Lloyd O'Donnell: 0:03

If you can localize your circular behaviors so that you're recycling the materials you put out into your customers in in Europe or in America, so that your remanufacturing refurbishing centers are local, you bring not only a better environmental footprint, you also bring a lot better resilience to your supply chain because you're not exposed to potentially future geopolitical problems, or, you know, international shipping problems with a pandemic.

Tom Raftery: 0:32

Good morning, good afternoon, or good evening wherever you are in the world. This is the digital supply chain podcast, the number one podcast focusing on the digitization 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 my special guest, Lloyd. Lloyd, would you like to introduce yourself?

Lloyd O'Donnell: 0:58

Sure. My name is Lloyd O'Donnell, I work in the space of circular performance as a sustainable service at SAP. So we are concentrating on figuring out how to help our customers expect particularly our manufacturing customers, product makers transform from product sellers to performance sellers. The reason for that is there's a very natural marriage between performance selling and circular economy. And therefore in this case, because we're talking about supply chains, more resilient supply chains that are also more sustainable.

Tom Raftery: 1:28

Okay, there's a lot to unpack there, Lloyd. So, let's start off with circular performance as a service. Can you break that out for me what what is circular performance as a sustainable service.

Lloyd O'Donnell: 1:43

So we tried to capture the name, which obviously is a bit of a work in progress, the idea that once you move from product selling to performance, selling your motivations as a business change for how you're design and manage those products. And once you are selling performance, you're obviously looking for as much revenue as possible from the raw materials you still own because you move from a product seller to an asset owner. And so those raw materials and components and products remain your assets and therefore managing them well. Whether that's a longer life or lower and lower maintenance costs, or recycle ability, or help bring profit to the business. And so that's where the circularity comes in. And of course, with circularity, if you are recycling your materials and components, a few things happen, and especially in metals related manufacture, you massively reduce your carbon footprint, because most of the of the carbon footprints in the primary manufacture, you obviously reduce your effect on virgin ecologies because you're using less virgin raw materials. And then of course, because you're recycling, you also reduce your waste. So you get massive savings in the three main ESG categories of you know, materials consumption, per product, carbon footprint per product, and waste per product. Okay, so

Tom Raftery: 3:05

this is the idea that organizations are going to start shifting from selling products to selling the outcomes of those products, or as you're calling it, the performance of those products, and why why the differentiation between performance and outcome?

Lloyd O'Donnell: 3:20

I think, I mean, there's different areas that turn things in different ways. The concern with outcome is that realistically, a manufacturer or product maker can provide somebody with the performance, they can provide them with the ability to do something, but they can't guarantee the outcome, or guaranteeing the outcome is much harder, unless you're also providing, for instance, the technicians who will operate the machinery. So, contractually, you can provide inverted commas the outcome that the machine will work, but really what you're doing is guaranteeing the performance of the machine the machine is ready to perform whatever it's contractually obliged to be able to do.

Tom Raftery: 3:58

Okay. And is this I mean, this is this is kind of the shift to product as a service is something that has been talked about for a while now, but there hasn't been a huge move in that direction or, or has there I missing something there.

Lloyd O'Donnell: 4:16

I mean, look, it hasn't it hasn't served as there's big ones obviously, everybody knows that the jet engine industry has been doing this since forever. Rolls Royce started power by the hour 59 years ago. Amazon Web Services effectively turn the IT infrastructure industry into as a service, which is now as you're in Google Cloud and all those as well. The printing industry obviously transformed in the sense that most printers you can get quite easily on a some sort of subscription basis or pay for the page you print. So many, many industries have moved with. There's lots of examples with our customers that SAP that I'm not free to name that are certainly moving and you look at companies like HP or HP that are very openly, strategically moving towards as a service The reason it's not A big rush at the gate is the there's been several factors that make it difficult, right? So one is just the servitization part of it, managing the services, are you going to use external contractors? Are you going to do it yourself, if you previously only been a product maker not involved in the servicing, that's the challenge, the cost of the transformation, like, let's be realistic, it is significant. And the mentality that the whole shift of idea that you retain responsibility is also a significant shift. But the big catalysts now particularly in Europe, and America is coming, it seems that from a regulatory perspective is things like extended producer responsibility, where producers have to pay recyclers anyway, to effectively try and re gather their materials that they put out into the world. And things like the just transition mechanism, and the European Green Deal that are putting, you know, a trillion euros on the table for these types of transformations.

Tom Raftery: 5:54

Okay, and for the customers slash consumers. You know, most people are still bought into the idea of ownership of things, you know, for good or for bad. And I get now that we are, you know, more and more getting into subscription services, the likes of the Netflix's and things like that. But, you know, if you think of cars, people still expect to own a car, for example, is that something you think is going to transition over time as well,

Lloyd O'Donnell: 6:34

I definitely think that will shift, I'll quickly touch on the idea that people want to own things, because the research shows that manufacturers that move towards subscription models seemingly are growing at five times the rate of their competitors that are still selling products. So there's definitely a desire for that simplification. So from a customer perspective, things like lowering the barrier to entry. So in some cases, there's already financing or middle men out there that spread the cost anyway, for a customer. But certainly, in areas where it's a forecast industry, spreading that cost for a customer is a big deal. As you know, for a CFO on the customer side. Having that cost understood on it from a p&l perspective, having being able to keep it in the p&l is a big deal. And then of course, you've got other benefits, like guaranteed performance, simplification of relationships. So if Tom, you've sold me something on subscription under performance, and you're guaranteeing the performance when it's not working, I know who to go to. And I don't have to have multiple contractual arrangements. For instance, in different geographies. Imagine if I have assets in multiple geographies, and I have 50 different service organizations because you don't provide the performance guarantee. I've got to coordinate that myself or do it myself. So So anyway, there's there's benefits to performance based contracts for customers that are very compelling that do make it compelling. Now we talk about cars. But to answer your question, from a future state perspective, if you think about a V's, there's a huge amount of cost, obviously, in the battery, there's a lot of talk around batteries having to be circular anyway, because of the toxic materials. So car companies retaining ownership and leasing those important the American market demonstrates that a huge number of people, particularly younger consumers are more than happy to lease a car for two, three years, and then less another one. So it's ownership. But it's, it's still exclusive. It's mine, but it's also temporal. And so car makers are going to have to face the challenge of Okay, well, if we retain responsibility, how do we design cars, so that we could effectively do a mini refurb of the interior. So that a, we give the opportunity to our primary owner to retain as much value as possible so that we can charge a more competitive subscription price, but also make it make the interior lead stay COVID safe if we, if we want to be pandemic themed, so that it's all clean and and, you know, hygienic, for example, to switch the interiors between between users. But yeah, future state, if you think about autonomous driving the potential for non ownership and then you Tom, because you're not driving anymore, can pretty much petition a car that's either a sleeping car, or a video game, or a work conference car or whatever. And they're effectively, you know, Van shape. vehicles that on the interior are lovely, for example, all of those things, we imagine are going to become the norm in the future where the autonomous car of your choice just shows up almost like Uber does. And I think everyone's talking about that as it's going to happen one day, it's just a matter of when and how.

Tom Raftery: 10:11

Yeah, anytime I imagine autonomous vehicles for longer journeys, I kind of I have this kind of parallel vision of you know, what it's like being in a plane and what do you do when you're in a plane for a number of hours, you typically without your laptop and start doing work because you're uninterrupted or you start watching movies because they're showing them on those screen in front of you, or things like that, and you have a meal service delivered to you, you know, I assume in autonomous vehicles is going to be something similar that you know, you have movies or you have an ability to do work or relax with, you know, with some choice of entertainment and or be absorbed some kind of meal, that kind of thing. So, it's it's, you know, it's it leads to all kinds of new opportunities for revenue for the manufacturers, I got to think but very, very different as well from their current model.

Lloyd O'Donnell: 11:01

Yeah, absolutely. I mean, I think you're right that it will be from manufacturers perspective. I mean, it's really not known, right? whether you'll have third party aggregators that take cars from the makers, so that that your I get access not only different styles of cars, but different brands of car. Because there is a motivation for a third party aggregator like that to exist because of what you said that they would also aggregate, potentially meal services. Where it could be that the car has different streaming options that are all tied up. But there's no reason that a BMW or Mercedes couldn't easily have all of those relationships with PlayStation with whether you know, Netflix and so on that whatever you consume while you're in the car just automatically goes on your subscription bill. Yep. And you're able to consume whatever you want to consume. So yeah, certainly, I I fully agree with you that that that you will also need the car maker will need invariably an ongoing relationship with the customer so that the customer can consume whatever they want while in the vehicle and pay for it easily without even thinking about it.

Tom Raftery: 12:09

Cool. Cool. Yeah. It's a it's a very different model for the manufacturers, though. And I've had this conversation on this podcast a number of times before the fact that the shift to product as a service means that now the manufacturer or men keeps ownership of the of the items of the devices. That means there's no longer any incentive, maybe incentive at the wrong word. But there's no longer any incentive for inbuilt obsolescence, you know, certainly quite the opposite. If you're the manufacturer, and you're maintaining ownership, well, then you want it to last as long as possible. And because you're getting revenue from its usage you wanted you want maximum possible uptime. So you know, that's that that will lead to, to my mind, vastly, vastly sustainable outcomes. Oh, absolutely. I

Lloyd O'Donnell: 13:02

mean, I was watching a podcast on YouTube last night, talking about the electric bulb industry, light bulb industry. Yeah. Back in the 20s, the main manufacturers basically got together and agreed for not only standardization of the base, but the future development of the industry, that light bulbs should only have 1000 hour life's lifespan. And they'd already you know, that sort of gotten it up to 3200 by that stage and realize that they weren't their sales were going down because they'd been selling and obviously, and then it segwayed into cars as well, where Henry Ford originally was saying, you know, you if you buy one of our cars, you'll never need to buy another car. And then General Motors was bought by DuPont. And DuPont started bringing out annual different paint colors for the new models, right to drive people to want the new model and to demonstrate they had the new model. And there was an interview with their chief designer, thinking, I think he said something like in 1945, the average, you know, lifespan of someone owning one of their cars was five years before they sold it to someone else, they'd got it down to two. And once they could get it down to one year, they'd have the perfect, you know, product cycling from that perspective, because they wanted to drive that insatiable sort of desire for having the latest in their products. And we've seen that in the last century. Right. So what's going to be interesting as a chat as a challenge for product makers, and I think it's quite a beautiful challenge is how do we build products that as you say, the planned obsolescence isn't so much planned obsolescence, but it aligns to, partly innovation cycles in terms of what's available in terms of the changing in technology inside the industry, partly to the consumers desire, in other words, being able to keep up with competition and and make sure they feel that they have a great product. And then balance that with how can we design it so that it can be automatically disassembled, and or recycled so that we change the components that are necessary in order to meet those needs for the latest, while also being as sustainable as possible with those parts that can be durable, they should be durable. So I might have some components that last through five users, while other components change for each user. But there has to be a higher recycle ability of those components so that we're not damaging the environment while we're doing it. And we can quite readily bring that recycled material back into our production chain right into our supply chain. So I think that's obviously a fascinating challenge because of the human dynamics involved and the and the driving technological innovation. But there's no question that the product design mentality moves from how do I make products that I can just sell more of, with no responsibility for the materials, as you say, in some cases, some form of Planned obsolescence? How do I move that to optimal management of the raw materials? I've purchased rights to how do I figure out how to use less raw material per product were sensible, durable materials were sensible, and then highly recyclable materials where it's necessary to use those in order to meet the consumption lifecycle that's expected by the consumers.

Tom Raftery: 16:28

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. And I think, you know, to your point, right at the outset, the fact that this will help organizations massively reduce their virgin their use of virgin materials has got to be a huge, huge win for everyone as well. Again, this was something I've posited on previous podcasts, and I talk about EBS quite a bit, because I'm quite interested in them. And one of the things that we see in the Eevee world is that the batteries of EBS are not like the batteries that we have in our phones and our laptops, and on our iPads. You know, we're well familiar with those batteries losing capacity after two, three years. And that's just because they're not managed. Whereas the battery in a car is such a huge component of the electric vehicle, it is very, very, very carefully managed to cut hold, battery management systems that coddle completely the batteries, and so the battery life, according to the CEO of Nissan, the battery life of a battery in a Nissan electric vehicle is 22 years, while the the life of the body of the vehicle, they reckoned to be 10 years or 12 years. So, you know, the, the batteries can outlast the body. So to your point, this is, you know, I can see in the future that the vehicle manufacturers bring back the cars after, you know, the kind of leasing ideas that you were talking about three, four or five years, you know, maybe make a few buffing changes on the body, swap out some of the electrics in the interior. So they have the latest technologies Bluetooth six, or whatever is the latest one that's come out at that point, you know, and then ship it back out again, same battery, in 90%, the same body, new tires, maybe new coat of paint, and for you know, 95% the same raw material, you're getting a nearly new car going back out the door again.

Lloyd O'Donnell: 18:22

Absolutely. I'm a huge believer in as new or performance products being a trend in the market that especially if it goes so there's a I won't name names but uh, in France, there's a reseller for phones and electronic equipment that recently got funding that values that a 2.7 billion euros simply for basically buying secondhand material, recycled, secondhand electronics, refurbishing them and selling them out as performance, you know whether with a guarantee of a certain amount of time that this is going to work and we've checked it all. And it all works fine. If you take that to the next level, where let's say an apple or Samsung, or whoever was to offer me an older phone and guarantee the performance, I'd have much, much more inclined to buy that phone under subscription or whatever perform. Because they guarantee me It won't break, they guarantee me if the battery fails, I can replace it if you know, even if the screen cracks, you could have contracts that make sure that you can get your screen replaced much more easily than you can today. And so when we talk about cars, I think people are very open to as new vehicles. As long as they're clean and the performance is guaranteed a lot of their concerns go away because as you know, most people I remember when I first I normal I've always taken public transport I learned to drive when I was young. And then in the cities, I was taking public transport. And then I got a job where I had to commute a significant amount and I had to buy a car. I wanted to buy a second hand car for environmental reasons and for cost reasons. But I didn't have the confidence in the let's say how sound it was mechanically. I don't trust second third car dealers, for example. I wasn't you know, it wasn't keen to buy one privately, I was concerned that I'd buy a cheap car and then have to spend more money on it to fix it. So I ended up buying a new car because it had a warranty for five years and then I knew that it would work and if it didn't, the manufacturer would fix it. Right. So I'm big, big believer that the main concern especially for expensive products like cars or you know anything in the expensive range for an individual. I'm a big believer that the main concern of users is that it will work for the lifespan they hope it will work for yeah Yes, they want it to be trendy and cool and whatever, but they want the primary functionality.

Tom Raftery: 20:37

Yeah, yeah. And you even even your example of of the mobile phones, I mean, there's the current, let's say the current iPhone is the iPhone 12. And later on this year, the iPhone 13 will come out on the iPhone 13 will be the iPhone 12 with a slightly better camera and a new chip. And, you know, the rest of the components internally, you know, 95% of them are exactly the same. So, you know, would it be possible for Apple to take back iPhone 12, put in new camera new chip and send it back out? Again? More than likely? Yes,

Lloyd O'Donnell: 21:15

absolutely. I mean, there's so many answers to that, that we get I won't bore you with but you know, we all know, friends, phones, the main driver of the amazing photos they take is the software. Yeah. And the software can obviously be upgraded with any of the hardware, if we look at, I mean, I don't have a huge problem with so think about the phone makers and how much money they could make if they change their model where instead of having to sell new phones all the time, and try and convince people to upgrade where, especially with repairability laws coming in, they're going to have trouble convincing the average person to upgrade because, you know, most phones already fit the needs of most users, you know, there are a level now where the premium phones it's you have to be a highly engaged professional to need genuinely a faster phone. If they change their model where Yes, if you want the latest and greatest because you're fashionable, or you're a super user, you can have it, but we're not selling them anymore. We're just charging performance. And yes, the subscription value per year would go down for each model. But it would be quite incredible for their business model because you know, you think about their brought out the mid mid mid market find, let's say the apple I say came came out to compete with other mid tier phones, those mid two brands, mostly Chinese brands often use all the technology, so two to three year old chips to three year old graphics processors and so on. So it's kind of crazy that Apple's competing with these mid market phones that these mid market phones only exist because the premium ones were too expensive. When they could simply subscribe and guarantee performance one model and have that model go to the premium, you know, fancy users a year and a half later go to let's say a standard user a year and a half later go to a mid market user a year and a half later go to a budget user and then be recycled. And if you think about even I'm kind of excited about the laptop space, whether that's a hp or Dell or an apple. Once they've cycled through those uses, they could even give them out to schools in poor areas under charity contracts for a year or two years, or however long they're going to run before bringing them back and recycling them. So they can meet an extra level their ESG component. With products that work it doesn't cost them anything to leave it out in the field because from a revenue perspective, it's reached its full lifecycle. And from a materials perspective, they'll still get the materials back. So it doesn't hurt them to leave that performance product out in the field with no charitable sense. Until it does reaches genuine end of life and stops working instead of repairing it, they just take it back into the into the production chain. So there's a huge amount of potential in this space for meeting the mid market needs and then wiping out that mid market competition. You take care of secondary resellers, because you're not selling your products out into the world, which then becomes second hand products which can be resold which cannibalize your market. And oh, yeah, and repairability laws, when you no longer sell your products. repairability laws don't apply because you own the products and you're guaranteed performance. So if any of your customers have a problem, they give them back to you for and you repair them. So that's that comes into, we can have an IP discussion as well. Again, I won't name names, but there's manufacturers of very, very, let's say technologically advanced, valuable products, usually in the b2b space, have had problems with competitors buying their products from their customers and duplicating their technology. Right? Right. Whereas if you lease out your product to their customer, and they're not permitted to one sale, and you're the one servicing it in the location it's in, you're also in a much you can basically lock your product so that no one can open it except you and you're in a much better position to protect your IP. Excellent.

Tom Raftery: 24:57

And if people are interested in going down or investigating this route for the organization, you know, what, what's, what's next steps for them or what's first steps for them?

Lloyd O'Donnell: 25:09

Well, I guess the first step would be to contact me if possible. So we obviously have really large sales motion inside SAP at the moment or they can go and check out the high tech space or the IMC so the industrial manufacturing component space out ASAP website to look up performance as a service. It's certainly got a large team working on how to make that area For organizations, there's also a team working on the predictive maintenance and field servicing space. We obviously have great technology in that space in regards to, for companies that are existing asset managers, they need to have predictive maintenance. And they need to be able to coordinate Field Services, both with internal staff and external stuff. If you think about, you know, especially multinationals, or even even dispersed geography in one country, it's very likely that an enterprise will choose to have its own people in some places, and then have contractual arrangements with external technicians in other places, and having the technology needed to onboard those people rapidly and even provide technology like an xR cloud, like an extended reality cloud, where, whether it's the customer through their iPad, or the external technician, or your own technicians, both learning how to repair through that augmented reality device, or when the iPad is looking at with its camera at the device, it can overlay the augmented reality material or read automatically, yes, it looks like it's been installed, right? the nuts and bolts are all in the right places, and so on, and read the sensors and then particularly disassembling it in the field, if you need to replace a certain component on the technology can guide that technician with exactly what needs to, you know, be undone in what order and how to put it back together. All of these things are obviously at scale going to be quite important for the future of Field Services. And then the take back technology, right, we're going to, we are working on a digital twin scenario that isn't just for manufacturing, and for a certain level of repair. But also that that automated disassembly, we'd love to get to a place where when a product comes in the image recognition technology of the robots on the disassembly line, understand exactly which product it is, like down to the serial number level, ideally, of how many 1000 hours it's been in use, and therefore, what type of refurbishment it needs when it gets disassembled so that it knows exactly what to do with each component, as we discussed before, what gets cleaned, what gets put automatically back into the supply chain. Once it's clean, what gets shredded, what gets sold as is in terms of components or products, and so on. So, yeah, there's a fascinating whitespace in terms of the technology that we need to work on. But there's also a huge amount of mature technology where we're ready to go and start the transformation, which is you can imagine these are multi year transformations for manufacturers. So to get them up and running, selling subscriptions, effectively selling performance, in certain geographies offer certain products, understanding how that works in terms of planning for the life cycle, because you now I think about potentially putting this out with multiple customers across many years. Right? And what will you do in between those customer cycles. So we definitely, you know, ready to go in terms of supporting customers in that space and ready to go in terms of asset management Field Services. But as I said, there's also some some co innovation spaces that for key customers, we would be open to obviously doing some co innovation work as well.

Tom Raftery: 28:33

Nice. Okay, so Barb, we're coming towards the end of the podcast now, Lloyd, is there any question that I haven't asked you that you wish I had, or any topic we've not broached that you think it's important for people to kind of be aware of? Yeah, I

Lloyd O'Donnell: 28:47

do. I think, just as an overall topic, right. So the why of this is really important. So in the next century, we're gonna have 40% more people on the planet, it's basically unavoidable with, with the way people unfortunately breed with a mentality of their own family first. And just general awareness, we're going to have 3 billion extra people this century for sure. And they're probably going to mostly come in places that are, let's say, the lowest standard of living in terms of capital available per person. However, we all know the Sustainable Development Goals, half of those goals are set up to improve life quality. And half of those goals are set up to protect the environment, which are kind of in conflict. Because we all know, if we genuinely succeed in improving life quality for each human on the planet, which I hope we do, then we also give them more fluidity from a perspective of making choices and having capital and we all know that in most of those places, when you have part of showing status of showing wealth in society is spending that wealth and demonstrating that wealth. And so, you know, I think the average if if they took the consumption of of America, and everybody on the planet consumed as much as Americans do, we'd be consuming five planets worth, you know, and that's not true for sub Sahara Africa and so on where they're consuming less than a planet worth per person. If everybody was consuming it, they're right. But the reality is that whether it's India, Southeast Asia, China, and Africa, those those demographics that are going to have more to spend in the future will do so. And so you know, we're already consuming literally 100 trillion kilos of resources a year in on this planet and we're SPECT scan to consume 190 trillion by 2060. And, basically, we're already breaking the ecological ceiling with seven and a half billion people, right? With what we're consuming now. And we expect to have 10 billion people, and they'll all be consuming more. Right? So if we plan to not break the ecological ceiling of this planet, we need to figure out how to have, you know, 40% more people and consume less raw materials in total. And the only way to do that is circular economy, because people won't go to a Spartan life where they consume nothing. Right? Yeah. And you only need to go to very overpopulated places in our sense, like, from a Western sense. There's certain places in India, for example, that feel very overpopulated. People learn how to they adapt to living in overpopulated environments, you know, and they continue to have children, and they continue to you to have the culture that they have. And that's everybody you know, so I don't see consumption changing. And I don't see having families changing in the near term. But we can change the way we use our products. And from a supply chain perspective, I think it's up to the supply chain managers of the world. To drive in their company, the responsibility with the product design is everybody else's, like, okay, I bought these raw materials, these raw materials are valuable. I want them to be recyclable, and reuse so that we just use them over and over and over. And the segue to that is supply chain resilience is obviously a hugely important topic. And I think something for your supply chain managers that we need to also hammer home is whether it's rare metals in China, or certain rare metals that, for instance, are mined in certain parts of Africa, where the ethical questions around that mining is hard to prove or hard to establish or hard to guarantee. Whether it's the pandemic type situation of international supply chains, if you're if direct message to the supply chain managers out there, if you can localize your circular behaviors, so that you're recycling them materials you've put out into your customers in in Europe or in America, so that your remanufacturing refurbishing centers are local, you bring not only a better environmental footprint, you also bring a lot better resilience to your supply chain, because you're not exposed to potentially future geopolitical problems, or, you know, international shipping problems with a pandemic and so on. So once you localize those materials, let's say you're only recycling, I say only because that you could do better but only recycling 40 to 50% of your components. That's still 40 or 50%. less exposure to the raw material supply chain.

Tom Raftery: 33:12

Yeah. Pretty good. Pretty good. Okay, Lloyd, if people want to know more about yourself, Lloyd, or about circular performances as as a circular performance as a sustainable service, where would you have me direct them?

Lloyd O'Donnell: 33:30

You can find me on LinkedIn, I haven't yet started writing knowledge articles on this because everything we're doing at the moment has been internally preparing for that topic of marrying, you know, marrying performances of service and circular economy and so on. So feel free to find me on LinkedIn under Lloyd O'Donnell. However, as I said, the first point of call at the moment that I would make if you're an asset manager is to look up predictive maintenance services, inside SAP and the move towards effectively outcome based maintenance in one component, and if your product maker or manufacturer, the performance as a service or outcome based economy team that is currently putting together a really solid package around the auditor, cash components and all of the software needed to make sure you can handle everything from setting up the way you do subscriptions to the lease accounting, and revenue recognition and so on. Those would be great places to start the actual mechanics of the journey. But yeah, that would be the best i don't i don't know my LinkedIn handle in a long, long form.

Tom Raftery: 34:33

And I find it and I've got a link in the show notes, don't worry.

Lloyd O'Donnell: 34:37

Thank you very much. But yeah, I really hope at the very least, this has sparked a lot of a lot of thoughts for the listeners, and you you all out there can go and have interesting conversations with your colleagues because This to me is a no brainer. We need to do better with our materials. And the only way to motivate an enterprise to do better with their materials is to retain ownership and retain ownership, then you're figuring out how to get best value out of those materials and longest life. And then away we go.

Tom Raftery: 35:06

Lovely, lovely. Lloyd. That's been fantastic. Thanks a million for coming on the podcast today. Tom. It's been my pleasure. Okay, 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 sap.com slash digital supply chain or, or simply drop me an email to Tom raftery@sap.com. If you'd like to show please don't forget to subscribe to it. 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 the show. Thanks. Catch you all next time.