#HRTechChat: David Edwards on the “Last Mile” from Data to Decisions

Speaker A: Welcome to HR Tech Chat, where we explore how HR technology helps leaders drive better business outcomes. I'm Nicole Roberts, senior analyst and advisor with 360 insights. Today we're diving into a conversation at the intersection of strategic workforce planning, AI leadership judgment and real world complexity of execution. I'm especially pleased to welcome David Edwards, the most recent member of our global Advisory Council.

Speaker B: David, um, hello Nicole. How are you?

Speaker A: Welcome, welcome. I'm so glad we were able to get this all together and I'm really looking forward to the conversation. Please introduce yourself to our audience.

Speaker B: Of course. Hello, yes, I'm David Edwards. Um, I am a strategic workforce planning. I don't know, would you call me an expert? I mean everybody has a different view as to what sort of SWP is. I have written a book, the Strategic Workforce Planning Handbook, which, which is now officially, according to the publisher, a bestseller. Um, in addition to having worked in a number of different organizations putting strategic workforce planning in place, I also advise companies, technology companies as well, vendors on SWP matters and things of, uh, great interest. And it's a fascinating subject as far as I'm concerned.

Speaker A: I mean, I agree, but also I'm a self proclaimed nerd, so I'm really excited personally to dig into the topic. So in your work and in writing your book, you emphasize the gap between theory and the lived reality of practitioners. What feels most misaligned right now between how organizations talk about workforce and people decisions and how those decisions actually get made?

Speaker B: It's a really difficult one because almost any conversation about SWP ends up kind of trying to boil the ocean. I liken it to, uh, sticking your finger in a mill pond and the ripples kind of travel to every single edge. I think it still suffers from an identity crisis. Lots of people. You put 20 people in a room, you'll get about 30 different definitions of what SWP actually is. And so I think it suffers because people are looking for things that, ah, perhaps it's not actually supposed to try to deliver. And that may be something as straightforward as a long term headcount forecast, which by the way, I don't believe it should be trying to do, at least not in any great detail. Or it could be because people expect to uh, realize short term monetary savings, um, which again, and the clue is in the name of strategics, it's more likely to be some kind of long term outcome that uh, you're going to see. So the short term, long term tension, which exists in an awful lot of companies, um, often means that SWP gets frozen out And I think that may explain why there's a relatively high turnover of SWP practitioners in companies. Because it's a bit of an occupational hazard trying to put in something short, uh, longer term, when the short term is, is almost always paramount. There are other reasons as well. We might well get into some of those. But not least of them is a lack of joined up thinking and joined up action across the different parts, not only of group functions, but also functions within hr.

Speaker A: Where do you think that leaders are oversimplifying things? And where do you think that they're making it more complex than it needs to be?

Speaker B: Where they are simplifying things too much is in assuming that you can just come up with a long term headcount forecast and that will somehow be it, and that this is something you do once a year. It is neither of those things, in my opinion. Where it can get very complicated is, I think, a natural tendency to want to dive into every last piece of detail. SWP deals primarily in the vague, in the uncertain. Um, organizations typically don't want to deal in those terms. They like to have certainty, and so therefore they will want to drill down. They want to know with certainty how something is going to happen, how something is going to work. Um, which is why it's a little bit of a mindset shift. And perhaps not just a bit of a mindset shift. It's an enormous, great mindset shift because you've got to get comfortable with the idea that you may not be completely accurate and you may not be completely right. Hindsight, of course, is a wonderful thing. But if we look back at sort of the certainty of planning that there has been in the past, we can see that none of those were terribly right either.

Speaker A: I think that it's the whole if, if you fail to plan, you plan to fail and people are, you know, they get a stranglehold on that. And so they think that, well, if I did all this planning, that I should be prepared for everything. And it's like that's not quite what that means, right?

Speaker B: No, no, it's not. And I'm doing a, um, talk in Zurich this week with the People Analytics World Conference Series. And um, that's all about scenario planning. And you know, I'm kind of reminded of President Eisenhower's favorite, you know, famous saying, you know, plans are useless, planning is everything. And it is an increasingly. I have found that my understanding of SWP is changing. And I know we might talk about that later, but I think it is a response mechanism. It is a way of Preparing for what might happen. People kind of talk about scenario planning within SWP as ah, though they're two different things. And really that is the job. The scenario is the job. It just so happens that uh, you're planning on the scenario that you think is most likely to happen.

Speaker A: Right. Well, and I mean I teach strategic workforce planning for hr, for hci.

Speaker C: You do?

Speaker B: That's scary. You might know more than I do. You probably do.

Speaker A: We do a whole, you know, scenario planning exercise. I mean it's a, it's a lengthy exercise and it's interesting because if you, you know, put together the, this, you know, quad grid and you look at, you know, what are the factors that we're considering and then are, uh, and you kind of hedge your bets a little bit, right? It's like, well, I'm going to give them this best case scenario, this worst case scenario and then that's how I'm gonna kind of influence decision making. Possibly. But you still have to plan for the other scenarios, even if those don't fit your narrative. Right?

Speaker B: Absolutely. I would agree with you. I mean it is an exercise in the margins. It is, you know, what's the marginal difference that we expect to see as a consequence of things not necessarily happening the way we expect them to? You know, I like to use analogies. So my, my apologies for uh, perhaps too many of them, but I'm going to unleash in um, Unleash America in Las Vegas in, in March now, you know, the guy who's flying the plane, the person who's flying the plane isn't going to kind of take off and then say, right, that's it, nothing else to think about. You know, they, they expect things not to quite happen as if they would like them to. And indeed most of their training and their preparation is not for what goes right, but for what might go wrong or what might go different. You could actually say the same thing at pretty much every legal agreement you've ever come across as well, you know, I think I've made my point.

Speaker A: Yeah, I think so. And I think it's a great segue into looking at the role of managers today. I mean they aren't just managing employees, right? They are navigating extended workforces, hybrid environments, technology platforms and increasingly AI generated inputs, you know, forecasts, recommendations, even dealing with, with prompts. How does that fundamentally change what the manager role really is?

Speaker B: Well, I, I uh, think there is a, there is a latter day problem with what the manager's role is anyway. And you know, I don't mean this disrespectfully, but too often we do see somebody being given a manager position on the basis of their technical merit and, uh, not necessarily on the basis of their ability to manage and coordinate and to orchestrate, which is a significant part of what they, they need to be able to do. And those orchestration responsibilities and skill sets probably need to be imbued and inculcated an awful lot more than they currently are. The other thing that I would add to that pile of woe is, um, a responsibility for stewardship. And this is not something which is necessarily placed on the manager to the extent that perhaps it ought to be. And in evidence, I suppose I would say that by and large managers do not want to take on somebody that is not already the finished article because they are essentially being rewarded to deliver as opposed perhaps to manage. And if, uh, they're being rewarded to deliver, well, of course you don't want anything to get in the way of that.

Speaker A: Right.

Speaker B: And that, uh, may account for why real success stories around reskilling and redeployment are still hard to come by. I think it is because managers are not being rewarded to foster that kind of culture.

Speaker A: Yeah, well, yeah, I mean, if you promote somebody like you said, right. For their technical excellence rather than people leadership. Right. I mean, they can read a P and L, they can't read the room. Right. They, they have been promoted through their career and always recognize and even rewarded. Right. Probably bonuses. All of those things were based on their individ competency and performance. And now they're leading a team and expected to get results through others. But we're still in a lot of cases basing bonuses, basing performance reviews. All of that based on their performance and not their performance as a leader, their competency as a leader. Right. But it, it is based on, you know, are, are you meeting these metrics and it's like, well, now you're getting those numbers accomplished through people. So how does that change your playbook as a leader? It changes significantly. And we don't spend enough time and effort and resources equipping those leaders to be able to.

Speaker B: No, we don't. And I think it's partly, yeah, it's not entirely their fault. No, you know, they, they, they will push the buttons and pull the levers which get them the results that they need to get. And that intrinsically is a part of the problem. We actually make it too hard for managers to take on permanent employees. And we make it much too easy, you might argue, for them to Take on people who are not because those people will deliver uh, for you. And you get set into doing things in a particular way or I'll get some contractors in to do this. And you know, let's not get ourselves into thinking that sort of the world is no longer a one great big ball of change. You know, virtually everything that we're doing is change of some sort or other.

Speaker A: Yes.

Speaker B: And that ferment means that we don't, we can't, any longer look at change as just being something that happens every now and again and that's to change the way we think about the people that we have. You know, one of the insights, one of the very early insights, I wish it had been mine, it wasn't, um, that kind of justified a more strategic approach to workforce planning was that over a five year period in this particular company, $1.3 billion change portfolio varied by no more than about 100 million or so in total over a five year term. Now of course there were different peaks and troughs in between and yet over that entire period something like 50% of our change staff were temporary. And when you look at that sort of kind of longer view and I guarantee you that there will be organizations out there, uh, people listening to this saying, yeah, that's us as well.

Speaker A: That blows my mind.

Speaker B: Yeah, I know, uh, it's a bit surprising, but that's not sort of a kind of a made up example. That is a truth.

Speaker A: Yeah. And it's so funny too because there are so many organizations that will out there low attrition and say that, you know, we've got people that have been there from the beginning and they were part of it and they're bought in and they're, you know, they're, they, there are, I mean, retention bonuses. Right. And things like these are your basically golden handcuffs to make sure that you're getting us through those next steps. And to hear that that same scale that that organization, and certainly they're not an anomaly, was able to do that with a, I mean, for lack of better words, a contingent workforce. It's that it definitely makes you think. Right.

Speaker B: Well it does, it does, but it just reinforces sort of, you know, the, my assertion, I suppose that we are so kind of bound up in short term thinking.

Speaker A: Mhm.

Speaker B: That we, we don't think of those sort of kind of long term consequences. I mean, I'll, you know, if you like, I'll compound it by saying that you know, within that there were an awful lot of statement of work workers. I mean, you know, 7, 8,000. And the average number of FTE per ah, statement of work was 1.5. So you know that those two stats on their own, they tell you a huge amount about what the, what the belief system was about what was possible and what we should be or what we could do to make things work.

Speaker A: Yeah. Sue, you have challenged the pursuit of perfect data. And I love this, particularly in the content of strategic workforce planning. What can actually be dangerous at a leadership or strategic level?

Speaker B: Well, of course, too much and too little, both extremes can be problematic. I think that data needs to be decision grade for its context. Um, very favorite book of mine was the Book of Heroic Failures. You've probably never heard of it, but it's a sort of a kind of like Darwin Awards for sort of human ingenuity, but sort of, you know, not with the fatal consequences.

Speaker A: I'm gonna look it up.

Speaker B: And one of those, One of the things in there was a state, and I can't remember which one it was in the 19th century which decided that tapai was four, because otherwise it was just a bit too complicated to sort of worry about. And consequently clocks started to sort of, you know, run about a quarter of an hour faster every hour. You know, things went out of kilter very quickly. Um, I suppose the moral of the tell is try to oversimplify too much and you will run into every bit as bad a consequence as trying to wait until the data is absolutely perfect, which will actually never happen. So it is one of the, I think still to be human skills that will be required in the future, which is not just to synthesize all of the different inputs that we're getting. And I'm a big fan of the word synthesis because I think that that is actually the essence of what SWP is as a practice. But to make the judgment call as to which of the things that we need to be doing something about either, uh, for the business or for its people or for a part of the business. So I would tend, if I was doing this, I would say look at what the most important parts of the workforce are for the business and then go deep on those. Don't try to go deep across the whole thing because, you know, we can say for. And again, I know I mean no disrespect for commodity roles, for commodity positions. There will be a certain amount of attrition. We can hire forward of that attrition with reasonable certainty that the numbers that we hire in advance will be the right number that we need to meet the, uh, ongoing attrition however, for those areas where we really are dependent on the particular forms of expertise, IPR and licensing is a great one. AI engineers is another one. And in certain selling situations, relationship managers, uh, you know, say for a corporate and institutional bank, your relationship manager is absolutely fundamental still. So picking those things out and looking at what the state of those is, that's still a necessary thing to be able to do.

Speaker A: My favorite is doing this exercise when we look at strategic versus core versus supporting roles, right. In the strategic workforce planning. And nearly every executive thinks that they're a strategic role. And then you find out more and more it's actually the people closest to delivering the good service, the business that are in touch with the customers, that are the actual, uh, strategic role. And it's just kind of my favorite,

Speaker B: you know, I've absolutely, yeah, I do have a great example. I'm in danger of boring people with it because I use it so often, but it's a good one. There's a, a company of 100,000 people. An IPR and licensing team may only be a couple of hundred. This is a hypothetical company, but a real world example. Within that team of a couple of hundred, there uh, will only be 30 or 40 people who are the real kind of brains, the ones who write the licenses, who identify the ip, know how to defend it. And typically IP can be worth, especially in sort of certain technology companies, billions of dollars of revenue per year. In this particular example, half of those 40 are 55 and over. Well, boy, oh boy, have you got a, you know, have you?

Speaker A: Yeah, mhm.

Speaker B: And that's for me, that's actually the fun. Sorry, I interrupted.

Speaker A: No, you're fine.

Speaker B: You know, I think, and this is where I believe that SWP needs to change because some people question its value. It needs to be about those parts of the workforce that are themselves strategic and not necessarily strateg planning the whole workforce.

Speaker A: Yes, yes. So I want to introduce AI into the conversation because it fundamentally changes strategic workforce planning. Right. We, we, we look at capability different, certainly look at capacity different. Right. So as AI becomes more embedded in workforce planning and people analytics, capability is certainly accelerating rapidly. But that capability doesn't automatically equal clarity, judgment skills. Do you think that leaders and managers need to develop not just new tools?

Speaker B: I think it's not so much new skills, so much as skills that we ought to have learned by now that we need to get better at collaboration being perhaps the most important of all in exactly the same way as sort of any other plan is only as good as its Execution strategic workforce plan is only as good as, as the way in which you go about delivering it. And that way ought to be different if you have a longer amount of time to think about what it is you're going to do. So if you have a greater window of opportunity because you're looking two to three years ahead, you should be able to say, right, we can scale up some of the things that we're currently doing piecemeal and turn that into a value creator, uh, and also a cost reducer for the organization. We shouldn't ignore that for a second. And that kind of scaling up is only really going to work if you start to collaborate across the delivery streams and say, right, hang on, you know, we, we need to get these AI engineers in, otherwise we're not going to be competitive. Well, you know, it's going to take us nine months to hire and it's going to take us 12 months to train existing cohorts that are suitable for, uh, upskilling. You know, we can start that, but that's not going to solve the competitive issue that we've got in the short term. Right, well, hang on a minute. We'll buy some staff in, but we don't do it in isolation from those other two things. We collaborate and we say, right, we're going to buy these in, we're going to train these and we're going to hire those and we're going to do all of those things at the same time. And the same thing applies, I think, to the deployment of AI agents. Excuse me. We have to see that as part of the available supply to do work, but only, only when and importantly when we can verify that it is fit for its purpose in exactly the same way as the rest of the workforce needs to be fit for its business purpose. We can't go in on the basis that, oh, uh, we'll put some AI agents in there and they will do a great job for us. There has to be some kind of, sort of bounded, um, kind of, ah, approval around the deployment of these resources. You know, you wouldn't let loose an um, untrained person on a, uh, you know, on a railway train. So why, you know, why on earth would you let an AI agent loose on it?

Speaker A: Well, and I think it's interesting because there becomes kind of a conflation of confidence in data and quality and decision making. It is. Well, we have, you know, kind of this, this speed of data and this volume of data that we have, and so we should be able to be making decisions so Much better, quicker, faster, whatever. But you still have to validate the data. Right. And exactly what you were saying. You wouldn't put somebody in place that had no experience without having some kind of oversight. And I mean, yeah, it terrifies me when I hear that there's, oh, we're gonna put in an agent in that spot. And it's like, well, but who's making sure that the agent isn't literally, um, going off the rails? Right? Like, who's making sure that that's not happening?

Speaker B: Who's policing the police? Absolutely.

Speaker A: Right, yes.

Speaker B: You hit on something there. And I'd, I'd like to sort of tug at that little thread, if I may. And you talked about sort of, you know, the greatest speed and availability of data, uh, to a decision making. And I think this is something. And it is the HR tech chat, after all. So we ought to talk about HR tech in all of this. They won't thank me for this, but I think that we are in a situation now where we have multiple technology traits heading at ever greater speed towards Grand Central.

Speaker A: Mhm.

Speaker B: And about a mile out they stop and there's a. Guys, we need you to walk the rest of the way, please, because we can't quite get you to your destination and tell you what it is that actually comes out of all of this.

Speaker A: Yep.

Speaker B: And that is where I believe there is enormous potential for AI to transform the insight and the understanding that we have to at least help to automate some of the synthesis because we've almost got too much to synthesize at the moment. And anybody who has more than three dashboards on their tableau screen or whatever is going to struggle to know exactly which bit they should be worrying about.

Speaker A: Yeah, well, and the number one question that I'm asking in my conversations with vendors for my research this year is that's wonderful that you have all this different, you know, analytics and dashboards and whatever. How is that feeding back for that HR practitioner, for that cfo, for that executive team, so that they can look at the organization holistically and the ones that get it that are like, oh, yeah, well, our piece needs to be part of that global picture. Right. Like they're, I think, changing the game and they're going to be ahead. And the ones that are like, well, no, like we're, we're kind of standalone over here. Like, there's no reason to bring it in there. Like, like looking at it like a siloed part of the organization, like that is so naive because organizations should not like that is how you set up that siloed decision making if your data is siloed from the rest of the organization.

Speaker B: Agree. And you know, I sympathize with vendors in this respect in that I think the capability is there now to consume pretty much any piece of data you like and to connect it to almost any other piece of data that you like and come up with a story and a correlation. But there are still considerable institutional barriers to allowing all of those different data sources to come together. And yet we know from our experiences already that if you are prepared to look at, uh, sales information per individual fruit, just as a very simple example, there's an extremely well known luxury goods manufacturer who gave us a fantastic presentation one day when they were showing that by bringing together sort of layering, if you like people, analytics with sales information and store information, you could suddenly see there were common characteristics of successful, thriving outlets and they were directly tied to the kind of conditions for those particular workers, that uh, particular workforce. And if you replicated those conditions, you could replicate the revenue results. But there is a reluctance to do that. I think we need to get past that.

Speaker A: Yeah, yeah. So if this is our message to our HR tech vendors, which we affectionately, we know and we love them. So if workforce technology was truly supporting decision making and not just generating insight, what would look meaningfully different for leaders, managers and HR teams?

Speaker B: I think a couple of things. I think firstly, and these are both tied actually really to the same thing. So I'll bring them together, tell us what to do. We have too much, we have too much to be able to decide for ourselves. That's not because we're incompetent or anything. But you know, I go back to the three dashboards is arguably too many. What's the problem I need to be worrying about? And uh, what do I do about that? And put that into the language of business. Now we have strategic workforce planning. Again, the clue is in the title. It is about making sure your workforce is fit for its future business purpose. So which aspect? And let's assume that it isn't, because if it is, I don't believe you anyway. Um, but if it isn't, then what's the risk to the current business strategy? Which bit of your strategy is already failing that you don't know about? That's the first bit. And by talking about risk, we start to talk about language that boards understand, the boards care about. And secondly, again, how do I walk that last mile to Grand Central? What have I actually got to do next? Because it's not always clear, at least present to me choices that I could make that help me to see what the implications of my decision might be. And again, I think, I don't think it's so much of a stretch for tech to be able to do that. You know, I mean, I've been working in financial technology since an awfully long time ago. In fact, I can trace it all the. Trace it all the way back to 1980. I used to consult on sort of reporting and stuff. And one of the things you used to do as a reporting consultant was to visualize. I think the tech can do this. And therefore I can say with reasonable confidence, based on the features and functions we've got available, we can do this. Well, I can visualize that what I'm talking about here is now possible. All the connections seem to be there. And I think it's as much about our will and our ability to, to govern it that's holding us back.

Speaker C: What happens when employees behave badly? Boy, we could, we could do an entire tv, uh, show, uh, maybe. Maybe a Netflix special on that. Well, Ron and I sat down and recorded episodes for Fama, and we asked practitioners, give us your most outrageous story. You know, the sales leader that brings cocaine to work, you know, whatever, just bring us the outrageous. And it is funny. So if you need a laugh, which we all do from time to time, search for workplace misconduct, um, wherever you get your podcast, and you'll find it, and trust me, you will laugh and cry, but you'll definitely laugh. All right. Thank you.

Speaker A: Yeah. If you could challenge one assumption that leaders hold about data planning and leadership, what would it be?

Speaker B: Can't live without it, but don't die by it, because if you do, then you probably will, if you see what I mean. We still pay people to make judgments, to make decisions. Data helps us to make decisions. Data is depending upon, of course, how we characterize data. I don't characterize the synthesis work that SW Planner does as just being people. Analytics data, or even business strategy data. It can be a whole bunch of stuff. Can be, you know, external geopolitics. It can be generational trends. It can be the weather, for heaven's sake. And actually, um, those things matter. The world Food program, medicines Enfrontiere. When they're doing strategic workforce planning, the weather makes an awful lot of difference to what they might do.

Speaker A: Absolutely.

Speaker B: In the same way as wars might and all of those other things. But, you know, there's. There's more than just one fish in the sea. And yes, AI is incredibly important but ask yourself, is AI going to be critically important for a scaffolding company? Perhaps one day we will get to a place where AI is able to control machines which put scaffolding up perfectly. But, you know, we're a heck of a long way off that.

Speaker C: Uh-huh.

Speaker B: We still need other, more physical skills to coexist with the new technological ones. I did get pulled up, by the way. Sorry, Nicole, I must say this, but, you know, I suggested that bricklayers were, you know, were unlikely to be, uh, affected by AI terribly quickly. And then someone raised their hand and said, ah, but there is a machine now which can lay bricks at a much faster rate and, you know, and is controlled by just one person. So I sort of. Kind of. Okay, fine. But the real world. Yeah, the real world is that. That's still pretty distant for most people and we forget that at our peril. That sort of. For all the talk and the hype of technological advancement, or more and more sophisticated ways of managing our, uh, workforce for the bulk of people in business with the bulk of HR departments, we are still scrabbling around, sort of, you know, often fighting over dirt.

Speaker A: I love that. Yes, that is incredibly true. So tell us about your book that you wrote and where we can find it and we will link to it, of course, in the show notes.

Speaker B: There it is. So, yeah, I had it to hand just in time. The Strategic Workforce Planning Handbook. It is available on, um, Amazon. It's also available on, um, KoganPage. That's all one word dot com, SWPH. And if. Try to remember this, Kogan, page 25, put that code in and you'll get a 25% discount.

Speaker A: There you go.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker A: Look at us, um, giving our audience a treat.

Speaker B: Yeah. Um, I'm really pleased with it. I've tried not to write a book about SWP theory, but about the lived experience, the messy world. It's got interviews or extracts of interviews with what, 60, 70 practitioners and tech leaders and all sorts of people involved in it. It's their stories that kind of, sort of bear it along rather than just what I think.

Speaker A: Well, I have not read it yet, but I'm getting ready to go on the. Have you heard, heard of the HR conference cruise?

Speaker B: Yes.

Speaker A: So I'm getting ready to go on the HR conference cruise, and because I'm a super nerd, that's what I'm bringing along to read. So I'll be reading it on the plane, probably most likely down there in the, in the next couple of weeks.

Speaker B: But I'm also that Sounds fantastic. Why, why am I not invited?

Speaker A: I say I think that we should definitely get more people on this cruise. So I'll, I'll send you the, um, info for that as well.

Speaker B: Absolutely.

Speaker A: My good friend Mike Maduro organizes this and it's, it's fantastic. I mean, it's a floating, all inclusive resort and you're getting, uh, HR education and development and recertification. Like, who wouldn't want to do that? It's amazing.

Speaker B: Absolutely. And m. I'm quite good at karaoke as well.

Speaker A: And it's funny you say that because there's a lot of karaoke in the evenings.

Speaker B: So I thought, I thought there might be.

Speaker A: Yeah. It's a wonderful time. It really is. I spoke last year and so this will be my second one. So. Yeah, it's exciting. I love it.

Speaker B: Excellent.

Speaker A: So much fun. Thank you so much for joining me. This has been a thoughtful and energizing conversation. I'm so glad that we were able to take this time. I mean, I know that I nerd out about this stuff and so I'm sure I'm not alone. And there's somebody else that's listening to it right now that is excited. And thank you for the, the promo code for your book. We are also really excited to have you as part of the Executive Advisory Council, the Global Advisory Council. Uh, that's how I started my journey with 365 years ago. And now I'm actually part of the team. So it's, it's very exciting.

Speaker B: Oh, I'm very pleased to be a part of it.

Speaker A: For those listening, please be sure to follow David's work and check out the book, the Strategic Workforce Planning Handbook. And thank you for joining us for the HR Tech chat. Be sure to subscribe, follow and share this episode. David, thank you so much. And thank you.

Speaker B: Thank you, Nicole.