State of Systems Innovation in Sweden - Paper Launch

Hey uh first of all and welcome to today's paper launch. Uh this is will be like the first um event that we in the new Sweden Sweden hub will present and um we will yeah the ones who wants to can join on the myra board also that's posted in the chat in the beginning there. Thank you, Jos. And we will um go through the agenda of today and we plan to be finished around 4:00 here in Sweden. So I don't really know what that will be in all the locations that are here, but you're welcome anyway with one and a half hour is planned for anyway. And yeah, let's say so I'm Aneli and I'm one of the core members of the SI Sweden hub together with Sabah and Aneka and today we're going to present our paper. So that is like an overlook or on the state of systems innovation in Sweden and it serves most as the starting point for conversations to discover the Swedish ecos ecosystem of systems innovation further. And uh to have this uh nice discussion, we have invited a panel. So I say thank you and hi to Pia P, Mariel and Vanessa and they're all a part of the Swedish ecosystem of system innovation and they are actively shaping the field. So, and if you wonder what a a hub is, um the SI network have several actually in 22 countries I think. Jos correct me if I'm wrong and now the time has come to Sweden and it is quite new uh and they plan to organize events online and also physical. Uh for example, we did a conference in June this year. Uh but the hub has connections at two different locations in Sweden. And the reason for creating the hub is because we are facing complex problems in this time. And the best way to to work with them is new forms of collaboration. And we also think that systems thinking in systems is really important. And the aim is to create a space where individuals, organizations or networks can move in, meet um find different perspectives, learn or co-create or find collaborative partners. So um well, I hope everybody has connected now. They wanted to hear this paper launch. So I pass on to Oh, actually forgot one thing. Maybe I should say that will be also the after the panel discussion will be space maybe for questions from you listeners. Uh so please if you have comments or questions during the presentation or the panel please post it in the chat and I will do my best to move it into the myro boards and we will go through as many as we have time for. Thank you. So I pass on to Jos now. >> Excellent. Thank you very much. Um >> Jos before you start maybe like just a quick introduction of yourself and I can say hi as well. >> And we also have Anaka just joining too. So >> Oh, excellent. Anakah's here as well. >> Yeah. So I am just not Swedish as you can tell from my accent. Um but uh this is my second my third time here in Sweden actually here at the moment in Stockholm. um got invited by iHubs about a year ago for the capacity program and have met uh many here. It's great to see you all again and um I'm the founder of the SI network. I started about 10 years ago. I've been working on teaching people about systems thinking, complexity theory, systems innovation for about um well first five years of that uh 10 year journey was all uh teaching and the past five six years been about building the SI network, a community of systems thinkers, systems innovators all around the world, 23,000 of them now, which seems a bit overwhelming, but um they are people like yourselves who are interested in addressing wicked challenges as we heard about and um taking new ideas from systems thinking and complexity and applying those towards uh trying to innovate and adapt and change in the way that I think uh and you guys I imagine think we need to at this time and uh yeah that's what I work on. It's great to be here. I've been working with the team um Sabah originally I think were the first person getting together and then and Lee and Anakah of course was here from the beginning and uh Yanna's also been joining us on the extended team as an associate. So we've been working together for about uh what is it six months or so now. Um we were part of co-hosting the conference along with iHubs and sustained guard moral and um Anakah and and so forth during the summer. Um but we're back and I've been working on this paper that I'm going to be sharing today. So looking forward to that uh the research and um the interviews we've done with some of the people here today. So little bit about me. Maybe I'll pass it to you Sabba. >> Yeah. Uh not not too much more to add. Uh I'm Sabah. I'm uh I co-founded and uh currently representing the uh Sweden hub. Uh became associated with the systems innovation network in general a few years ago. Found it really interesting. felt the need to have a hub in Sweden and thus met uh a couple of others like uh Analy and Aneka um and and started this uh and just looking forward to having this community slowly build in in this way as well. There is a lot of community in Sweden already. So uh but we can we hopefully we can add some fuel to it. Uh Aneka, are you here? Yes, I'm here. >> Hi. If you'd like to quickly introduce yourself. >> Uh yeah, my name is Anukica Fenon. I'm working as head of operations at IHAB Sweden and we have a partnership with SI network. Uh and we're a foundation that works uh only with system innovation in many different ways. >> Great. Thank you. >> Jos, do you want to take over? >> We will we will come to uh some more introductions a little bit later uh because we would love to know about the panel members that Analy talked about as well. They're all here. uh we just go through the paper quickly and then uh dive into it. >> Yeah. Excellent. Um so we do have 90 minutes today, so we're not in too much of a rush. Looking forward to a good conversation um on this fascinating topic. As mentioned, I've been researching I've been researching different ecosystems across Europe, actually five of them in the UK, Barcelona, Berlin, Netherlands, and and Sweden. So I have a little bit of context. Um also you may have seen the the general state of systems innovation paper we do at SI. We published that about four or five months ago and that's kind of looking at this globally. So uh I have a bit of kind of cont broader context around this but it's been great to research um and talk to people about what's going on here in Sweden. So that's what I'm going to share with you. Um hopefully you've already had a chance to access the paper. Um there there is two versions and both of them can be found can be found there. I'm not going to go into all the details. You can um read those at in your own time but just touch upon some of the the key points. Um so a little bit around methodology so you have an idea of where where all this comes from. Uh how did we create it? So some of it's kind of desk research. Um but it's in the age of the internet. So it's internet research. Um and there's a lot out there. So that's uh a starting point. We then did questions. Um so some of the you were maybe at the conference with us earlier in the year and um we talked to about six people and five or six people and asked them similar questions. We we then used algorithms to analyze that and find the insights and so forth. We have quotes in the paper and um yeah we use algorithms to uh collect and synthesize some of the information. So handwritten but also with the use of of algorithms information on the internet and uh people contributing their insights through uh the questions we asked. Um and then finally a disclaimer. It's an unofficial guide. It is main point is the first time we're doing this. Probably the first time anyone's doing it. So expect um an experimental um kind of attitude to it should we say but hope to build upon it. I think it's really important to to give this kind of uh overview of what's going on a lot of interesting things. Uh but can we try to get a bigger picture? Can we try to maybe even evaluate that you know year over year so that we can see what's happening whether you know there's progress and so forth. So that's the spirit uh of it and a little bit of how it was uh produced. uh and I can answer any questions around these later on. Uh but let me stay stay going. So yeah, in all of these researches around different ecosystems, uh it's an ecosystem never exists in a in a vacuum. Uh we're talking here, we're evaluating here the ecosystem um of individuals and organizations in Sweden uh who are working in and around the area of systems innovation. Um so that's ultimately people who are addressing kind of complex wicked challenges uh and trying to find new more holistic, innovative, creative, adaptive um and initiative approaches to those and uh yeah an evaluation of what that looks like. But that kind of community doesn't exist in a vacuum. It always rests upon the the economy, the society, the culture, the history of that place uh which strongly shapes it. Um, and of course that's different in every context and it's very complex and very subtle and there's a lot of lot of history to it. Um, so we just start with a little bit of that kind of background context. Obviously you can't go into all of it but does kind of matter. You know Sweden has a lot of a lot of strengths as we know. Uh, one of them in particular is this um it's uh a leading innovation economy often ranked number two in the world. uh indeed the metropolitan region of Stockholm often ranks number one across the whole of Europe uh which is very impressive. So we do find as we look across different ecosystems um here in Europe and globally systems innovation does emerge and become more important in the context of an innovation economy. So this fact that it is uh so well ranking already um does actually set a really good um foundations and that's one of the most important aspects here that societ uh Sweden has this very strong foundations as an innovation economy but another important aspect of that is that it's not just uh that innovation economy is not just focused on more unicorns and and startups and GDP and so forth. Um Sweden for many reasons, historical reasons has this strong culture around um actually benefiting and developing society rather than just um you know making a few people richer. Um so yeah, you see other innovation economies that are very strong, but you have to have this combination of kind of purposeful innovation and a strong innovation economy, one that's actually focused on societal challenges rather than just uh GDP narrowly. And uh Sweden definitely has that. So that's a really powerful kind of foundations for for all of this and um it's kind of within that context that systems innovation is emerging over the past uh decade or two in Sweden and um of course it builds upon its history which is a lot of innovative parts but can those parts be put together and and creative in this kind of ecosystem way to really be able to address uh wicked challenges and that's a challenge that you know societies around the world are facing and trying to address some better than others. Um, and and no one's really, you know, managed to achieve that. We wouldn't say quite yet. So, uh, we could say Sweden is kind of at the leading edge of that, I would say, in many ways. Definitely see it as the top three or or four, um, ecosystems that we've looked at. Um, so there's a lot to be said for the foundations, but also where it's going at the moment. Um, so that's uh, yeah, just a little bit of kind of broad context. Um, yeah, and that's really evolved over a long period of time. Not going to go into the history. Um, I'm sure you people know more about it than than I do. Um, but there's also this question of these wicked problems, right? And um, Sweden faces them. We all face them. and uh they can look take different forms in different uh you know societies. These are some of the key ones that we highlight uh in in in the context of Sweden and you've probably heard about them. I mean there even you know I've been listening to the news around the elections coming up and you you'll hear all of these uh I guess the one that I I heard quite a bit about recently was healthare and aging society age care that seems to be u you know big on the agenda. Um but we know security, geopolitics, organized crime actually, uh social exclusion, uh multicultural integration, growing inequality and poverty. These are some of the kind of systemic wicked challenges uh Sweden faces similar to other societies. And you know, one thing I've I've seen as I've talked to people here is that Swedes are quite aware that they aren't a massive society. uh you know it's 10 million people it's relatively small bit bit larger than where I come from in Ireland but still it's part of this global economy and all of these challenges are deeply integrated with that right if you think about organized crime that's spreading across borders we talk about climate change and geopolitics it's obviously Sweden is very much integrated into the global economy and critically dependent on what's going on out there so um actually the way of life here to some extent is threatened by those kind of bigger changes is in the world and uh we need to work uh together on that. That's a little bit kind of the backdrop in terms of the foundations and um those wicked challenges. Um if you have any questions or comments, I'm not sure if you already touched upon this and Lee, you could drop them in the chat now or um you know, as we go towards the end here, there's a space you can post them up on the board. So the the rest of the paper just letting people in. The rest of the paper is then looking at this ecosystem and one could structure that in different ways. Um there's often the triple or quadruple uh helix uh model used in different areas. Um this is five different areas uh we pull out. academia and research, public sector, civil society and social innovation, uh business and enterprise design and innovation and structure the paper around that. And it's really each one's looking at what's what's going on in that area. Um a little map, somewhat stylized map of different organizations and a little review as well as some spotlights and um maybe a quotation or two. So just starting. Yeah, I'm not going to go into all of it. a bit uh you know too much information. Um if we talk about academia and of course just to just to say each of these is kind of contributing something to this capacity or ability to be able to innovate and transform in systems. Um academia is this community should we say for unlocking insights uh for for for deeper research for understanding complex systems um and providing those kinds of insights and ideas and so forth. Public sectors you know providing the the infrastructure the framework the the policies uh funding legitimacy trust enabling conditions. Civil society is often uh the place where uh the real challenges are held. the real communities are and the people, the organizations, the non forprofits that are really connected with that in a deep way and the people who really care about those uh issues. Business and enterprise is the economic kind of engine and logic and entrepreneurship but the whole thing. Design and innovation often bringing the capacities for facilitation for um programs for for change and for projects and so forth and um be able to guide and lead those. So starting with academia and just just briefly touching upon this. Um yeah again I mean Sweden ranks very very well here. High levels of investment and research and development and um a very robust kind of uh academic and research uh community. Um and it has similar to the Netherlands this uh triple or quadruple helix um which is really trying to create this strong integration between government and academia and industry um around real world challenges rather than just you know academic research although that's needed um also and um we spotlight a few different programs initiatives here you can take a look at and some of the organizations uh in this space. Uh we have pair today can maybe say a word about Stockholm uh resilience center but many others there and these are more specific programs within those uh different areas. Um maybe I'll stay moving along for the the sake of time. Uh public sector. So yeah, the Swedish government has started to adopt this missionoriented framework over the past uh decade or so um that breaks down institutional ciders to foster cross sector collaboration between public administration, academia and private industry um to create these systems demonstrators around different challenges. And um here's a little little quote uh Marcus Sweden has been a for a frontr runner in identifying the need for and experimenting with research and innovation policies that addresses out challenges and are aimed at systems change. This stems from the 2009 London declaration adopted during the Swedish EU presidency which emphasized the role of research and innovation policy in efforts to address major societal challenges. Since then, Sweden has implemented a range of transformative uh challenge or mission oriented research and innovation programs. So, it's quite a strong feature of the the landscape here. This missionorientated um policy and government's frameworks and so forth. Uh looks a bit like this. This is uh 2023. Maybe it's been updated since um from Venova in terms of how they're thinking about it. You have these big societal challenges at the top there like good and uh equal health uh active and well functioning communities. You have these missions and then programs and these demonstrators down at the bottom. And the idea is not that the government does all of this but it kind of sets that high level framework. Um rather than dictating exact solutions from the national level, the government sets broad ambitious goals whilst empowering local actors to figure out the mechanisms of how to achieve them. The top down element provides the o overarching uh direction um and while the goals are set from the top flowing through the impact programs um which fund and fulfill the missions like murals that we have here to sustain gov and many others we actually or a number of others we actually focus or spotlight sustain gov here and maybe you know about sustain gov already and a few others um here and that's just a little wedge uh from the public sector. Um it's a very yeah important actor. Hopefully we can have that conversation uh today and discuss more about the missionorientated approach. Uh civil society um is another actor here. Uh Swedish civil society is vast and deeply integrated into the country's social fabric. It's uniquely characterized by high public participation, strong historical roots in popular movements. Sweden's approach to solving complex challenges is increasingly shifted from traditional linear problem solving towards systems innovation. So, it is one characteristic that I've noticed as I've come here like how often that word is actually used. Uh it's almost to some extent mainstream. You don't really hear that uh in other areas. Uh which is quite impressive. Um, in this Swedish ecosystem, civil society organizations, nonprofits, social enterprises are no longer viewed merely as service providers or advocators. Instead, they're recognized as fundamental drivers of transformation alongside public, academic and and private industry. Um, so that's uh social sector. I'm going to stay moving along. Of course, we have the public sector and um Sweden's that I think has been very strongly supported uh by the government in terms of building its innovation capacity and the the network of science parts has been a very important part of that. As I'm sure people know, Swedish business ecosystem is defined by its resilience, high degree of innovation, an inherent global outlook. It's a very dynamic economy, one that's very integrated into the the global economy and innovation economy because uh the domestic markets only 10 million people or so. Um Swedish companies from traditional industry heavyweights and so on are structured structurally wired to integrate into the global economy uh and scale internationally from day one. Um the Swedish businesses are famous for their flat egalitarian hierarchy. That was another thing we kind of uh encountered as we did the interviews that um yeah I think it's down here. Uh so this is Robert. We talked to me and um Sabah during the the conference who was talking about the nature of management and how businesses are organized. It's an interesting aspect. Of course we know Sweden has a very high trust um society which is also another important fact of this. But Robert's talking about the way uh organizations are working internally. Sweden's flat hierarchy, high trust culture are a genuine advantage for systems innovation. Um but lean organizations with no slap procurement rules that shut out uh new entrance and a scarcity of people willing to step beyond their mandate, keep the elephant in the room, extracting um exactly where it is. He's talking about some recent kind of developments um there. I'm going to uh stay going uh finally looking at the role of innovation and design agencies. So these are the ones that are kind of facilitating a lot of the work and um they play an important role in that respect. So systemic challenges are inherently messy. They involve conflicting stakeholder interests, abstract policy and massive scale. Although design innovation agencies are small in number of people compared to other areas of the ecosystem, they play a key role in translators to make these abstract problems um address uh addressable and solvable. As such, this ecosystem design innovation agencies um act as the central nervous system. They provide the the methods, tools, and human- centered perspectives needed to orchestrate change across entire industries, regulatory frameworks, and citizen behavior. So maybe I'll I'll leave it there for now. Hope you give me a little glimpse into those different areas. You can see some of those organizations uh down here also. Yeah, hopefully uh I'm doing good for time. I'll pass it back only to you, Shan. Yeah, I think this is uh perhaps a good time to bring in uh uh the the fantastic set of people that we have here on the panel. Uh I'm I'm sure everybody's eager to hear from them as well. Uh how about we start by just introducing uh yourselves if we go around the the panel. Perhaps we can start with uh you Pia just go alphabetically. Uh so just introduce yourself. uh tell us a little bit about your experience in this and the spaces that you uh interact with uh or your organization uh and then we will move on from there would you like to go here? >> Yeah. Um do I have my five minutes now or do we just do a round of introduction? Sappa. >> We'll we'll start with a round of introductions and then we have some questions. But but do talk about your experience and the spaces that you interact with. >> Uh I'm Pia. Super happy to be here. H I'm the CEO of Finas and we're also happy to be part of this report. Um I um wanted to just say something about my background. I come from a background of um education uh of organizational development and I think that has uh being a teacher uh being a change leader in public sector has also shaped the way I perceive these things. Um why I believe learning has to do with uh what we do is how we learn. Uh why I believe that change needs to come from within people and also why system innovation is actually here to help us. system innovation can actually help us um liberate the people out there doing the work. Uh so that's fine started 10 years ago uh at Esco as a project and we've been working ever since uh with this and when we started um I think systems innovation wasn't as present uh as it is now and Josh you've just um given us all these good stuff that we have now um we have missions we have system demonstrators, we have impact innovation programs. So there's so much um lovely stuff going on and I'm happy to talk more about that. I leave to the next person. >> Thank you Bria. Uh perhaps we can go on to Par uh and hear from you. >> Yeah. Hi everyone. Uh it's uh good to be in this context again. I really appreciate all the work that uh the the the hubs and the SI and and uh Joss and your team are are doing and it's really really great to be here again. So I I am uh currently the deputy science director at Stockholm Resilience Center. Um and it's uh within Stockholm University. So I come from academia and uh uh I've been working on for I think it's uh 30 years now I've been working on transform transformative change and trying to understand it. I still don't understand it but but uh I'm trying uh but uh so we've been trying to understand patterns of transformative change but also a lot of focus on capacities uh that we need and currently I'm I'm really interested in I'll talk a little bit more about that soon uh uh on backlash and trans transformation backlash and derailment. So um that's what I'm currently looking at and the capacity capacities we need to deal with that. uh uh so uh but a lot of focus and for us has been on sustainability and what we would call social ecological systems and there also I've been working a lot with concepts of social innovation systems innovation and then developing some other concepts like uh social ecological innovations and now it's basically I think it's called like naturebased solutions now and so on so I've been part of that whole development too uh around innovation and been writing and working with a lot of people on social innovation and um and then I have also been involved in um in uh designing and and and running change maker programs around the world with uh Rockefeller Foundation with um um uh the Swedish um the Swedish Institute u VOVA and others and all all over the world and trying to gather uh change makers um that are really at the forefront trying to um do transformation in practice and then we connect that to the cutting edge of transformation uh research and then work with together with them uh to to uh build the capacities for for transformative change. So been doing that for the last uh 15 years and um now also which I think is really exciting. I'm I'm I work a lot on the role of culture and especially arts in transformative change and uh with a specific focus on music. So that's what I'm working on right now, bringing together writers and musicians and scientists um around specific topics like um um the the um prevention of nuclear war, the loss of species um and also uh the the the loss of language uh and the loss of language and and also maybe sort addressing this issue of that we're trying to create new systems but with the old language. So we we're trying to sort of think about how do we also create a new language around um around these transformations. So that's me. >> Thank you bear. >> Thank you. >> Uh let's go right ahead and invite Marielle if you would like to introduce yourself. >> Yeah, thank you so much. Thank you for for the invite to participate today. Uh my name is Marielle Julian. Uh I'm the program director of one of these new uh missionoriented programs sustaining gov. I will probably come back to that a little bit later. Uh I come uh in uh from sort of a different angle on these issues as a behavioral economist uh by training. Uh I've always been interested in in you know how do we get the the most impact uh for you know in basically anything we do any intervention. So um I worked a lot with impact assessment of of new uh new types of of programs and and uh yeah policies etc in in various countries uh around Europe and beyond. Um so it's clear to me that uh you know the way that sort of our our society uh is focused on kind of um other issues than the kind of the long-term socioeconomic uh impacts and effects is is is not viable. You know we need to change the kind of the system in that sense. So that's kind of uh my way into looking at a systems perspectives. Um and from another another angle I've also kind of evaluated lots of kind of innovation type programs including uh the framework programs within the European Commission for many years etc. I'm also interested in kind of you know how do we use innovation financing in the best way possible uh to to enable um new kinds of innovation and that's also something I work with uh very much uh within the realm of sustain gov so in that capacity I also uh represent um the mid Sweden university who's the coordinating uh party there we are actually uh 18 uh partners uh that run this program. Of course, it's open uh to many more organizations, but um something that uh I think is is quite unique in that and that is sort of a little bit of a product of of uh my background is kind of I've seen the need to bring together uh all the governance levels uh so all the levels of government in in terms of creating these spaces that we don't really have. Uh but I'll come back to that in sort of the reflection on on on the results of the pro um um the the um report in a little while. So stop there. >> Thank you. Thank you Mariel. Uh and then Vanessa, finally we get to you. Uh tell us about yourself. >> Hi everyone, my name's Vanessa W. Thank you so much for the invitation and for the effort that you are putting into also describing the state of system innovation in Sweden. I mean it's always very interesting to to get the outside perspective. You're in a position through system innovation network to compare with other countries in quite a unique way which is really interesting. Uh I guess I'm here because uh I'm head of public sector and system innovation at Ignite Nordic, which is a nonprofit that works with uh creating startup collaborations both with large corporations and public sector organizations. Uh my my background uh P I was so happy to hear your interest in the arts and transformation. I have uh early years in theater and performing arts but when I ch decided to switch career uh I did didn't have a passion to navigate uh from. So this led me to working in many many different spaces. I've actually been active in all the different types of stakeholder uh stakeholders that you've um organized the report around working within organizations and then uh reconnecting to some original work I did in in interdisciplinary teams. So now today I work a lot in between organizations and this is what Ignite Nordic does as well. At the heart we uh create capacity and connect needle owners from both private sector and public sector with innovative companies with startups. So it's uh we are specialized in helping large organizations uh often bure bureaucratic not only public sector I mean private sector big organizations are bureaucratic as well. help them uh access and uh be able to collaborate with really interesting startups that are speedy, fast, agile, have really interesting technology expertise, new ways of working and are super passionate about solving new problems together with need owners. Uh so we have a demonstrated process for doing this. We've done it for almost 10 years uh at scale. Uh we also have a very active ecosystem that uh are interested in startup collaborations. the need owners as I mentioned the startups of course incubator science parks who are are important partners as well helping us scouting spart uh startups but also researchers and uh other nos's and when we work we have our scaled um process our platform for connecting people um three and a half thousand and counting startups uh but we also work in parallel with that with a whole system approach. Um so to give you an idea what I mean by that we do uh multi-acctor uh need mapping. So it's a way of combining for instance municipalities re uh regions in Sweden from Sweden perhaps another Nordic country gather them to look at the need together uh to also create a network uh and a shared demand for change and collaborations. Um we work with uh multistakeholder settings which I will return to uh on the reflection soon. Um ga gathering different stakeholders within for instance energy or healthcare. Um and we always try to make use of our extensive network. Uh so it's it's not always a case of in from our perspective in creating just the commercial collaboration between the need owner and the and the innovative company. Sometimes it's more complex than that. You need to collaborate with a researcher. You need to create uh a larger cluster of um uh actors around an issue. and we are very active in using our network to enable that and yeah I really look forward to this conversation. >> Nice. Thank you Vanessa. Um I'm I'm personally very excited about the amount of experience on this table and the the the diverse perspectives that we get to hear from. Uh this might be what what we were thinking we could do is just go through we have five key insights that we found in the paper and perhaps they can be a good starting point for our discussion because we want to know what you think about the state of systems innovation in Sweden. Uh and then we can just tell you the few things that we found and you can build on that. Uh Jos is is does that sound good? >> Sounds great. Yeah, let's do that. >> Perfect. Um here we are back with some uh some of the key insights. How were these created? These are the questions we we posed to people at the um at the conference and then we used an algorithm to synthesize it up and also Maril kind of helped co-create this a bit. Um so and and myself and Zaba. So here here it is. There are five of them. Let me let me please go into those. So number one here high potential limited uh capabilities. So these are these are more um what be the right word um hypothesis or provocations maybe we should say rather than statements about the the truth of things. Um I think they're very good for like sparking conversations and yeah as I say provocations uh to to see yeah in our conversation that follows like do we agree with this? Do we disagree? Do we think this is right or not? Um, of course, you know, it's just five or six people we interviewed, so it's limited in its perspective, but uh I will jump in all the same. So, high potential, limited capability. The country has the cultural and institutional uh preconditions for systems innovation, true collaboration, shared sustainability mission but lacks the method methods, depth and management uh literacy to convert those conditions into genuine transformation. The ecosystem is well positioned to start but not yet equipped to finish. It's quite quite quite strong uh statements. Um and to be honest we we found this across this is the one theme that reoccurred across you know the UK and the Netherlands and pretty much all these locations this gap between um ambition or theory and then what happens on the ground. So it's definitely not unique here but um and again this is not what what what I said or or we said this is what the participants we interviewed said. Um so how well developed is the ecosystem for systems innovation in Swiss uh Sweden. So we asked people to actually score themselves. Some people I think u refused to but others did and the scores clustered between five and six out of 10 with some giving Sweden a high score while some declining to score. citing sector dependencies and difficulties of comparison. Those who scored uh positively pointed to Sweden's cross- sectoral collaboration tradition, high institutional trust and Veneov's role in establishing the field of those who cautious those more cautious noted the ecosystem is growing from a narrow base and that the sector variation is significant, some areas more advanced than others. Across uh multiple interviews, a striking observation emerged. many participants are already working systemically without using uh the language and that's another kind of reoccurring theme we found in other areas. So number two, strong collaboration intent, struggling to follow through. I guess it's a little bit a little bit similar. Um so we yeah we hear a lot about collaboration. Uh it's almost a buzz word. Um but it's a lot easier to say than do. Again, that's a common theme across the board. But collaborative instinct is genuine but operates without the structural conditions it needs to convert intent into impact. Collaboration is currently eventbased and person dependent. It happens at conferences and in projects driven by motivated individuals and dissolves when those individuals move move on. I'm not sure I'd love to hear your your opinion. I'm not I don't think Mariel totally agreed with this either. So um it's kind of open for for discussion. How good are we at working collaboratively and in ecosystem ways? There's a broad agreement that Sweden has genuine collaborative instinct. Openness to multis sector partnerships is part of what several interviewees called the Swedish way reinforced by funding requirements. But there's an equally broad recognition that openness does not translate automatically into effective or sustained collaboration. The data points to three compounding problems. Organization conditions are consistently absent. Large organizations at times are stripped lean through an emphasis on efficiency and metrics and have no capacity to participate meaningfully. And when collaboration does happen, it rests on the drive of specific individuals rather than systemic uh enablers. So that's the the second one. Uh third one, cultural strengths facing increasing challenges. Um, and this goes back to what I was saying about Sweden being a relatively small country in a in a big world where there's a lot of um kind of headwind, should we say, and things moving in the opposite direction. Sweden strengths are primarily cultural and relational, not technical or method methodological is a little bit kind of similar for Europe also. They're real and significant but increasingly under pressure from foreign corporate ownership eroding flat hierarchies, geopolitical threats testing um comfortable stability and from an ecosystem consuming its own credibility through systems washing. These strengths can't be taken for granted. Four clusters emerged when it comes to the strengths cultural. Yeah, I mentioned it before the flat hierarchal low prestige working norms which makes it people accessible and it's um one can easily connect to the people that that one needs to cross level conversation um yeah it's possible to kind of cross different levels of the the hierarchy institutional long-term funding provided by a number of important institutions gives legitimacy and staying power systems work which is an important aspect effect I would say and is often absent like it's quite rare that governments are really funding systems innovation work in the way that Venova and other institutions public sector institutions are. So it's it's a very important aspect of the ecosystem here. Third, a shared sustainability mission that gives the ecosystem a unifying direction even when the path is disputed. Yeah, the the whole concept of sustainability is is quite prevalent and strong. much stronger than others societies many which is an important aspect. Fourth and um under acknowledged a large body of practitioners already working system systemically without naming it uh representing significant latent potential. Uh I'll stay going. Number five structural gaps uh holding back potential. most significant gaps are structural, not attitudinal. Interviewes consistently described willing individuals hitting structural walls. Again, I wouldn't say this is, you know, we see this across the board. If we think about the NHS or many many organizations, we have these structural barriers, agencies that want to collaborate but have no mandate to. Innovators who want to try things but face procurement rules that exclude them. Systems thinkers who understand complexity but work for managers who don't. Changing mindsets without changing structures will not move the needle. So that's number four. Structural uh gaps holding back the potential. Number five, institutional from institutional leading to distributive field building. So this one's saying that this move towards systems innovation has been led by a number of institutions and um the challenge is actually to distribute that to a real field that that that's in a more distributed way kind of building all of this with the right capacity. So Sweden has yet to transition from designing an ecosystem to implementing structuring intentionally structuring and governing it. The foundation phase is largely complete. A number of public institutions have established legitimacy. A community is formed and the language is circulating although uh not widely shared yet. What is needed now is the harder work of governance, quality control, structural redesign and distributed leadership to move from uh you know to move into a real movement and a real field that's building and developing rather than the few uh leading it. Yeah. So that uh is the five of them actually. Um >> thanks >> and they're summarized back here and they're all on paper so you can go further into them. Yeah, >> thanks Jos. Uh and then I guess we uh get to the the most juicy part uh of this uh session and ask uh Pia, P, Mariel and Vanessa uh when you hear these insights uh what do you like what comes to your mind? Do you um uh what is your perspective on the state of development of systems innovation in Sweden? Do you agree with any of these insights or have anything to add to them or challenge them? Whoever is ready, >> I can I can have a go. And then uh I think I would like to to bring up the fragmented but also the shift from fragmented to distributed which I think is one very important part of what we need to be doing in the in the future of systems innovation and also the systemic structures and that's something I will return to the relational aspects of that. Um I think we built strong foundation in Sweden. There's so much also from this outer look when you now present this report. Uh you get there's a sense of pride that there's so much going on. Um but I think our challenge um is a bit different moving on. uh I think we have become quite good at bringing people together but bringing people together in the systems where they are sort of residing is is not really pushing any any change in the system. We need to become better at bringing the people that we put together a capacity to learn um a capacity to learn what is needed and I I'm super happy Par that you bring up the arts music uh as design a designerally led um innovation lab that we are uh we've also seen that professions like well people within the arts, people within music or designers they can sit with a problem. They can make um getting together uh bringing new ways of being together uh of having conversations that can radically shift the kind of new ideas that can that can come in to that and um I think they can also help. I think shifting that sort of conversation is also helping us from the risk that we keep saying a systems innovation but we're not really changing anything. It just becomes language. So there's a risk uh that we reproduce the very norms that we are trying to transform um that we're still uh locked into a system where predetermined output efficiency assumptions that we should know where to go uh before starting is still very sort of prevailing. So no matter if we're saying and talking and asking for systems innovation, I think we're still a bit trapped within the confines of our organizational and mental structures. So all of those things I think are ways for us in this community of practitioners to to really think hard about and and to see what we can do together in that. Uh I also think that we sometimes uh talk as if people need to acquire a completely new set of capabilities to work with systems innovation and um I'm not sure that is the case. I think a few of the things that we've seen in our work in veneer's lab is that a lot of the a lot of the qualities that we need to sort of just re uh vigorize in ourselves is what we're already very good at as human beings. Curiosity, imagination, uh care, practical wisdom, >> the ability to learn through doing. all of those things that have always taken us through transitions and and being innovative. But how do we create those conditions? And how do we create those conditions for us as practitioners? And how do we create those conditions and that sort of uh a thriving of that uh in in our systems and to me um relationship come keeps coming back. We're talking about systemic structures and to me that's relational. >> Uh and I think relations within when we when we do get that the system together, we need to also think about what that does to to people and to our will to actually change. Um, and one of the things that came to me when I was thinking about that was that if if I don't know you, I can exchange information, but if I trust you, I can tell you something I don't yet understand. In Swedish, we say, and I think we need to do that much more. Uh, if I feel safe enough, I can change my mind. And if we can disagree without the relationship breaking then we can have that friction that I think innovation is really in need of. So therefore I think relations relationship building is a craft that we have to become better at in within the systems innovation field. they need to be part of the infrastructure through which the system, the Swedish system, any system learns. And I also think that this is where the the real innovative uh parts actually start. So moving from just talking about innovation infrastructure to um learning infrastructure or infrastructuring the way you said Josh I I think having it as a verb spaces where people can return to important questions over time where lived experience becomes knowledge and where different forms of knowledge can meet. I think those are really really important things and we also need to move things within the system. So needs to travel from the local practice up to policy and through the the wider system. Um so fragmentation I think to me at least the my experience is that we we still there's still few things that even if a lot of people feel that yes we should work with systems innovation we're still a bit trapped in the way we're supposed to be working and I think this is also something that we need to build courage around we need to build sense making around this as practitioners, facilitators, I think there are many different layers of this uh but it certainly needs a discussion and your report is a good start. Um, I wish for the next iteration. And I loved that you're talking about us as work in progress and the next iteration of the report I'm thinking would be uh featuring not only us doing the facilitative work but actually the citizens and the civil servants who are in the midst of this and also inviting maybe what I'm also sort of seeing a need for is to invite what is really difficult with systems innovation and what is scary about it because I think if we don't invite that if we don't have that um that discussion that this is really innovating within systems is also it has to do with power it has to do with norms it has to do with everything that we as human beings are a bit find scary uh and also why we need much more time, much more uh structural um and systemic holding of each other and these systems that are changing. >> For sure. I I think some like really important things you brought up there and I I hope I understood that correctly. So I mean you talked about agility of both structures and our own ability to learn on the go and then perhaps not limiting ourselves mentally to specific theory, a specific way of theorizing things or a specific way of uh having methodology. perhaps like also leverage uh intelligence that we already have uh in terms of collaboration and learning by doing and a lot of intentions that we already have and kind of leverage them to to further this and of course you talk a lot about collaboration and relations uh which are basically one of the most important tenets of building something like this. Um super interesting. Thank you Pia. Uh I'm just going to ask also P uh Vanessa and Mariel if you have something that you've been thinking about on this Annali you have something >> yeah there's also a question in the chat >> okay we'll come to it quickly but >> I'm happy to have a go >> yes Mariel please go ahead >> yeah because I'm I I sort of think that um you know the language of systems innovation can be a bit alienating So basically the mission of our program is is to basically improve health and well-being for citizens and we're doing it through reforming the way that public sector works from kind of going from doing things right to doing the right things. And I actually think that practitioners uh on the ground they know exactly what needs to happen because they meet the patients or the clients or the citizens every day. And I think uh really it's it's not necessarily rocket science. It's just they need to be supported in doing what many of them actually already do despite not having the mandate or despite not having the funding or actually sometimes explicit orders not to do it but they know what is necessary to to enable kind of a better use of journey or whatever patient journey. So uh I think in a way we sort of in in a lot of ways we do have uh some of the solutions already. Uh we just need to support it in a systemic way. And I think um in terms of of Swedish society and who we are, we are quite extreme. I'm sure you're all familiar with sort of the world value survey and uh how incredibly sort of uh out well we complete outliers. Um and I think what's what's interesting about that is that you know we h I think we also changed over time because in terms of of being um having a systems perspective I actually think if you look back historically we have done some amazing work in that when we've sort of combined bottom up experimentation with top-down uh structure and and leadership and I think what we can see uh as of kind of the last maybe 20 years is that you know uh the topdown uh leadership has kind of weakened in in the political sphere. We have an election this this uh Sunday and no one really knows what what it's about anymore. Uh and I think it's also to do with um if you look at historically we've been able to do you know district central heating which is kind of a dream for most countries. I mean 98% of municipalities in Sweden have district central heating. That's a systems solution uh that you know they invested in many many years ago and we take it for granted now but it's not like that in other countries you know it's it's highly fragmented. Another one is kind of dental reform and lots of things that we've done, you know, a pension system that is the envy of of many countries because, you know, um I mean the economist wrote about it the other week uh about how we sort of allowed uh you know um citizens to to invest um privately in in in their pensions etc. which is making our pension system resilient which is providing uh capital for all these unicorns uh that you know are coming out through through the innovation system etc. So we have an incredible uh equity market in in in here in venture capital market in in Sweden for instance and that's a systemic uh thing right uh but I do think that the our governance system which is very much the reverse to for in for instance the UK so here we have like a very much the tax based is local it's in the municipalities which means that if we have 290 municipalities we have 290 ways of doing things basically that could great for innovation, but it can also be a problem when it comes to lack of sort of top-down structure. And and something that we really try to do and work with in our program is to kind of bring together the levels because we need to have more of a sort of circular policy development where you know central government learn from what's actually going on on the ground and and supports all those good efforts. Uh at the moment that's not really happening. It's kind of more of a linear type top down uh thing which is hindering this kind of bottom up experimentation. Uh but it is is it's um so there are lots of good things uh in terms of of um for instance impact innovation. It's great that it's actor le. It's fantastic and it's great that we we super good at bottomup experimentation when it comes to innovation. It's just we need to get more of a sort of uh joint effort around. So what are those areas the the real societal challenge uh challenges where we also need to get the politicians and everyone else kind of involved and uh the gaps you know uh in in the map that we're not addressing because it's systemic. We have market failure there. We can't you know do it bottom up only. we need to sort of uh challenge systems in in many different ways. So I think I think you know that's something to to take forward but also not forgetting that we've been good at this in the past we can do it again and also a lot of the solutions are out there because as Pia said it's all about the people it's all about trust and relationships we we can only solve some of these things locally where the needs are but we need to have the the structural support of course of of of everything else. Um, so yeah, so those were kind of my reflections. >> Yeah. And I mean I I I understand it very um in tandem with also what Pia said. I mean so you talked about like the the language being alienating which is which is already a hindrance like we don't necessarily need that. uh and we have the ability to like to to leverage a lot of diverse innovation opportunities etc. What we're lacking I I think and that's kind of what I thought a lot about while you were talking the central theme being we don't necessarily need to change everything. We just need to make it a little bit better structurally so that all of these things can be facilitated and they can remain the same but they need to be facilitated better with a with a structure that is a little more conducive uh to to these uh to these uh bottom up innovations etc. Uh would that be a good uh good way to understand what you >> Yeah. So I think we in some ways we do need to you know we can optimize the system absolutely we can go far with that because some of the solutions there but then there are this kind of structural things that we need to orchestrate together and for that my friends we need leadership >> right absolutely so so good combination of >> both right >> like like a new business model say if you're an AI company you know you don't come in with the same business models of the old companies you come in with a completely digital datadriven new business model. That's what I'm talking about. We need also those kind of uh innovations. >> Absolutely. How about you P and Vanessa? Any thoughts that you'd like to share? >> Yeah. Um can I should I go Vanessa or do you want to go? Yeah. Uh yeah, I uh I like the conversation here and the points that have been made and I also agree with the um with the many of the points and uh and insights from the uh from the interviews and and that you put in this report. And uh one thing that so I want to sort of focus on as I mentioned before which I think maybe where we are not equipped uh uh um well to deal with and that is the the backlash that we see at the moment uh especially around sustainability but also other other issues in in Sweden. And we say that um based on our observations transformative change triggers backlash. I would say almost always um and we are too naive often uh to think that we can transform systems in the way that we need to right now without uh dealing with these kind of backlashes and that's why it has I think escalated uh as much as it has for example in uh in Sweden but also in what we see in the US a lot of it is is linked to this um uh this kind of backlash dynamic. And when we talk about backlash then we talk about we we put in that word we put uh polarization, effective polarization mostly effective polarization, violent conflict, uh democratic backsliding, dehumanization and radicalizations and there are more things that you can put in in in in the concept of backlash. Uh but it but so the question is how do we how do we deal with this that is happening right now and uh I I didn't think I would would ever be worried about democracy in Sweden. uh but I am now I am worried about uh democracy as something that we have taken for granted and that we think that because everything we need we suggest when it comes to transformative change and systems innovation is basically requires democracy and now uh that is challenged. So, and it has to do with I think a piece that is missing a lot in a lot of the theories and and conceptualization of transformative change and that is the the the in between. Uh the transformative change always have an in between when when old structures are broken down or collapsing sometimes slowly and uh and but before uh new systems have be fully formed. So that is the in between it and we know from from from empirical studies that that could be the most volatile period uh during transformative change. So that's uh where where we now put this um empirical studies but also this how do we how we understand that that in between and I think we have concepts like the double loop the burana model uh the the the multi-level perspective with the x curve we have we have from our resilience perspective have the the adaptive cycle and the and the cup and ball uh figure and I think that that um I think that all all of those are are really useful and I think uh uh Joss you you do a great job of just sort of put those out there and we need we need them and but we also need this sort of u this uh focusing in on on this the in between so I think that that uh require what we see now when it comes to backlash and actually the uh what's happening globally now with the with the uh uh the rule-based order that we have taken also for granted is is challenged and and falling apart and with a weak UN uh trade agreements are challenged etc. And the question is now what do we do? What capacities do we need in this situation that was not the situation 10, 15, 20 years ago. So I think we need to change the way we change the world. That's something a message that we need to put out there to challenge people when they say we're going to change things. Uh how are you going to change things? You know, what is your theory of change in this context? Um, and that's the one thing that I that I uh always talk to systems change people and and and others with and and and it might require for example if you're coming from um I'm just taking an example here now but like if you're coming from Mckenzie uh been working there maybe for 20 years you realize that ah I can't I can't work here anymore. This is not where I want to be and do my change from. So you might join noran or or some other organizations that work may maybe more with systems change and and transformation. Maybe you need to go through a detox because so you don't carry too much of that system into this new place. And I think that is the problem often that we don't reflect over we may we might think about me and the system but we also have to think about the system in me. Uh what systems do I carry? Do I carry the uh I'm a white middle-aged man. I I carry uh I carry uh you if I work also in in southern Africa I I carry these colonial systems. I call I I carry all kinds of systems with me uh which I not might not be aware of. And I think it was mentioned here that that need that reflexive capacity is needed. So I think that that uh in in relation then um we need to in relation to the insights we need to talk more about uh the the phasing out aspects of of transformative change not just the the the innovation creating the new impact transformation. We need to talk about how do we phase out um the old system? How do we how can it die with dignity? Hospicing is uh is is a kind of the language that we use and and also um uh talk more about uh the the the backlash within that and talk about the the transition pain, the emotional aspect of of being phased out. Uh because a lot of the backlash comes from that people feel like losers in transformative change. Uh because they are supposed to be phased out and their values, their behaviors etc. are not part of the new uh which it could be but and not in the current form. So we need to talk about that and and I think then in in the relation to these uh to the insights I think that uh when it comes to collaboration and we have this this potential to collaborate we have to talk about radical collaboration. We have to talk about how we how we create new constellations that uh that really uh work with the polarized views paradoxes. How do we hold that middle? How do we collaborate in in in radically new way and but hold the paradox at the same time? Um when it comes to um the the u structural gap then uh when it uh it's about inclusion it says there and how do you include margin marginalized people. So that's uh challenges. How do we collaborate in ways there where people are not just included but also feel like they belong? That's something we hear from a lot of people that uh it's great to be included but I actually want to feel like I belong. You hear it in the green transition or the energy transitions. um uh in northern Sweden when it comes to the inclusion of uh Sami people in in in those u transformative change. So that's that's uh I think um uh one um one sort of important sort of I I don't think it's just in the energy transition. I think is in general uh in Sweden when it comes to marginalized groups that are there are so many that feels excluded uh right now. I think that's also where a lot of the u uh discontent and the uh the transition pain and the and also the the backlash is coming from. >> Great. Thanks P. I think we we're running close to time so excellent. >> Yeah, I'm good. I'm good. >> Uh thanks P. uh relate with a lot of things that you said and we've been talking about some of these things as well. Uh Vanessa uh your thoughts. >> Thank you. Well, I'm a practitioner so I I will bring this back to um everyday work with stakeholders. I really appreciate the the points that all of you have brought out on the capacity to build relationship and uh the lack of leadership and someone posted the question how who's the leader in a system where we have to work in between and I can say immediately my my uh my personal insight on that is that you have to be a leader you have to go to your heart you have to lead and start moving whether there are uh perfect circumstances for that or not. And uh I do appreciate you P for bringing uh bringing us into this severity of things in this moment of time and how uh and who for whom we uh have to act and who and that everyone should be included. uh so uh I think uh it at large I I agree with the report uh that we're discussing today. I do hear signals uh out in my work of logic awareness. People expressing that they understand the the logic the system I'm working within is not enough. It is an hindrance. Uh so at the very superficial level I I hear the Swedish eco um innovation ecosystem talk about uh we have to be able to combine competing and collaborating but the uh uh forms for doing so are still not mainstreamed at all. I hear um one of the leaders for one of our biggest uh in industrial company in Sweden saying uh we are so trained in transactional relationships. We need to design new forums for developing collaboration because that's the only way that we can find the new models. And uh P you me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me me mentioned electrification. We meet uh power companies who want to meet startups and they uh several of them ask can we bring more people in the room because we don't know who's going to take which role when we try to solve this area. So a very concrete way of um trying to work out the start working with with different kinds of of logics. uh I'm I'm uh also hopeful uh I don't know if this is an example of infrastructuring uh but uh I mean I do agree with the report saying that there are that people know what's what to do and go about it whether they have the theoretical language or not they have the insight the ability to build relations and understand what problems we have is intrinsically human I think uh but organizations are not built for this way of working. So they are a constant hinder for us and most leaders in this time are very good uh at leading an organization. So they there's a lot of change that's needed that but I have I have what for me is a hopeful example uh in probably a very boring context which is the Swedish procurement agency that took an initiative to develop a competence center for innovationdriven uh procurement and this was not built as a new organization or with an appointed leader. they reached out to the uh innovation ecosystem and uh there are a few of us that are intermediaries that got engaged in this work and I think it's really interesting to see how many people were on board and ready to actually try to start to build a uh ecosystem function or a system innovation function rather than an organization where We the aim is to um connect people of course needs resources knowledge in new ways and when connecting uh we can also see what's not there. So it it's an early phase. The the uh first concept was launched or is being launched uh this autumn actually. uh but it's definitely a new way of organizing and I will definitely bring with me in the different contexts where I move about uh the insight that we when we organize in new ways. We also have to be very aware that we need to build capacity for volatile times so that we can stay in the in between and do our work and at the same time contribute be a part of um helping our society, ourselves, our organizations to to choose the right path uh until the new systems are disable enough, stable enough. >> Absolutely. Um well, there's so much more to talk about on these topics and it's uh this is a an issue always we just run out of time. Uh we do have a few questions. Unfortunately, we have 2 minutes left. Uh so maybe we're going to uh draw to a close. However, I do think that it's uh I mean there are some questions that we're going out with like how do you actually how do you manage or build structures for the in between uh how do you uh make the how do you see the role of system like leadership and systems innovation that uh I'm not sure who asked but somebody did um yeah quite a few questions how do you how do you actually include the marginaliz ized voices etc. Uh I would hope that we can come back again to have a discussion on these things. Uh for now uh we will close the discussion and just move on to like the conclusion. Uh feel free to keep sending us questions though and perhaps we can do an additional session uh if we have questions coming up. >> Yes. >> Yes. You are explaining how to get involved. >> Yeah. I mean just say it sounds like you know the beginning of a conversation rather than the end. So um many more could could follow and that's the idea of our hub. Um but for the moment let's let's draw to a close share a few words about the hub and and ways to be involved um before we do draw draw to a close. So yeah, the SI Sweden hub is a space for people who want to connect and co-learn and co-create systems innovation in Sweden and um we're just getting started. Uh this as we said it's our first event. We hope to have many more to to follow and um few ways to be involved. Um so myself um Analy Sabah um Anakura part of the core team. If you thought that might be right for you, you can send us a message. Um, you can also be a member in the hub. That means joining uh on the website, the group here. If you're not already, you just click that link. You you click join. You're part of that space. We'll keep you updated about upcoming events and so forth. We're also developing an associate program. So, these are for people who want to contribute. um they don't have the time to you know be there every week in terms of managing and leading the hub but they want to contribute with their skills expertise experience whatever it is every now and then where and when it's relevant whether it's like um Vanessa and other panelists pair and Mel Pier have today or in research or in labs and co-creations or hosting events um you might like to um explore that opportunity to be an associate in the SI Sweden hub Um Joanna who we have here today is our first one actually and we're trying to develop that network. So there's a link there if you're you're interested in that. Just click on it and um you'll find more info. You'll find a form you can submit that and we'll be happy to have that conversation with you. Uh yeah maybe I pass back to you and later bring us to a close. >> Thank you P. >> Thank you. Um well thank you all of you so so to say the panel thank you for like so interesting discussions comments and insights and all the listeners for questions and comments uh and for being here today to be here with us and if feel free to leave feedback here if you like to some comments uh or just rate us today we have a time for it and I really hope we will be seeing each other again in other events. further on uh because we will be trying to put together events and the if anyone wants to be involved and be a part of those events, please sign up for your interest so we know and we can reach out to you. And if you want to contribute in any way to the how to say the remake of the paper or going deeper with the paper then please uh send us uh your email in the chat or get in touch on LinkedIn or on SI network page. So I thank you very much for your attention and thank you the lovely panel and thank you so much for today. >> Quick think this is completely unplanned but I actually see that there's 32 people still here. So if anybody has like if Mariel Vanessa you guys have five 7 10 minutes more and if the others are willing to stay uh perhaps we could answer some questions. >> How how do you feel about it? It's not necessary at all because it's not in the plan. >> I'm happy to stay a couple of minutes. Um >> uh we're dropping some Hello Rest of the participants. If you want to stay for 10 more minutes, we can ask some questions. Perhaps Maria is staying. >> I can stay and I also think we should open the floor for discussions. >> Yeah, exactly. >> I'm sure we have lots of experience in the room. Uh >> yeah, absolutely. How about you, Pia? >> Yeah, it works well.