Category

Blog

FinTech Sandboxes: Good for Business Growth, Good for Countries’ Economies | Blog

By | Banking, Financial Services & Insurance, Blog

Since the early part of this decade, when technology-backed disruptions started knocking on businesses’ doors, FinTech – or financial technology – transformation has been one of biggest opportunities for BFSI companies. But while they’ve consistently accelerated their transformation journeys, BFSI firms and the FinTech providers themselves have been impeded by multiple complex challenges. These include stringent regulatory requirements, exposure to cyberattacks, lack of customer trust, limited government support, and, most importantly, limited opportunities to refine and train their analytics engines in real environment.

The good news, however, is that now, even government bodies are starting to take up agendas to facilitate and foster FinTech innovation. Over the past two years, multiple countries, including Denmark and the Netherlands, have come up with their own versions of regulatory sandboxes to promote activity in the FinTech space. In addition to attracting a multitude of players looking to innovate and deliver FinTech services, these sandboxes have also contributed significantly to the overall business growth in the countries in which they’re located.

Lithuania’s FinTech Sandbox

Against this backdrop, let’s take a look at Lithuania’s newly-established FinTech sandbox through multiple lenses: what it means for the participants, how it will impact the country’s global services industry, and factors that BFSI and FinTech firms need to focus on to leverage innovation opportunities from these types of initiatives.

On October 15, 2018, Bank of Lithuania kickstarted a regulatory sandbox for FinTech start-ups and BFSI firms. The goal is to enable the companies to test their new products/solutions in a live environment with real customers, while Bank of Lithuania provides consultations, simplified regulations, and relaxations on supervisory requirements. After successfully testing their new products, the companies can implement them in a standard operating environment.

Key Highlights of the Lithuania FinTech Sandbox

Key highlights of the Lithuania FinTech sandbox

Impact on Lithuania’s Service Delivery Market

While the Lithuanian FinTech market experienced 35 percent CAGR growth between 2015 and 2017, we expect it to grow by an additional 35-45 percent in 2019-2020. The FinTech sandbox will contribute significantly to this growth. Other drivers will include:

  • A large, tech-savvy, and growing workforce with relevant skills and educational qualifications (e.g., advanced degrees in science, mathematics, and computing)
  • Unified license providing access to a large EU market across 28 countries
  • Favorable regulatory policies, including expeditious licensing procedures and regulatory sanctions exemptions (e.g., remote KYC allows firms based outside Lithuania to open an account in the country without having a physical presence there)
  • Proactive government policies, including creation of funding sources (e.g., MITA), and streamlining laws and tax relief programs for start-ups
  • A state-of-the-art product testing environment for blockchain, through the country’s LBChain sandbox, which is set to open in 2019

Here are several aspects of Lithuania’s service delivery growth story that we expect to see in the next couple of years.

  • Delivery region: While service delivery demand will continue to be strongest from Lithuania and the Nordic countries, we expect strong growth in delivery to other European and SEPA (Single Euro Payments Area) markets. This will be driven by players looking to hedge their post-Brexit risks of buying/delivering services from only London
  • Segments/use cases: Most of the growth will come from lending and payments platforms, with relatively lower growth in capital markets and insurance
  • Business model: While B2B will remain the dominant model, we expect a significant uptick in in “B2C & B2B,” due to increasing demand for a better customer/institutional experience
  • Collaboration between startups and financial institutions (FI): Startups will continue to leverage FIs as distribution partners, but we expect significant growth in models where FIs partner with start-ups as customers or sources of funding

How Should BFSI and FinTech Players Strengthen their Own Growth Stories?

As BFSI and FinTech continue to walk the transformation tightrope in the everchanging regulatory space (e.g., PSD2 and GDPR), they need to focus on the following factors to successfully grow:

  • Understand the need: Look across your existing and aspirational ecosystem of FinTech delivery, and zero in on key priorities (e.g., solutions, target markets, need for regulatory sandboxes) if any, to enable a future-ready delivery portfolio
  • Establish your approach: Tune your delivery strategy to progressive principles such as availability of talent and innovation potential, not just operating cost. This includes prioritizing geographies with high innovation potential and next generation skills (e.g., Denmark, Israel, and Lithuania) over low cost but low innovation potential alternatives
  • Brainstorm your scope: Build relationships with leading BFSI players and start-ups to share/learn best practices around efficient operating models and promising use-cases. This specifically includes liasing with incumbents operating in sandboxes to prioritize select use cases with transformative potential before testing in a real environment
  • Get ready: Selectively rehash your technology model to simplify legacy systems, become more intelligent about consumer needs, and reduce exposure to cyberthreats
  • Keep an eye out: Look for opportunities (e.g., sources of funding, sandboxes, and partnerships) to help you innovate, develop, test, or successfully implement solutions

The good news is that the push (or pull) towards FinTech transformation is in same direction for all leading stakeholder groups – service providers, buyers, collaborators, customers, and government bodies. But, because the least informed is often the most vulnerable, BFSI, FinTech firms, and companies seeking their services must stay informed and keep looking for opportunities and solutions.

To learn more about other key emerging trends in the FinTech space, please read our recently released report, FinTech Service Delivery: Traditional Locations Strategies Are Not Fit For Purpose.

Three Digital Healthcare Takeaways from HIMSS 2019 | Blog

By | Blog, Healthcare & Life Sciences

I experienced three pleasant surprises at last week’s Healthcare Information and Management System Society (HIMSS) conference. They were all about a perfect storm that is building to correct all that has been wrong in the digital healthcare space all these years.

Healthcare Companies are Exploring Cures for Their #DigitalHeadache

Payers and providers alike are growing increasingly disillusioned with the outcomes of their digital programs. In fact, 78 percent of the healthcare leaders we surveyed in late 2018 indicated some sort of failure with their digital initiatives, whether big or small. The good news here is that most forward-thinking leaders are going back to the drawing board to redefine their digital strategy. Anthem, Intermountain Healthcare, and New York Presbyterian are great examples of organizations that have taken up the cudgels to fix digital healthcare where it fails – organization and culture.

There’s Increased Focus on “Enabling” the Patient Experience

To make the “patient experience” successful, enterprise leaders are taking a step back and focusing their attention on creating experiences for their workforce, clinicians, and partners (e.g., physician group, CMS, government agencies.) Don’t get me wrong, patients still need to be at the center of our universe. However, the personas that enable and deliver experience for patients need a fix first.

Innovation is Coming from Unexpected Sources

It was heartening to see the likes of Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Salesforce steal the march from the big boys in the healthcare tech space – i.e., Cerner and EPIC – in asserting themselves as the technology visionaries in healthcare. Their focus on healthcare microservices is a relief for healthcare executives trying to navigate the “all or nothing” approach of the EMRs.

There is one player that seems keen on reinventing itself: Optum. Through a nimble product and services strategy, Optum is touching upon on all the hot buttons – MLR, analytics, PBM, and claims. Optum is the specialist vendor to watch out for when it comes to healthcare.

Last, but not least, what really took the cake were the innovative and exciting POCs related to clinical AI and visualization that Israel and Ireland – yes, the countries – showcased in their booths. These were some of the most fully baked solutions that I have seen in my 10 years attending HIMSS.

Hence, it’s with good reason that I left fairly impressed with the developing ecosystem knocking on the doors of healthcare organizations that are hungry for outcomes.

I will sign off by sharing an illustration from our recent study that analyzed the investments 27 of the leading healthcare payers and providers have made in artificial intelligence (AI), a key marker in the world of digital healthcare. This study objectively analyzed these investments from the perspective of ROI achieved.

Assessing 27 healthcare players (payers and providers) on their Artificial Intelligence investments

As you can see, there is a wide variance even within such a small sample set of healthcare organizations. FOMO (Fear Of Missing Out) pushed a lot of organizations to invest in the flashy new toy called AI. However, not all of them embarked on their investment journey by first enabling the core components of capability.

The difference between the best and the rest in healthcare is simply this: the ones to get the best ROI – those on the top right – are taking their journey through step functions that enable not only technology but also an organizational culture of innovation.

Please contact me at [email protected] if you’d like to hear more about my take-aways from the HIMMS conference or our study, named “Dr. Robot Will See You Now: Unpacking the State of Artificial Intelligence in Healthcare – 2019.”

 

Reduced Barriers for Small or Mid-Sized Firms Building Offshore Shared Service Centers | Blog

By | Blog, Shared Services/Global In-house Centers

Since the inception of offshored shared services, sometimes referred to as “Global In-house Centers” (GICs), the underlying assumptions were that (a) size matters and (b) the choice of functions (transactional, scale-driven processes) was a driver for gaining offshoring benefits. But the world has changed. The size and functions constraints no longer pose a barrier to entry when building offshore shared services centers.

The assumption that size matters developed because of the complexities and long learning curves in building centers offshore, including:

  • Finding leadership
  • Negotiating for real estate
  • Navigating complex tax regulations
  • Understanding cultural differences for talent management
  • Navigating the complex telecommunications labyrinth
  • Technology barriers to effective collaboration
  • Building institutional knowledge about how to transfer work at scale to an offshore party.

These complexities required a minimum level of scale for offshore shared services to justify the investment and deliver value.

In 2019, most of these challenges no longer exist or pose a high barrier for building a new shared service center as they did a few years ago. Several factors evolved to expand opportunities for building shared service centers of all sizes.

For example, sophisticated leadership is readily available. Today, in India or the Philippines, there is a large pool of executives that have successfully built and run shared service units or GICs. When you hire them, they can quickly assemble a complete team across all dimensions to equip a new shared service center.

Likewise, the complexity and difficulty in finding and securing real estate is now dramatically simpler. Offshore facilities today can rely on improved infrastructure and connectivity. Facilities are readily available and often already furnished with real estate brokers ready and able to facilitate the transactions. There is a broad market acceptance that India and the Philippines have good hotels and retail facilities, good food, are safe, and have good air transport.

Advisors now understand the tax treaties. Accountants and lawyers know how to construct the appropriate legal entities (e.g., LLPs vs. wholly owned subsidiaries) and structure them to be tax and compliance efficient. They also understand the government entities and licensing and are eager to assist new entrants.

The services industry’s current level of maturity enables successful practices based on past lessons learned for offshore shared service centers. The philosophies and methodologies to transfer work and run the work effectively are widely available with training available for the uninitiated. Today, we understand the role of the center and how to integrate it with the parent organization. Furthermore, we now have technology tools and collaboration platforms that facilitate remote workforce management.

So, the barrier to entry, which was prevalent earlier, now is dramatically lower. Today, it’s much easier and cheaper to start a new center. This results in two areas of growth for shared service centers:

  • Small to mid-sized organizations
  • Larger firms moving away from third-party services

Small to Mid-sized Organizations

In the past, companies needed to spread the learning curve and expense over a large number of FTEs and many functions. In addition, technology platforms enable better collaboration, thus dramatically reducing dependence of colocation. These factors change the return on investment or viability of small entities.

Now that the need to scale is reduced, companies can get a strong return, even for sometimes as few as 50 seats, depending on the function. They can also make a significant impact to EBIDTA for their parent companies, even at a much smaller scale.

The reduced scale factor dramatically changes the landscape in which companies can, and should, consider having an offshore facility. Until now, the prevailing wisdom was that companies sized at $50 million to $2 billion were too small to tap into having their own shared service center and must, instead, go through third parties. Everest Group’s market benchmarking reveals that almost half the new shared service centers set up since 2014 were established by small (<$1.5 billion revenue) and mid-sized (<$10 billion revenue) enterprises. Today, with the lower barrier to entry and reduced scale factor, even a small $50 million firm (depending on what the services involve) could and should confidently look at building its own offshore shared service capability.

Clearly, the economics change significantly, depending upon the function or skill set the company seeks to acquire. The highest return is in IT engineering functions and areas such as analytics. But even the threshold for corporate functions is dramatically shifting for shared services with 100-150 people.

Looking at the relative market penetration of GICs or offshore shared services in the $50 million to $2 billion marketplace, it’s clear that only a very small proportion of these firms are taking advantage of this now-affordable and high-return mechanism. The reduced barrier to entry and reduced scale factor suggests that these firms should now pay attention; as they do, we could well see an explosion of small shared service entities being established offshore.

Larger Firms Shifting Away from Third Parties

The shift in economics also impacts larger firms, leading them away from third-party service providers and opting for the do-it-yourself (DIY) movement. We’re seeing rapid growth of the number of new shared service centers as well as the growing size of the shared service or GIC communities in locations such as India, the Philippines and Eastern Europe.

The offshore shared services market is growing rapidly for companies of all sizes. The earlier constraints for entry and need for large scale are no longer a factor. In fact, the constraint facing firms today is one of mind-set, not of ability.

Video: Shared Services Talent Priorities – Three Takeaways | Blog

By | Blog, Shared Services/Global In-house Centers

Chief Research Guru Michel Janssen shares a recap below of three takeaways from our recent webinar, “Is Your Shared Services Strategy Future Ready? 5 Differentiating Talent Capabilities“.  

Full script: 

We just completed our webinar on our shared services or GIC Talent Pinnacle Model. And what were trying to there is understand, what are those key business issues.

So the first thing we looked at is how the talent shortage is becoming chronic. And one of the statistics I used here with clients – I talk about how it used to be that executives were just concerned about the top talent – “how do I get the best talent in the organization” – so they can have an impact on the rest of the organization. But now, as we become more chronic in the numbers – and what I mean by the number is ten years ago, in the US, it used to be 700 people looking for 100 jobs. And right now in the U.S., we have 90 people looking for those same 100 jobs.

And so, what you’re finding is that there is more demand than there is supply in that conversation. But it’s a bit of a tale of two worlds. While you have shortages in the U.S. and Europe you’ve got a very different thing going on in low-cost locations, especially like India. And there, there’s not a shortage of talent, it’s finding the right talent – they’re concerned with, “how do I take the existing pool of people in and upskill them or reskill them into the needed skills for the organization to go forward.

So, what we’ve done is look at the Pinnacle Model, and we have found that there is a very dramatic cause and effect. And what we’re looking at in the Pinnacle Model – the way it works is you’ve got capabilities on the X axis, and you’ve got outcomes on the Y axis. And what you’re looking for is a nice correlation that goes from lower left to upper right. And what we’re trying to do there is establish the things that make a difference. And so, what we did in the rest of the video was talk about those capabilities that made that difference.

So we think those are impactful items, and if people were endeavoring to execute on those items, they got the results they were looking for. So click the link, and take a look.

How You Handle Digital Transformation Challenges Matters | Blog

By | Blog, Digital Transformation

Digital transformation disrupts the way companies create value that improves the customer, employee or partner experience. But it involves a multiyear journey and changing a company’s operating model, which is painful and difficult. Building executive and organizational conviction on the vision for what the transformation is and sustaining it over a three-to-five-year journey requires thinking differently about business transformation and its challenges. Let’s look at the “moments that matter” in how your company must handle challenges on that journey and sustain the conviction that the pain is worth it.

Read more in my blog on Forbes

Digital Transformation: The Perils of the “Get Digital Done” Culture | Blog

By | Blog, Digital Transformation

The “Just-in-time” methodology focuses on achieving an outcome through defined structured processes that also build organizational capabilities. “Somehow-in-time” focuses on somehow achieving an outcome, irrespective of the impact it has on the broader enterprise.

Most enterprises reward leaders who embrace “get it done” approaches. Unfortunately, the ideology is becoming part and parcel of more enterprises’ digital transformation initiatives. And while “get it done” may seem like a glamorous virtue, it is detrimental when it comes to digital.

Get Digital Done Doesn’t Build Organizational Capabilities

Everest Group research suggests that 69 percent of enterprises consider the operating model a huge hindrance to digital transformation. Leaders are in such a hurry to achieve the intended outcomes that they neglect building a solid operating model foundation that can enable the outcomes on a consistent basis across the enterprise. This leaves each digital initiative scampering to somehow find resources, somehow find budgets, and somehow find technologies to get it done. And because no new organization capability – think digital vision, talent, or leadership – is developed – these initiatives do not help build sustainable businesses.

Get Digital Done Rewards the Wrong Behavior and People

Much like enterprises’ fascination with “outcome at all costs” creates poor leaders, digital transformation initiatives are plagued with the wrong incentives for the wrong people. Our research suggests that 73 percent of enterprises are failing to get the intended value from their digital initiatives. The key reason is while the leaders are expected to “somehow” complete them, there is no broader strategic agenda for them to scale it beyond their own fiefdoms. Our research also indicates that while enterprises want to drive digital transformation, 60 percent of them lack a meaningful digital vision. They’re obsessed with showing outcomes, and cut corners to achieve them. They take the easier way out to get quick ROI, instead of getting their hands dirty and addressing their big hairy problems.

Get Digital Done Does not Align People towards Common Goals

Obsession with outcomes makes leaders leverage their workforce as “tools” for a project rather than partners in success. Because the employees are not given a meaningful explanation of the agenda and the impact, they become execution hands rather than people who are aligned towards a common enterprise objective. This ultimately causes the initiative to fail. No wonder our research indicates that 87 percent of enterprises that fail to implement change management plans see their digital initiatives fail.

To succeed in their digital transformation journeys, enterprises must put their “get it done” obsession away in a locked drawer and focus on three critical areas:

  • Build a digital foundation: Although easier said than done, this requires a revamp of internal communication, people incentives, and a shared vision of intended goals. Each business unit should have a digital charter that aligns with the corporate mandate of leading in the tech-disrupted world. And it requires strategic, yet nimbler, choices on technology platforms, market channels, brand positioning, and digital vision.
  • Have realistic timelines: Expectation of quick ROI is understandable. However, a crunched timeline can backfire. Enterprises must work towards a pragmatic timeline, and incentivize their leaders to meet it without bypassing any fundamental processes.
  • Involve different stakeholders: Our research shows that a shocking 82 percent of enterprises believe they lack the culture of collaboration needed to drive digital transformation. That means the initiatives become the responsibility of just one leader or team. And that simply won’t work. Instead of driving everything independently, the leader or team should be an orchestrator of the organization’s capabilities. This is the key reason more enterprises are appointing a Chief Digital Officer, as one of that role’s key responsibilities is serving as the orchestrator. Additionally, the team needs to leverage the organization’s current capabilities, and enhance them for the future. It should build a charter for its digital transformation initiative that includes impact on fundamental organizational capabilities such as talent, business functions, compliance, branding, and people engagement.

In their race to “get it done” and appease their end customers, enterprises have forgotten the art of building organizational capabilities that will sustain them in the future and create meaningful competitive advantage. And they can’t succeed unless they change their approach and ideology.

Does your organization have a “get it done” culture, or has it built the right organizational capabilities to achieve true transformation with digital? Please share with me at [email protected].

Why Many Banks Might Have to Dump Their Delivery Location Strategy | Blog

By | Banking, Financial Services & Insurance, Blog, Onshoring

Long gone are the days when consumers were welcomed with toasters when they opened a checking or savings accounts at their local bank. Today’s consumers don’t want toast-making capabilities from their financial institution: they want cheaper, easy-to-use Internet- or smartphone-based financial products and services, including payment applications, lending platforms, financial management tools, and digital currencies, all with hyper-personalization. Most customers are quick to make a move if their current financial institution doesn’t deliver.

So, what do banks need to do to retain their customers? Two things. First, they need to deliver the banking experience their customers are increasingly demanding. Second, they need to reconsider much of their service delivery location strategy.

What do Bank Customers Want?

Let’s first look at banking customers’ requirements for a SUPER banking experience.

Few, if any, banks have the ability to deliver on these requirements. So, they’re increasingly partnering with financial technology start-ups – popularly known as FinTechs – to meet customers’ expectations.

This brings us to the second thing that banks need to do to retain and grow their customer base: reconsider much of their service delivery location strategy.

Cracking the Service Delivery Location Strategy Code

With innovation and personalization topping customers’ list of banking requirements, banks can no longer rely on the same location strategy they’ve used to deliver traditional functions such as applications, infrastructure management, and business processes. Why? Because FinTech requires a higher proportion of onshore/nearshore delivery compared to traditional functions and co-locating all FinTech segments such as payments, lending, and capital markets in the same region may be difficult given varying maturity of locations across segments.

To help banks find locations for successful FinTech delivery, Everest Group developed a framework – presented in our recently published research report, “FinTech Services Delivery – Traditional Locations Strategies Are Not Fit For Purpose!” – to measure the innovation potential of a location.

With the framework, banks can evaluate all aspects of innovation potential, including the availability of talent with emerging skills (such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, and analytics), adequate cost of delivery, and providers’ financial services industry domain knowledge.

Framework to Measure a Location’s Innovation Potential

To develop our FinTech Services Delivery/Locations report, we started with a list of 40+ global cities with leading FinTech investment and market activity. Subsequently, we shortlisted 22 locations based on multiple criteria including overall investment, technology and infrastructure, and talent. Finally, we used our innovation potential framework, coupled with other factors such as maturity of the FinTech ecosystem and cost of operations, to determine the top locations banks should consider for specific FinTech use-cases such as payments, lending, and capital markets solutions.

Here are some key findings from our location strategy research:

  • Banks may need to create a parallel portfolio of FinTech delivery locations, as they may be far different than those that are mature in delivery of traditional functions
  • A location’s innovation potential (not its cost arbitrage or delivery efficiencies) is the most important factor for successful FinTech delivery. This is because the right location will offer depth and breadth of maturity across multiple financial segments, a vibrant startup scene, agile academic institutions, tech-savvy government, ample financing options, modern technology infrastructure, and friendly regulatory environment
  • Locations that are currently regarded as nascent (e.g., West Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America) may emerge as attractive alternatives as the market evolves.

For more details, please see our report, “FinTech Services Delivery – Traditional Locations Strategies Are Not Fit For Purpose! Plus Profiles of Emerging Offshore/Nearshore FinTech Hubs” or contact Anurag Srivastava or Anish Agarwal  directly.

How The CIO Role Must Change Due To Digital Transformation | Blog

By | Blog, Digital Transformation

Digital transformation is sweeping through businesses, giving rise to new to new business models, new and different constraints, and presenting a need for more focused organizational attention and resources in a new way. It is also upending the C-suite, bringing in new corporate titles and functions such as the Chief Security Officer emerge, Chief Digital Officer and Chief Data Officer. These new roles seemingly pose an existential threat to existing roles – for example, the CIO.

Read more in my blog on Forbes

Process Mining for Automation Gold | Blog

By | Automation/RPA/AI, Blog

The process automation market is evolving in more ways than one. Many organizations are taking the next step of complementing Robotic Process Automation (RPA) with Artificial Intelligence (AI) solutions such as virtual agents and intelligent document capture. Others are looking deeper into their business functions with process mining and discovery software to scale automation and capture more returns from them.

Process mining and discovery solutions automate a part of automation itself. This is effectively mining processes for elusive gold opportunities for automation.

Process Miners

Process mining software has been around for a while and can be used for many purposes, but several vendors have made a name for themselves in the automation space, e.g., Celonis and Minit. These types of solutions use application logs to reconstruct a virtual view of processes. They discover business process flows and models, and provide process intelligence analytics. They can even suggest how to change a process using smart capabilities. The result is information that allows organizations to decide what process to automate next.

Some service providers have developed their own capabilities in this space as well. An example is Accenture, which uses process mining for automation as a competitive differentiator.

Valuable as it is, however, process mining also has its drawbacks. For example, it requires a lot of data. And if you want to find opportunities among processes that go across enterprise systems, you need to integrate the logs from these systems, e.g., build a data warehouse. Those of you who have built data warehouses know what a massive pain this can be.

Process Discoverers

While process miners can also do process discovery, several RPA vendors – including Infosys EdgeVerve, Kryon, and Nice – are offering new solutions. They’re using their desktop automation and action recording capabilities, complemented with AI, to capture and reconstruct what the human worker does, and then map and analyze the actions to identify opportunities for automation. Process discoverers do not require a load of application data, but they do come with their own challenges. For example, a recording may not capture the full set of relevant steps. And employees may have concerns around privacy.

The Art of the Possible

So, is it worth it to use process mining and discovering solutions despite their downsides and flaws? Yes, absolutely. But curb your enthusiasm, set expectations at the right level, and go for the art of the possible.

For example, there are many opportunities for automation within individual applications, without having to include processes that go across systems. And, you can use human intelligence to manually fill in the gaps and augment the findings of an automation discovery tool, even though doing so is going out of fashion.

With yet another category of software coming to the fore, enterprises would be right to feel that they are on a technology investment hamster wheel – there is no end to the cycle. After all, in recent years we have had the huge wave of RPA adoption. And today, in addition to competitive pressure to invest in AI-based automation, enterprises are having to evaluate process mining and discovery as well.

The good news is that automation can generate significant returns on investment. Our research and interactions with enterprises have shown this to be the case time and again. Process mining is another piece of the jigsaw, and it can help you find more automation gold.

Everest Group will be publishing a detailed viewpoint on process mining and discovery very soon. Be sure to keep an eye out for it, so you can mine it for gold.