and central to the way that most manufacturers work. And I I've not I can think of many. So I think industry for pretty crisis was an emerging area. It was very interesting. It was very exciting. Most global manufacturers responded and had a CDO or an industry or initiative. So they were certainly, you know, looking at it and trying to see what it meant to them. But I think the other thing I would say from a market dynamic point of view is which is confusing from the manufacturer's perspective, is the four silos that I mentioned a few minutes ago. You know, the strategy of the I.T., the OTEY and the operational excellence, they are well-established markets and the players are very dominant and have a pecking order in there. And we've got a matrix and you'll find, you know, well-established players in each of those segments with industry or as a mishmash of all sorts of things, because everybody has a story and a point of view or an offering on industry for. So McKinsey do Accenture do Capgemini, do we do as I say, pay Oracle, Salesforce, Siemens with mindspace, G with Predix, you know, some of Brocke physical products to market. Others have service capabilities around it and consulting advice capabilities. So all the old guard for want of a better phrase, have a point of view of industry. But then you also have new market entrants. You have a totally new start. Companies who have been around less than 10 years but have a really cool technology or idea. And again, what you're seeing is typical, typical market consolidation where those interesting start-ups are being acquired left, right and centre, all failing left, right and centre. So here today, gone tomorrow or acquired by a bigger fish. And then you've also got the emergence of the hyperscale assist in that as well. So, again, you ask Google, Microsoft really come into the fore in that and they're all in the IOC industry for domain. So from if you look at this from the manufacturer's perspective, they've been bombarded with information points of view products and solutions at all. Interesting for centric and certainly precrisis. I just felt that most of them were a little bit confused and didn't know where to begin. So that's why most of what you saw happening pre crisis was a small investment. Interesting PEOC. You're trying to essentially figure out what it was and what it meant to them. And then, unfortunately, it was the the the crisis hit. But there are other factors and points of view that I got that I suppose the biggest point I tried to make in terms of the point of view on industry for. Is I genuinely don't think the industry for me, even in the new postcode scenario. I don't think the answer is technology at all. Right. I don't think technology will deliver what we all need to happen moving forward. I think people, you know, manufacturers, the ecosystem, everyone needs to recognise that the four silos still exist today. You know, strategy, I.T., Oji, operational excellence. And now we've got essentially a fifth silo of disruptive technologies loosely banded together is indisputable. But I think the answer is to break down the silos and find a way of collaborating way to make sure that strategy and direction is aligned to technology, both I.T. and OTI and in straightforward technologies and what they can do for you. And it's aligned to the way that the manufacturer works in terms of the day to day operation, the operational excellence principles, because they are not wrong. No, they don't. And again, gonna get some interesting examples to share with you. If we get a chance later in the call. But operational excellence, not way of working. You can't just dismiss that. It's central. And there's some interesting ideas around predictive maintenance that, again, I learnt over the last five years that you could chat with you if you want. But that's essentially where I think industry floor is. It's an emerging market. It's developed largely off technology, evolution and disruptive technologies. But the answer to it is more basic in terms of stakeholder management and silos and the internal mechanics of organisations and the external interrelationship with the ecosystem. [00:17:24][422.7]

[00:17:25] And where to from here. [00:17:26][0.8]

[00:17:26] This is gonna be a fun one. [00:17:27][0.7]

[00:17:30] I think. Again, what I've observed as a pattern of process and again in my 30 is now I'm 52 years old. I've been in this manufacturing centre for 30 years in various laws. But certainly what I've observed in terms of the silos and the interrelationship is that. Like now in the post kov it crisis situation. I wrote in the article back on the 2nd of April when this thing was really just starting to impact. And I felt that manufactures would be looking at the problem in three sizes. And then in the first phase, they obviously focussed on survival because most supply chains, you know, the automotive market shut down completely. The airline industry stopped, which impacts Airbus, which impacts Rolls Royce, which impacts so many different companies. So. But a lot of companies, it was an existential threat to them. So phase one survived. Do whatever it takes to to still be in business when the crisis lifts. Then the second phase, I thought, would be focussed on recovering how to get back to profitable operations as soon as possible. And then the third phase would be redesigning the business models. And again, looking, learning the lessons, figuring out what went wrong, what could they have done better? Where did they cost themselves more losses than they necessarily needed to if they'd have had access to better decision making and information to support that? Exactly. Exactly. So there's going to be a review or a reassessment. And also, that may also impact some big, big topics like, you know, that global supply chain where they picked off the raw materials from, because, again, if they were severely hampered by having a global network, they may go more natural rather than offshore. So. A complete redesign, maybe, of that business model. So the question then is, well, well, how are they going to do that? Where does industry for fit if it has a role at all? And this is where I think we need to change the old paradigm of the last two years because what I observe. Is that typically now? Today, you would have a big global manufacturers. Be talking to management consultants about their strategy. They'll be having the conversation now today with the McKenzies and Besieges, et cetera, around the things I've just talked about. What do we do next? What's the right way forward, et cetera? And if the old pattern would be that the consulting firms could be in there for four or five or six months, doing these six are level strategic mapping activities and develop at the end of it is a deliverable strategy, the the direction to go in. But typically those consulting firms are not responsible for delivering that from an I.T. perspective or a transformational perspective. They stop at the consulting piece and then it goes over to the big I.T. firms like Accenture, Capgemini, Deloitte, Accenture, to then translate the strategy into a transformational roadmap. And then they'll get their hands on it. And usually there's an iteration. They will then pull certain pieces out and change it because it doesn't fit. Technology, for some reason, it's not the right sequence from a technology standpoint. So there's an integrated iterative process around the strategy of the revamped, and they usually do that in isolation and then eventually they may or may not come and talk to someone like SIOP or the other technology vendors around what our components and software will do to help deliver that from a technology platform point of view. Because obviously, in the main, they, the I.T. delivery firms do not develop software. It's, as I say, patents, Oracle, Siemens, it's Schneider Electric. [00:21:26][235.9]

[00:21:26] So so if you look at that process from a timescale perspective, let's say six months of consulting and then the strategy document gets another six months of the review with a centre of big I.T. firm, and then they'll then engage with the vendors and some soap RFQ arts type process. [00:21:44][17.4]

[00:21:45] And it's like dominoes falling, you know, consulting to I.T. firms, to technology delivery firms and with its rigid processes, the time to value and times the benefits quite long. And usually each stakeholder in the chain has a lot of value to add. But they're not. They don't know the full information of the next person in the chain. So you have to see a process that's like a sequence of dominoes falling. And from the manufacturer's point of view, that takes a long time to get to the value. So my personal belief is that I think we need a quorum because if you add that quorum would be the client SAP with. And I'm not showing any bias or preference to any particular vendor. They're all equally strengths and values and such. But just as an example, if you have a client tax SAP's with McKinsey is that consultancy firm, SAP with Accenture is that may not delivery firm. SAP with SIOP is their Maini LP, I.T. vendor platform. SAP with, let's say, Seamans, who provide most of their Scotter p.l.c. equipment and let's say Tetrapod, if it's a soft drinks company packaging company, such could be a major global supplier. If the client SAP with that collective and said this is our goal and objective and it's incumbent on you guys now as our primary suppliers to deliver that. So that topic could be sustainability, could be a circular economy, it could be recovery from the COGAT crisis. But if you. I often think that if you did a van diagram, as each of those suppliers, once the client has said, look, you are our management consultant, that's yours. You are. I keep on and that's yours. How are our software vendors? That's yours amongst those lines drawn. There's no actually much overlap, especially if we go as far as an industry. So in a soft drinks industry that the beverage industry, for instance, SIOP at the moment doesn't have Scotter or MERS systems suitable to that. So we have to work with a vendor, do just that. We don't build machines to do so, actually. And Seamans don't build machines. Tetrapod do with Siemens p.l.c.. So actually, if you did a Venn diagram, it wouldn't be that much competition. So the two words I used in in the article were collaboration first and foremost. And the phrase again I did years ago from this former SJP colleague who coined the phrase Colaba competition. So again, this idea, sometimes we cooperate, sometimes we compete. And if you have grown up enough to understand that that's the real world, then if there is an area of competition, let's say PLM or recipe's, where, you know, one of the two of the vendors think that they have the solution to things. Right. Or you just ring fence that and say, OK, best man wins. But everything else the LP now says to me, Ask that you. So we'll argue over the P11 best man wins once the client's made the kind of the lines drawn. So as soon as you can draw those lines now, I think that, you know, what's the value add to that? I think you do away with a lot of the time scale and a lot of the iteration. So from the manufacturer's point of view, the time to value all the time to recovery in this case and back to normal operations and achieving the end state is much shorter, which is more valuable to the client. Which means that we have to, with the eco system, the suppliers, which is then ultimately more valuable to each of the suppliers rather than the very loose, arm's length, slightly disconnected way of the external eco system working. And again, I think it's quite funny. You know, having had the career, I've had to work in so many different external suppliers. They all think they have the inside track on the client to objectives and they all know something, but they don't know at all. So actually, again, if you could sit in a room and actually all really understand what the real situation was and what was required, it would be more valuable to to all the suppliers. I'm the client, which you wouldn't burn so much energy on things that are a dead end to you or their dead end for the client. So I think the future to industry for like I said a few minutes ago. Is that it's not technology. It's changing the fundamental interrelationship of both the client's internal stakeholders and organisational setup. I.T. engineering operations, the supply chain. Sure, sure. But also doing that with the external ecosystem of suppliers in those same mirror image silos. And the thing I will say at this point is that it's not an easy task. [00:26:26][281.2]

[00:26:27] That's exactly what I was gonna say. So how do we make that happen? [00:26:30][2.3]

[00:26:31] So the two the two things I would say on that would be I have actually seen it happen. It can be done. And no, it's not particularly easy. But. Once you overcome that. Where else, you know, that sort of competitive? That situation is something that I've seen done not just once, but several times. It was one of the funniest ones was in China with a Chinese automotive company. And they literally invited us over. To to take place in a four week worth of workshops with them. And we didn't know prior to the event. But there was literally everybody sat in the same room having to exchange ideas. So you got SJP and Oracle and all these different companies SAP together. We're all incumbent to a degree. So all major suppliers in the client's mind and they just didn't think twice about it. It was just you all suppliers and this is what we want to do. So tell us how we're going to do it. So that's actually probably the biggest answer I would give on this one. I don't think, you know, I'm trying to instigate change now from my role in SIOP, but equally I was trying to do that the Y and that's I'll say it's a challenge. I think the ultimate answer, the only person that can really instigate that level of change is the plant themselves. Make sense at the end of the day is they are our paymasters. All of us, the external ecosystem of suppliers. So if they sit there, if the CEO sits in front of the senior board members from the ecosystem of suppliers and say, I want this to happen, you need to make this happen, play nicely and we will all benefit from this. I think the short answer is it has to come from the client. Then the slightly more detailed answer is once the remit is given, the edict is no goal is expressed. Then then it comes down to just good governance and change management practises, because, again, on the projects I worked on in the past where where it works, you you have to have mechanisms in place to deal with conflict and different points of view and quite strong opinions sometimes from I.T. technical solution architects, et cetera, in terms of the pros and cons of the particular architecture addresses and alternative architecture. So there has to be some mechanism and governance model to do that. And again, you don't normally see that too much in a single vendor scenario where you're just delivering an ERP migration or just delivered. Yes. Project you tend to it tends to be a one to one relationship rather than a multiple sided point of view. So there has to be a more robust governance structure in place. But again, keeps coming back to the point I keep making. The answer is no. The technology that is again down to governance and stakeholder management, expectation management, financial management, project management, it's it's more around principles than technology capability. [00:29:45][194.3]

[00:29:48] Chondra coming towards the end of the podcast. Is there anything we haven't covered off that you think people should be aware of any. [00:29:55][7.3]

[00:29:55] Anything that you'd like to highlight? [00:29:57][1.3]

[00:29:58] Again, it's early days to say this at the moment, but certainly what I'm doing at the moment in s AP United sort of hints at it in the articles that I wrote, is to try and drive that core collaboration, the co-op petition. And I know there are the things happening heading in the same direction. But so, again, what I would say to the audience listening in particular partners and even competitors, is Mark, my door is open. And if a competitor wants to pick up the phone to me and they think there's an area of collaboration or know where we could actually work together to solve a particular problem, then, you know, then the door's open. And I think, again, I say P is headed in that direction, more so than I think it's done historically. But those that will become clearer over the next couple of months also. But I think, again, it's early days yet. But, yeah, in terms of things to be aware of is I think we're heading in that direction. And I know my role is responsible for the industry. Forward now, strategy for the North. So for my regional go to market planning perspective, my door is definitely open. So that's an open invite to the two partners and competitors to reach out to me directly to you. And if you have an idea or something and and certainly I've got a good line of sight to most of the big accounts. And on the north side, I can see what I say he is doing and where we're going. So I'll certainly be reaching out in the coming months to various people to to discuss particular accounts. So let's get the ball rolling. That's got a lot of recovering to do. [00:31:50][112.0]

[00:31:51] Indeed. Indeed, indeed. And that brings me nicely on to my final question, John. If anyone wants to get in touch with yourself or want to know more about Industry 4.0 over four point now, where would you have me direct them? I will. Just to just to jump in. I will in the start of the description of this podcast. I will have links to those two articles that you've mentioned. So they will be there. So anything else anything else you want me to point people to? Just let me know. [00:32:17][25.9]

[00:32:17] Yes. I will do. I'll send you some other links to turn that into the podcast. But obviously, I'm on LinkedIn. Most people also people can find it that by all means, connect and reach out to me on LinkedIn. And also through that you will find my essay P Contact details and then the articles. There are also links to all of the SAP's APIs industry forward. Now global pages with all sorts of white papers, videos, PDX, no information that. There's a lot of it. [00:32:47][29.4]

[00:32:47] So if somebody wants a an elevated summary page of escapee's industry code on that strategy, then probably better to reach out directly than other gates to the high quality and lots of information that we have available on that page. [00:33:05][17.4]

[00:33:05] Great. Great, John. It's been fantastic. Thanks for coming on the show today. Thank you very much. [00:33:10][4.3]

[00:33:13] OK. We've come to the end of the show. Thanks, everyone, for listening. If you'd like to know more about digital supply chains, head on over to SJP dot com slash digital supply chain. Or simply drop me an email to Tom Dot Raftery at SAP dot com if you'd like to show. Please don't forget to subscribe to it. And your podcast application of choice to get new episodes as soon as they're published. Also, please don't forget to rate and review the podcast. It really does help new people to find a show. Thanks. Catch you all next time. [00:33:13][0.0]

[1949.8]