Episode 20: Customer-Led Growth Strategies For Insurers, A Conversation With Oliver Wyman Senior Leaders Mick Moloney and Rick Chavez

Speaker A: Hi everyone and welcome to Oliver Wayman's Reinventing Insurance podcast. I'm um, your host Paul Ricard. Hello everyone and welcome to Reinventing Insurance. For this episode I welcome back Mick Maloney, Olibo Wyman's global head of insurance, asset management and actuarial and special guest Rick Chavez, partner and leader of our Olibu Wyman customer first platform. This is a continuation of Mick and Rick's discussion on building modern businesses that thrive. Prior to Oliver Wyman, Rick spent a lot of his career across many parts of the big tech world, including Microsoft. In this episode, Rick takes us through Microsoft's transformation journey that unfolded over the last couple of decades. Enjoy the conversation.

Speaker B: Welcome back to our Reinventing Insurance podcast series. Uh, I'm Mick Maloney and I'm uh, delighted to be joined here again today by my uh, friend and colleague, uh, Rick Chavez. Rick and I will be continuing our prior discussion on application of the uh, customer first uh, approach to industry reinvention and our conversation about uh, how we see that as a uh, path for re rating uh, for uh, much of the insurance and asset management industry. Rick, welcome back.

Speaker C: Great to be here with you again, Mick.

Speaker B: Okay, so let's transition to the portfolio level questions.

Speaker C: Oh yeah, right.

Speaker B: And maybe if I um, ah, if I, let me, let me draw parallels here and this parallel is a little bit of a stretch but we'll kind of run with it. So as I said, we have, and I'm going to pick on uh, the life subsector just for uh, the purposes of argument, but we have the life subsector where you know, on average I'd say, you know, public US life insurers are trading at, if they're looking at eight times forward price aren't responsible. You have the S and P trading north of 20 and you have the tech companies in there trading significantly north of that. And one of the tech companies that you mentioned in your introduction obviously is Microsoft. And Microsoft is fascinating. I know to many and as you and I know Manny in the life insurance sector in that they look at it and go, gosh, if I was trying to re rate myself as a life insurer from an 8 times multiple company to none are stretching as far as north of 30. But gosh, wouldn't it be fantastic if I could get myself rerated to being 20 times and then obviously I need to find a growth story sitting behind that and if I want that growth story to be around unmet needs and so forth. But as you and I have talked about it, it is if you take it up to the macro level and think about how to achieve or using Microsoft as an example of how to achieve that. And I think the things that, if we can hit them as we go through, is declaring a story to the market.

Speaker C: Yeah. Um,

Speaker B: how behavior was happening internally and then you touched it in passing there. Thinking about managing various existing businesses in different ways going forward, some of which involves tough decision making about things that are no longer going to be strategic and are going to fund other things. Could you hit those points?

Speaker C: Yeah, no, look, I think this, and you mentioned that, um, a bit ago. I think, uh, it's a really important point. One of the most amazing things in watching, well, being inside the machinery of Microsoft was, I think, when, when Satya became CEO, the Microsoft that was there, right, in 20, say, 2011, 2012, was a Microsoft that had been driven by this vision of a machine, you know, a computer in every home and office. It was very siloed divisionally. Um, those silos were very powerful and strong, so they'd gotten resilient inside the silo. But Satya saw a different future. And so he declared to an investor conference, you know us about that Microsoft, but we're a Microsoft that's about helping people and companies do more, to be more cloud, mobile and AI. And just think about, I mean, there's such a dramatic difference in that statement, and incredibly bold and brave. But also it was heavily informed by observing megatrends. Um, one of the executives that I work closely with and division I was in used to say, when you see the trends, when you see the megatrends, go with them. And it sounded very simple, but it was really hard because some of the megatrends that were saying cloud, that were saying, hey, data. Google sees hundreds, thousands of signals from everybody. Many, many, many moments of the hour, let alone all throughout the day. What do we know about the customer? And you could sort of say, well, not much. I mean, we know, you know, Monday, when they come into their, you know, turn on the machine and fire up office, maybe Friday. And I'm exaggerating a little bit, but we didn't have that much of what we today call signals, you know, with the advertising or ad tech or martech world would say, signals of intent. Right? What is it I really want? And that was a huge disadvantage. Right. Because it's powering all kinds of innovation. See, anyway, I could go too much into this, but you could look at these megatrends and say, we're not with them, let's go with them. And so declaring Cloud, mobile and AI was in fact motivated by deep understanding of the trends at work in the world. But it was still very brave. And because it was so different from that Microsoft, and frankly Microsoft at that time had not done too well in things like mobile, um, and was very small in cloud. Right. Um, then taking that story back to the point you raised and saying, now how am I going to connect that external narrative about moving into what we in tech would call new category? I'm m moving out of the old category of desktop and server. I'm moving into this new category. How do I connect that to a change narrative? And what's really interesting about what he did there is Microsoft's a very competitive, Many ah of us have very competitive cultures. But he was able to ignite the competitive spirit of the Place to Win. And he was able to sort of get in the minds of people, um, who were feeling this lack of relevance. And when people would talk about the four horsemen of the tech sector, Microsoft, um, was not one of those four. You know, it was Apple, Amazon, Google and Facebook are now meta. And so being in the consideration set, being relevant was incredibly inspirational. Right. And so I think connecting the outside story to the inside case for change and then as you said, making very tough decisions about what would be part of the future or not. So desktop Office, not a lot of signals of intent from users, but it's a very profitable thing. Um, but let's sort of manage it into kind of graceful obsolescence while we very rapidly onboard Something new. Office365. So it was a reinvention. It was also, um, an acceleration of things. It was picking out of the portfolio. Yeah, things like Azure and really pushing them and pushing them intensively. Not pushing 20 things, but pushing, you know, one or two things in a very intentional and significant way.

Speaker B: And what are, what are the. The um, I have a couple of questions coming out of that. The kind of brave declaration of a new future market. Right. And I think that's also followed up by proof points.

Speaker C: Oh my goodness. Yeah.

Speaker B: That aren't dependent on getting to nirvana. It's like, look, we're showing you that we're moving in the right direction.

Speaker C: Right. Well, you know this. We recently plotted, uh, the earnings trajectory of Microsoft over a period of time from like 2011, 2010 to now. And what you see is for a period of time, some of the decisions made, um, the changing of the leadership team, the announcement of changes, um, some proof points started to show up, like the launching of the modern Office on an iPad while that may not have seemed that big now was huge because it was launched by Satya, uh, on stage on an iPad, not on a Windows machine. So those kinds of things were proof that the company was in fact moving in a new direction. And very visible signs of, very visible signs of living into that narrative, I would say also exiting things that. So, you know, buying Nokia, um, and then in a fairly short period of time when I don't know how many months it was after Satya was CEO. But then shutting that down. Yeah. Was painful and it uh, was a painful and significant write off. Right. So I think those, there was credit from investors that it looked credible. But if you, if you do the earnings trajectory, it actually took all of these sort of, this is why, why I said grit and determination. Right. It took a bunch of these moves in a sequence and it was no one in particular. It was the changing of the culture, changing of the product focus, changing of the business structure. Yeah, that then the company had huge credit. So you see this takeoff around 2017 or 2018. Yeah. When a lot of those factors came together and you could just see the company starting to, you know, basically outstrip the competition and ah, become, you know, I don't want to say category of one, but it's, it's, it's, it's pretty remarkable. Right. Uh, you know, the multitrillion dollar valuation that the company now has for, for

Speaker B: something that I think these things always look obvious in hindsight. You know what I mean? But you know, I worry a little bit. The reason I'm saying this is I, I worry a little bit that the life sector, you know, doesn't have enough ambition for transforming itself given the scale of the opportunity that's out there. You know what I mean? And Microsoft I think is fascinating to people because there was a point where it could have gone the other direction. Oh my goodness. And been obsolete. Right. And, and um, but this was a path to an uncertain future that involved big bets, that involved managing things differently internally. That was led from the top down.

Speaker C: It was led from the top down. That's right. Yeah, it was, it was led from the top down. But I would say also the leadership team was pretty dramatically changed. Right. And so, so you know, he fashioned a leadership team that was very tightly connected. Right. And, and, and if you, here are some of the presentations he's given in the book he's written, he will talk about the importance of understanding people and their stories and beginning to build sort of a really tightly knit executive team. And then that we used to say cascade down. That cascaded to I think, you know, the company. But yes, it had to be top down. It had to be. And then there were incentives and structures put in place to sort of stimulate people to move in that direction. Like you know, being rated and reviewed on the basis of did I provide something as a service to help some other part of the company go faster, further, faster and did I borrow something in my own business to do the same. That's a pretty dramatic shift. Right, because what does that do? It, it doesn't say, oh, it's optional to work across silos. It says oh no, it's. You must, you must do it.

Speaker B: Yeah, yeah.

Speaker C: So I, yes, I do think it does take though, I want to say an ambitious or visionary leader who's willing to commit to a future that is a little murky. It is got to be though again informed by trends that are observable. I think, you know, it's this old adage, the future's already here, it's just not evenly distributed so you have to base it on a thing. But then you have to definitely have be brave and then put in the mechanisms to test your. This is why we say test your way to. Right. Build the flywheel momentum systematically. Don't expect it's going to happen overnight. Give um, yourself, you know, cut yourself a break but also challenge yourself at the same time to that. It's going to be a journey where people and humans and processes and all these things together have to have to evolve. Right?

Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, yeah. The other thing I don't want to pass by without, without giving you a chance to kind of describe it is part of what you said involves what we talk about and you developed with Geoffrey Moore in terms of that four zone management framework.

Speaker C: Oh yeah.

Speaker B: Do you want to just double click on that? Because it's something we see used very powerfully but only in some situations.

Speaker C: Yeah, I think it actually will have more and more traction I'm hoping uh, because I think it is actually quite helpful. The four zone model basically does say that getting to a future is not two handed thing. It's a four handed thing. It is. You gotta of course honor the commitments to your investors and to your customers because you're an existing business with customers and investors and shareholders. And so do that exceptionally well and, and, and try to innovate or improve what we call a bau plus like obviously lean into things and have a continuous improvement mindset. Yeah. Manage that as your existing business. Then we, and we call that sort of the performance Zone. Right. That's what. Jeff. Jeff.

Speaker B: Which is really about optimizing top line.

Speaker C: Optimizing top line performance. Well, top and bottom in a way, but yes. Um, and of the existing business. Right. That's. That's embracing who we are in a way. Right. And there's a bunch of marketing and sales and things you can start to do to move in a solution direction inside of that. Right. To do those things. Yeah. Then there's, you know, sort of the next quadrant below that is the productivity zone. Right. And this is extremely tough. Right. Because it means I'm going to let go, I'm going to manage into. In tech we'd say graceful obsolescence or to deprecate a system. Yeah. I'm going to manage that into a graceful, if you will, exit or death. Um, and I'm going to extract resources as I go because I don't have the luxury of going to private investors like a startup might. Ah, and getting growth capital and just only worrying about growth. I've got to worry about funding my future. Right.

Speaker B: This is how I fund my future.

Speaker C: This is how I fund my future. Right. And that, that quadrant, that, that and the people who lead that and manage are exceptionally important people. They tend to march to a different drum. They tend to march to different drum beat. They tend to be, you know, thinking about efficient efficiency and effectiveness in ways that many of us aren't. And they need to be honored for what it is they do on behalf of the enterprise. So that there's a bunch of really important, you know, assertions about how to make that happen. Yeah. And it's, you know, doing that well and then thinking about what we were, what I was saying a bit ago when you and I were talking the incubation zone distinct from the transformation zone because growth isn't just about shots on goal or ah, my innovation activities, which often, unfortunately, if they're not approached with discipline or more innovation sort of theater, and they fizzle. And often what you'll see with a lot of incumbents, uh, is that there'll be things that'll get killed too soon but also held onto for too long. And so inside of that, I think making that accountable, applying the venture capital kind of model, creating something we like to call an incubation business unit, which creates a governance structure that attaches it to the mothership but allows the decoupling that we were talking about to move a little faster, to move in interdisciplinary sprints. Um, that motion and way of work and the dependencies that you have to take on People you might not be taking dependencies on in your day job. That's actually hard. I mean if you've been in a product silo or a functional business unit. Yeah. Just things like being dependent is not a natural act. Right. So doing that and then distinct from that work and the leaders who manage it and the metrics about rapid cycle time of learning, which are very different from revenue and profit. And then there's this race to materiality. Right. Which is, we call it the transformation zone is a race to materiality. Six to eight quarters, 10% of the revenue. And when you say that sometimes you get these interesting. You and I have been in these sessions, right. Where it's like, well, yeah. And it's, and it's, and there'll be executives say well that's impo. That makes no sense. And then others will say well why doesn't make no sense. And the point is not that that's exactly right. It's that it sparks that conversation. Yeah. And it very naturally does two things. Uh, it says only put something into that zone and make it accountable for the race if it's ready. Yeah. Because if it's not ready, that's going to be a real problem. Right. But if it's ready, then also don't try to do too much, do one and then do.

Speaker B: In that zone.

Speaker C: Don't have, in that zone, don't have stuff that compete. And that's another problem, right. Is you have these mid sized businesses that are going to compete for resources and then they kind of cancel each other out. So this, this business of like, okay, let's take turns division by division, you know, or whatever it is, until we're as an executive team, confident, committed, that we've cleared the way and we've made it possible for that race to succeed.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker C: I think that, you know, so those, those sort uh, of four quadrants if you will take I think really important kind of thought. But they also take some, some pressure off. Right. Because it says these, all things can exist in, in a business. They can, they can cohere, they can kind of help each other out. You just have to think, think about it though as managing a portfolio. Right. And making those things accountable for where they live in the cycle time of, of growth. Right.

Speaker B: Yeah, it's that, it's that um, I find it a very helpful framework and I, I as you know, even where it's not in use, you bump into thinking about things in that way time and again. And, and the one that comes to my mind as you're you're talking about it and it, it doesn't necessarily fit with a kind of rapid innovation piece coming out of the incubation zone into the transformation zone. But the piece that I see m in a lot of places currently is life insurers looking at, hey, I've got private credit capabilities. Can I scale them into a large external asset management business and in some cases can I turn it into something that is 10, 15, 20% of my earnings, but it's never over six quarters, at least that I've come across. And it's also very often I am doing this, but I'm also doing these four other things in kind of more BAU businesses. And I think your point with that is the application of the framework I think gives a lot of clarity to where each business is and um, in a way that I don't think is done clearly often.

Speaker C: No, I think that's, that's right. I mean, we're, we're, we're doing more of this work as you know, and it's connecting that point you made earlier about your investor narrative or the equity story and then being able to systematically live into it and understanding that you're going to have to, you know, fund your future. But, but if you, if you manage, you know, sort of according to these zones, then you're, you're able to say, okay, I'm going to allocate capital and resource.

Speaker B: Right.

Speaker C: I'm going to make that accountable with these new metrics. It's not going to be unaccountable. It's going to be accountable.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker C: And then I'm going to be able to connect it to external accountability. Right. Because it's going to, uh. The outside is going to be looking for this too. Right. And so I think that also often is missing is that we don't see in. And it's not just insurers. Right. But we don't see, I think people thinking enough about, wait a minute, that shareholder or the outside is going to be looking at what I'm doing to make sure that we're doing our part to move the company into this new narrative.

Speaker B: Yeah, yeah, agreed, agreed. The other area I just wanted to explore a little bit was this incubation business, the incubation zone.

Speaker C: Oh, yeah, right.

Speaker B: Yeah. And um. Because in, in a way, to my mind, it's, it's both the most critical part and also the hardest part to do in some cases. And, and my strong view is that if you can do it and do it right, the fact that it's so hard to do is actually itself an advantage that you achieve then it's differentiating. Yeah, but, but I, you know, do you want to m. Maybe you know, talk about it, but also, you know, use the case of where we've set up an incubation business unit as we kind of call that zone.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker B: And just double click a little bit on you know, your view of what it takes to succeed where most people fall down.

Speaker C: Yeah, right, right. Well and there's a few, there's a couple of cases where it's been. We done this as you know and set it up to be about, you know, de risking the third horizon. Right. The bets on growth bets.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker C: And they're also, we're finding um, some really important applications of the same thinking to reinventing the company for growth. Right. And so it's a little bit different. It's not so much growth focus, it's reinvention. So it's, you know, companies are saying wait, uh, which is not only a

Speaker B: business then, but can be a capability.

Speaker C: It can be a capability. Right. And we're seeing this in the context of back to your point about Microsoft excitement and enthusiasm. I was like, well can we get a little bit of that big tech kind of magic M or whatever it is DNA and do it here, uh, in this analog business and not a non digital business. And lots of stories around this. Goldman has been doing this, other players have been doing this and it's really about this sort of transition to a client based business kind of architecture or platform. And in both cases that is an unnatural act for the organization in terms of I think governance. Right. And so setting up the organization to say it's going to be accountable to a board, the board's going to be chosen from executives, um, inside the organization. Some will actually have more decision rights than others. Depending on what's in incubation. You have to have this sort of model of governance that is bespoke for the company. Right. But is needed and then for this incubation, for the incubation zone. Right. And then I think this, this notion we're going to install the venture capital S kind of model, uh, or the tech model of working in interdiscipline pods every 90 days. Call to play. And so if, you know, like in the venture world, I knew every 90 days I was going to have a board meeting and every six weeks I was going to have a board call. And those were always scheduled and they were never missed. And so that creates this sort of sense of resource constraints. Are your Friends, time is your enemy. And it changes the cadence, the way of thinking inside of that organization, which is what you want.

Speaker B: Ah.

Speaker C: You want it to be accountable to cycle time of learning, to upping the cycle time of learning and then evolving that learning in a staged way from small bets to big and earning the right to be next 90 days. The next 90 days. So that problem we talked about about killing things too soon or holding onto them too long, that problem goes away in the setup of the incubation business unit because you just can't do that. It's not, it's not possible to stick with.

Speaker B: How many things do you have in there?

Speaker C: Well, I think that is all dependent on the enterprise. So the way I think about it is if you have. Let's just say you make 10 bets just for simplicity. Right. I think most of our insurers and our incumbent clients should probably be making, you know, six or seven of those. Probably about reinvention.

Speaker B: Yeah. What would constitute a bet?

Speaker C: Well, I mean a bet could be. Well, let me give you a growth. Well, no, I'm going to give you. I'm uh, going to give you a bet. I don't think this is speaking too much, but I want to figure out how to automate call center with technology and chatbot because everybody seems to like that and telcos are doing it. So maybe I could do this, take enormous cost out of the system and actually create a lot of customer, you know, affection for this because they like that. Self directed. I'm just making that up.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker C: There are a set of assumptions I made about that, that need to be tested. But if that's true, that could be a massive profit impact. That's a reinvention example. You're still going to do customer care. It's just going to look very, very different. Right. Another one could be the centrist example that we had. Right. Which is I'm going to do something entirely new. It's about supply chain resilience. I think if we actually did picking

Speaker B: up signals externally that there is energy

Speaker C: for progress, there's energy for progress there. Right. Uh, now go frame that for me first. And so the first thing is go FR it clear, then come back and.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker C: And so then systematically earn your right to grow that. That's an example of a growth. More of a growth bet, I guess I would call that it's a bet on accelerating the growth of an existing business. In the case of Marsh.

Speaker B: Right.

Speaker C: Um, so I think there could be probably five or six of the former example I gave and a Few, uh, maybe three or four of the other. And the reason I say that is I think reinvention often doesn't get enough attention. Especially now in a world that's all excited about AI. Right. Um, and I am too. Um, but I think first of all we need to, you know, unpack what we mean by that.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker C: And we need to investigate that very carefully. Right. Because I think there's a lot of things that are machine learning and algorithm application to big data sets that maybe aren't gen AI where a lot of the popular fashion, you know, fascinations in general.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker C: But let's understand those. Like really do some serious testing and learning our way around these things. Right. Because if we're right, that could pretty dramatically shift, you know, the capital allocation, you know, from like heavy process and people to technology, you know, and robots and then amplify the ability of people to go do other things. Right. And allow them to kind of move into other kinds of interesting work. Yeah. So there's a big sort of equation of the business test that, that I think needs to happen.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker C: And I think it should consume a fair amount and I think probably more, more majority maybe even of if they're 10, it's probably six or seven of the bets. Right.

Speaker B: But your point, your point then is that I have six, eight, ten of these things. They're a balance between kind of like new revenue and kind of reinvention. And they're governed by a mechanism that looks like that venture capital calling plays mechanism.

Speaker C: Exactly.

Speaker B: And that then also determines if and when one of them is ready to move into the transformation zone and in terms of surrounding that incubation business unit or innovation M zone. I also need to think about the human capital piece of that in terms of who's going to go in, how are they going to transition from their job. What's the, what's the incentive structure? I'm going to.

Speaker C: Yeah, the incentive structure has to shift, I think. Um, I mean, it's more of thinking about a fund, not a budget, and that that fund gets RE upped depending on how successful that unit has become. Incentives are aligned to the RE upping. Um, people have to actually be in there not just as a flyby. So the commitment needs to be at least two years, if not longer. So you're not just rotating people in and out very quickly. There's also some other radiating benefits, I think I call them in terms of you can cycle people in from the organization and cycle them back out. There can be that kind of learning. Um, there can also be attraction of new talent into the organization. It's a way of focusing sort of the reskilling challenges that companies face. And it also can be a really great way of onboarding venture capital startup type M, uh, innovative stuff that's happening in the world. Because what happens in these startups, because I've been on both sides of it, is you get into a large company and you just get quashed. Yeah. Because you just don't have what it takes to be successful and start inside of a large company. Um, so that this kind of thing can actually be a great way of saying, I'm going to, I'm going to place this bet. Yeah. With xyz, AI company, startup out here and they're going to be embedded with my people, my people embedded with them. And we're going to really tune it into our business so that it can actually be successful. And it's a great thing for them too because what they get to do is go back to their investors and say, hey look, this large life insurer has just uh, adopted this and is scaling it to however many thousands of people. That's an amazing story to tell investors. They will love that. So there's a real positive benefit both for the startup and for the adoption of that kind of thing that might otherwise not see the light of day.

Speaker B: Well, look, I might um, zoom out again, Rick, in terms of like closing us out on this kind of first discussion that we're having, um, on the approach and the space. But I mean what we started with, as you remember, was we're serving an industry, particularly in insurance and asset management, where the good news is there are lots and lots of examples of spaces that the industry could do more in in terms of consumers, whether it's an individual consumer or corporate consumer, whether it's on the financial wellness space in life or the kind of emerging risk space in pnc. Massive opportunities in terms of application of data and analytics. And yet there seems to be somewhat of a struggle for how to unlock that. And what we described, I think is an approach potentially to craft, uh, an investor narrative, but one that is stretching you in a way where you're comfortable, you can deliver a methodology for systematically uncovering where the energy for progress was. A methodology then if you apply it for making sure that management attention units are being spent in the right way internally and a way of systematically then managing a set of innovation around capabilities and kind of new areas.

Speaker C: Right.

Speaker B: That done right, can kind of align the organization and drive progress so that you're not left Having committed one thing to the external market and then finding yourself unable to, unable to deliver. So it, um, look, I mean, you know, maybe I'll close by saying this is one of the reasons I think we're working so closely as we look at the space. And I think uh, there's lots of exciting stuff to, lots, uh, of exciting stuff to do. And I mean the final comment I'll make, and maybe you have a comment is that the other thing I think is important is that, and we see executives doing this, the industry in a way needs to reach outside the industry for best practices. Because the question we get very often is which of my peers is doing this very well. And uh, the reality is it's a little bit hard to find where it's much easier to look at the Microsoft case or others and say look, you need to look over there rather than within the confines.

Speaker C: And I think that customers have been taught by some of those companies, whether it's Microsoft or Apple, um, to expect certain kinds of convenience and friction free engagement and fun. And so you don't really get to not do that anymore. You kind of have to meet that where it is. I guess I'd add, you know, there are two things that I'll add to what you said, Mick. Um, two messages I like to give on this one. If you do flip the script a bit and you think about this as a demand side problem, I'll go to mobility because it's a little bit outside of it. And you think there's a mobility marketplace that is taking shape, right, Very, very rapidly and that is driverless cars and it's electric vehicles and scooters and bikes and then it's also the charging stations for all of that. And if you looked at mobility broadly, right, you would see a huge growth opportunity, right? And witness Tesla and well, I mean, no, they're not growing as fast, but still um, that way of framing it makes a massive market opportunity much more apparent. If you stick in the auto category though, that might not look so good. You might be under assault. So I think this point you made about 5 definition of the space, what definition space really matters. And if uh, you, if you frame it that way, it could be outsized growth potential. Right. For why, why is it just Tesla? I don't think it should be just, you know, those. And then I think the other piece that is important to what, what you say, that I like to underscore is what we've talked about is a, uh, management discipline like other management disciplines that have come before yeah. It can be learned. Yeah. It can be practiced.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker C: It is knowable. Right. And so, and I think it's really important because the point you made of, well, where else are people doing this? And, oh, it's tech. It's not us.

Speaker B: Yeah.

Speaker C: It's. That's not the. The point is it's a new way of managing in a very complex world. Yeah. And it can be learned. It can be adopted.

Speaker B: It can be the path forward.

Speaker C: It can be the path forward. Yeah.

Speaker B: Yeah, yeah. Well, Rick, a pleasure as always.

Speaker C: Thank you.

Speaker B: Thank you very much. And I look forward to, uh, continuing the conversation.

Speaker C: Me too, Mick. Thank you.

Speaker A: For more information about our Reinventing Insurance series, you can find everything on our website@, uh, OliverWyman.com uh, reinventing insurance. Thanks for listening and I'll see you next time.