Podcast transcript

Ashok Subramanian:

Hello, and welcome to this edition of the ThoughtWorks Technology Podcast. I’m one of your regular co-hosts, Ashok Subramanian.

Neal Ford:

And hi, I’m Neal Ford, one of your other regular co-hosts. And we are joined, or I should say rejoined today by three of our colleagues. I’ll let them introduce themselves, starting with Anastasia.

Anastasia Belozertseva:

Hi everyone. My name is Anastasia Belozertseva. I am a developer with ThoughtWorks. I’ve been with ThoughtWorks for around eight years, and I’ve been on all sorts of different engagements in this time.

Brandon Byers:

Hi, I am Brandon Byers. I’m a technology director at ThoughtWorks, approaching 13 years in.

Aleksandar Serafimoski:

Hello, this is Aleksandar Surfmosky, I am a lead consultant at ThoughtWorks working as a developer. I’ve been at ThoughtWorks for eight years, and I’m out of the Chicago office.

Neal Ford:

And you may recognize those voices because we have done a podcast with this group before talking about some of the challenges encountered when dealing in an agile software development mindset with a ERP heavy integration environments. And our last episode, which is not required listening for here, but will certainly give you some context, gave an overview of a lot of the challenges you face in those kind of environments. Today, we want to focus more on the solutions to some of those challenges, and some ways to work around some of those problems.

Ashok Subramanian:

And just to give our listeners some context of the probably space and what we’re discussing, Anastasia and Aleksandar, want to describe and give maybe a 30 second summary of the context and problem space before we start discussing what your experience and lessons learned in this were?

Aleksandar Serafimoski:

Yeah. So the context from the previous meeting, where we talked about some of the journey and what were the challenges that we faced was that Anastasia myself and Brandon worked at a Fortune 10 energy company that had a highly customized ERP system. Which basically created a lot of challenges for them in order to innovate and build new products based on the data that was captured in their ERP system. When we initially came in, we were tasked with coming up with a strategy on, how do we expose this data that can be consumed by different consumers in different applications that they were building, while being able to move quickly and then decrease some of the cost? And so that’s where our recommendation was moving from point to point solutions to reusable APIs that can be easily reused, well-documented and self-service so that teams can grab the data that they need, they can innovate, and they can do it all by themselves without needing to find the right person and communicate with them.

Ashok Subramanian:

Great. Thank you. I think that’s a really good context to start off the conversation. Yeah, so you were describing in our last conversation about using APIs as a strategy or technique to create these abstractions all with legacy, which allows teams to start moving more rapidly than they were able to previously. And you describe some of the techniques that you had used. So what were some of the learnings or your experience along the way?

Aleksandar Serafimoski:

Yeah, I can start. And I think probably Anastasia has some things that she wants to add. But I think the biggest learning that we face was that when executing this type of a strategy, there’s not a silver bullet solution. So approaching everything pragmatically, analyzing the pros and cons, and understanding what is the solution that works for you the best, was one of the biggest learnings for me personally. I know Brandon, when we worked together, he’s a big fan of the pros and cons tables. And we went and created a lot of those, which allowed us to evaluate different solutions and then understand what would be the best for us in a given context. I think the second learning point for me was the ability to communicate the strategy over and over again. Because when you’re coming into organizations where they’ve done point to point solutions, there is a certain type of a mindset.

Aleksandar Serafimoski:

So taking people within that organization on the journey from one type of a mindset to another type of a mindset, was a journey that we executed and went through a couple of times. Because, as you know, these organizations are very big. And so you might go through this lessons with one department and then comes in another department that wants to use the data and they have the same questions. So being patient, taking people on a journey, and maybe even creating some advertising light reading material is definitely a good strategy for moving forward. Anastasia, do you have anything to add on top of that?

Anastasia Belozertseva:

Yeah, sure. I think there are a few things that I can think about. I think what is worth noting is, you mentioned having a strategy. And I think having ways to communicate a strategy is very important. So in our case, we leveraged an API style guide that was recorded in Git. We leveraged architecture decision records that were also recorded in Git. And we build a community of practice to share these learnings, socialize these learnings, and also have a way to also spread them outwards and communicate them to various teams involved.

Anastasia Belozertseva:

I think another learning that we had is agreeing on some key metrics. So your metrics of success for your various APIs. And agreeing on metrics that make sense to both the technical and the business audience. So for us, for example, what we thought was important is, first of all, keeping track of how many consumers we’re able to help out. Also, what is the various functionality offered? So be it synchronous integration or asynchronous modes of integration with our services. And also some metrics when it comes to availability, your response correctness, as in how many air response your API is producing versus your regular 200 type of responses. And how available your API is, and what the uptime of it is.

Anastasia Belozertseva:

And also what are the performance metrics for each one of the end points? So, what are those SLIs that your consumers can expect from your API? So having those metrics and having a place in time during the cycle of UAPIs where you consistently record those metrics, but also socialize them with everyone involved with all of the stakeholders and consumers and such, I think is going to help you just spread awareness about the work that you’re doing, the work that the teams are doing. And also will help you gain respect and just build rapport with your consumers.

Neal Ford:

So you’re almost making it sound like the job of architects is to make pragmatic decisions and socialize them responsibly, rather than define silver bullets laying around. That’s just an amazing perspective on architecture. Matches a reality, but not much of what you find in the press. But that is really the essence of the job is the social side of it is at least as important as the technology side. And silver bullets are rare.

Brandon Byers:

Yeah, I think the focus on silver bullets is interesting because one of the observations about working in organizations who have a long history with large, monolithic ERP systems, is it’s not just a technology challenge, it’s often times a cultural mindset challenge. And for a lot of these companies they legitimately are not software development organizations, and the ERPs run their business. But also that means that they have a history of buying COS products to run their business, even outside the ERP.

Brandon Byers:

One of the friction points that we had to overcome was thinking about, okay, so now we need to think about some interesting integration pathways. Well let’s buy a product, let’s bring in, hey, MuleSoft’s an API product, let’s bring in MuleSoft as an API product and have it solve our problems. And there’s nothing wrong with MuleSoft, but what happened in practice is that people would use the ESB elements of MuleSoft for orchestration to grab data from system A and shovel it into system B, into all those APIs. And check the architectural box that says, “Hey, we’ve met the mandates for new integration patterns.” And a lot of the effort that we had to do was say, yeah, you’re not a software development company, but you’re also not a math company.

Brandon Byers:

That doesn’t mean that you don’t rely on math to run a multi-billion dollar business. And likewise, you need to rely on some software development capabilities from a multi-billion dollar business. That you can still buy COS products and SAS products to bring in new capabilities, but you need to own the glue. And if you’re really serious about providing agility in these different life cycles from the experiences that you’re buying, than the ERP that underlies a lot of the data and capabilities that you need to support those experiences, then you need to think about these APIs as first first-class products with some software development capabilities to support them, rather than just making a product and a silver bullet consideration.

Neal Ford:

I think that’s an important point that, I mean, you’re building glue between these things, but it has to be responsible glue. One of the challenges I’ve seen in organizations like this is particularly in places that do things like manufacturing, they’re used to buying manufacturing equipment, and it is really turnkey. They bring it and install it, and you turn the key on and it just works. But you’d never imagine them going, okay, we bought another piece of factory equipment and it doesn’t have the kind of power we want. So crack into the power generator on that piece of equipment and splice on to it and supply power to the other one. You’d never see a company doing something like that because it’s wildly irresponsible for that piece of equipment.

Neal Ford:

And yet you see the exact same kind of integration where, well, we can’t really get that data, so just crack into its database and we’ll just slurp the data directly out of it without thinking about the side effects of amperage and overload and other sorts of things that string as metaphor that I have. But a lot of this, I think, goes back to that cultural mindset of software is not like the other things they buy, which are much more self-contained products. And software, particularly when you integrate it, kind of leaks all over the place.

Brandon Byers:

But on the other hand, we also use that experience to our advantage. A metaphor that I used a few times in some of these sessions where we were trying to change mindsets was to talk about jump-starting my car battery. And I would say, it didn’t start, so I’d pull my girlfriend’s car next to it and open up the hood and look at the batteries. And then I have jumper cables. But what I didn’t do is then peel off the rubber on the jumper cables, open up the battery, pull out my chemistry textbook to understand how anodes and cathodes work, and where to plug the wires in to start it. Because I had well-defined components with well-defined interfaces. We wanted the same thing for their integration, we wanted to take that same componentized mentality that they were used to in the example that you pulled out, Neal. And so you can think of your integration loop in a similar way so that every single integration isn’t bespoke.

Ashok Subramanian:

I think it’s also maybe a good reminder for one of the blips in the radar where we have ESB on hold. So I suppose your recommendation is still, continue with that recommendation even though it’s probably about eight years old, still holds, right?

Brandon Byers:

It’s aged well.

Neal Ford:

It’s one of those tricky things though, because there is some nuance there. But Brandon actually got to the problem with ESBs and all those similar tools is the slippery slope problem. If you only use it for exactly what it was designed for and exactly what the niche you need it for, you’ll be fine. But there’s this temptation to start using it for everything, and it just spreads and grows.

Aleksandar Serafimoski:

And that’s once we saw, I think not only with ESBs, but with the ERP system. And that’s another thing from the tech rater that we brought in, which is the concept of abounded buy. Don’t buy something, and just because it allows you to add more functionality, add it. Because, hey, I bought it and I’m going to reuse it for 10 different things. Buy something for what it’s specifically intended to do, and then if you need something else, find another tool that does it well and connect them well. The example that we use for this was quite interesting. I think in the 80s or 90s there was the TV and the DVR that were meshed together. And so you got a player for free, a cassette player for free, but maybe it didn’t have the best functionality.

Ashok Subramanian:

I think one of the points we were discussing, and you had mentioned was around capturing some of these metrics and making sure you’re actually communicating that instead of spreading the message within the organization. Were there any techniques that you would recommend, some that worked better for you than others? And some examples of how you decided which KPIs would be the best to capture.

Anastasia Belozertseva:

Yeah. As we’ve mentioned in the past, either in the previous episode, what was really important for us while building these domain services is to make sure that we have a dedicated product owner for each one of those services. So treating the main services, not as a project with a specific timeline, but as a long living technical product. And the product owner here can bring in the domain knowledge from their organization, but also make sure that you’re building the right product, help you define the technical strategy with the involvement of some of the architects and such, and really support without any time bounds.

Anastasia Belozertseva:

So one of the techniques that we use is that we really leverage this product owner in helping us define the metrics that are not just relevant for the technical audience, but also relevant to the business audience. And we also leverage this product on a figure to keep us on track when collecting these metrics. Because also, when you’re talking about collecting metrics, it’s also important to have the right architecture to support it, to support the easy collection of these metrics, make sure that you are able to prioritize it in a timely fashion, make sure that you are able to make sure that it’s easy for you to collect them. Right?

Anastasia Belozertseva:

So we definitely leverage this product on a figure to help us with all of that, and to help us get the right prioritization. And make sure that we do have enough wiggle room in our sprints to play those kinds of stories. And we also use this product owners to help us identify the right audience within the company, because these product owners oftentimes were very familiar with the business and very familiar with the right stakeholders. And we established a particular timeframe, so a quarter was a good timeframe for us. So each quarter we would send out a type of survey to our product owners for all of the domain services that we had within their organization. And those product owners together with the team, would help us fill out these surveys and fill out the numbers for all of the points that we have identified. And then that would all get compiled into one single presentation, one single document that was then shared across the organization and with the rest of the stakeholders.

Neal Ford:

So the talk about metrics is quite interesting, because it’s a great way to find out what a company’s overall attitude about software is. Because if the only thing they really track is cost, then they view software purely as overhead and not strategic at all. And it’s hard to get them to invest time and effort and value into software if they view it purely as overhead. And so that’s one of the dysfunctions we’ve seen in large companies is they only track cost and total cost of ownership of all these things without doing any other metrics toward business value. So it sounds like one of the things you managed to do is find some good metrics that actually illustrate business value. And those are often different in different situations, even within the same company.

Anastasia Belozertseva:

Yes. And I think one of the most important metrics that we started tracking early is the number of consumers for our APIs. And I can’t stress enough how important it is for every service desk should be aware how many customers are able to benefit from their services. And maybe at some point that becomes kind of irrelevant when you’re getting to a large number of consumers, but early on you can really translate that number into an actual value add. You can actually measure that with dollars or any other currency. And that’s something that speaks to the business.

Brandon Byers:

And last time we talked about how the organization had shifted to a lot of buy-in for this approach, creating an organizational unit that managed some of the domain APIs that supported some of the digital capabilities that they were bringing onboard. Obviously that required some internal ROI if they had to calculate one of the lead managers over the process had built some discount cashflow model that went out a few years. And showed roughly the 18 months, even with quite a heavy upfront development cost, that some of these APIs and some of the learning of how they integrate into the ERP. They have a payback that’s due to increase adoption and the time savings per adoption with course correction calculations, but that was sufficient to influence quite a few minds within that organization.

Ashok Subramanian:

And I’m assuming, because you were already looking at treating this as a product, you could actually think about some of the metrics that you need from within the perspective of the product itself that made sense. Rather than how traditionally in organization that tend to be a separate concern to a different MI team, or someone else would actually be generating those reports and metrics possibly a few months down the line. And that’s something that you were able to do that a lot earlier because you considered that as one of the key features of the APIs that you were building.

Aleksandar Serafimoski:

Yeah. I think that definitely makes sense. I think the product mentality, and purely considering it as a product that has consumers, and APIs are not only on implementation detail allowed us to concentrate on the consumers or in the people that interacted with these APIs. And allowed us to talk to them, collect feedback, and then also understand the metrics that are important to them in the business, and then connected to specific budget things, and so on and so forth.

Ashok Subramanian:

I think we’ve spoken about quite a number of things that worked and you were able to learn from them. Maybe if you try and start touching upon some of the things that you might consider or do differently next time. Or the things that you’ve actually tried and you said, well actually the next time should avoid doing them. Any lessons that you could share?

Aleksandar Serafimoski:

I think something that, at least for me, I wanted to spend more time on, or I think we should have spend more time on, is work on a central catalog where we can discover the APIs. There was something put in place which was functional, however, we didn’t put in enough infrastructure around it for automatic publishing of documents, and so on and so forth. So a central catalog is a good starting point. Something else that I think a lot of companies that are managing APIs do is a example code that shows you how to interact with their API. So getting started in order to allow people to get quickly jump-started on interacting with your APIs within an amount of minutes. I think being part of that, I would also would have wanted to do more of that. Of course, these are not black and white decisions. We did have a lot of requirements, and so they were prioritized a little bit lower. But I would definitely want to get more experience playing with those two specific things.

Brandon Byers:

One of the things we haven’t talked about much, a lot of the APIs that were built, supported internal enterprise use cases, but there were some partner APIs that we helped them build as well that were business to business. And the partners on the other side had, in some cases, world-class IT capabilities. In some cases, no IT capabilities. What we did not get enough momentum on, and probably was almost a prerequisite, especially as we start to get to the upper edge of the curve in terms of partner IT capabilities, were some of the developer experience for the outside world and how to manage that process. Nor did we have a really robust solution for the lower edge, where the partners didn’t have a whole lot of IT abilities.

Brandon Byers:

Which, by the way, I think it was a great environment where some of those low tow tools would play a role in helping them solve just the scale of the problem. But I do think that there should be some focus on thinking about this is, to some extent, an extension of your brand when you present APIs to the outside world. And thinking about the branding of it and the infrastructure that supports that before you get too far ahead of yourself.

Anastasia Belozertseva:

Yeah. And I was very involved in some of those conversations during my engagement, because a lot of the APIs that my teams were working on were these partner APIs that Brandon spoke about. And I will second what he said. It’s really important to focus on those boundaries, especially if you are planning to integrate with external clients, it’s important to focus on those boundaries earlier on. Because a lot of times you will have to involve various parts of your organization, especially if you’re talking about a company the size of the company that we were working with. The parts of their organization that may be involved are your network team, because you have to start developing a DNS and C named strategy. And that’s something that goes very hand-in-hand with your brand.

Anastasia Belozertseva:

That’s what Brandon just spoke about. So from the brand and marketing perspective, it’s important for you to have a consistent experience, whereas this inwards or outwards. But the outward one is the one that’s probably going to be harder to change, which is why it should definitely require more thought when you develop this strategy. In addition to that, it’s also important to think about the authentication strategy with the external clients, and having an consistent way for your clients, for your partners, to connect to your APIs. And then also having a strategy on distributing those credentials to your partners, renewing those credentials, if needed, and also just making sure that your partners feel comfortable with the level of security that you can provide.

Anastasia Belozertseva:

Of course, hand-in-hand with authentication goes authorization. And solving authorization for one API may be easy, but if you’re talking about multiple APIs, you probably need to start also talking about some shared authorization entitlement services, where those needs can be used by various partner APIs. And that will also require a lot of thinking, some design and such. So of course, hindsight is 20/20, and that’s something that if I could go back, I would just dive in to right away as opposed to just leaving it as an afterthought.

Neal Ford:

You mentioned authentication authorization, and we’ve been talking about ERPs. Are there special challenges around authentication authorization and ERPs which like to own that themselves?

Anastasia Belozertseva:

Yeah. Definitely yes to the challenges. I think when you are talking about integration, you oftentimes don’t think about who exactly you’re integrating with. For example, you may be integrating with people. Your APIs may be integrating with one system, or it can be integrated with multiple systems. And having a strategy on how to approach those different types of integration is important. So for example, the questions that you may have to ask is, if I have an ERP that supports multiple systems, do I want that ERP to have just one client credential, or do I want that ERP to have multiple client credentials? And I think there are pros and cons to both. And I think we can spend many more podcasts talking about authentication and authorization. But those are the kind of questions that we encountered. And we didn’t necessarily, I don’t want us to just say that we had the right answer, because once again, I don’t think there is a right answer. There are just pros and cons.

Brandon Byers:

Well, and if I can just add a little bit of really interesting context on top of that. The ERPs expect to own identity and authorization for the processes inside them. And so when we start adding on this API layer with OAuth flows with identity provider that gives OAuth scopes on top of it, we are duplicating some of the authorization rules that already exist inside the ERP. Number one, number two, in many cases we’re duplicating the identity itself. And so we have to find a way to bridge the identity of the enterprise and the modern identity. So we have to find a way to bridge the identity from the outside world to the ERP itself so that we can correlate the two.

Brandon Byers:

And that isn’t just a technical challenge in some cases. And this is me driving outside of my lane. Sometimes it’s also a licensing question in terms of user access to the ERP itself, so you actually need to involve legal in some of those conversations.

Ashok Subramanian:

I think we’ve had some great lessons learned and things that you probably could do differently. Is there anything else that you would like to share that you think really next time we do this, you probably would do a bit differently?

Anastasia Belozertseva:

Yes. I would like to talk a little bit more about asynchronous integration. I think if I were to do it all over again, I would prioritize transaction heavy business scenarios as the first scenario start path when building our services. As I mentioned in the past, the types of integration that we were offering with our services was restful and also event based. The reason why I bring up transaction heavy business events, because first of all, I do think that in a situation where you’re modernizing your business, those are the type of events where if you’re able to offer asynchronous integration between your services, you’re really able to bring that wow effect. So think about a scenario where an order creation within your ERP is supposed to trigger multiple downstream workflows. For example, when an order is placed, there’s probably some invoice generation that needs to happen, there is some communication with the customer that needs to happen.

Anastasia Belozertseva:

There’s some inventory checks and maybe inventory refills that will be triggered. There’s some shipment processes that will have to start. There are a lot of things that need to happen. In a world where all of those processes are customized within your ERP, it may be really, really hard for you to scale those workflows. And may be hard for you to make them happen quickly. In a world where you are able to have your order creation inside you ERP, and then have an asynchronous event coming out of your AP. So have your service can seen that event, do some level of transformation, and then generate an event that’s consumable by your external systems. And then go ahead and throw that event on to Kafka or a RabbitMQ as some other type of event bus. That can actually be very, very beneficial within your business, because now you’re able to trigger all of these downstream business processes with a lot less coordination.

Anastasia Belozertseva:

So in our case, for a lot of our domain services we oftentime prioritize our restful interface. And I wish we were also prioritizing eventing early on, so that we could bring more value to the business. And so that we could bring some savings in this particular area. Another thing that I will say is that a lot of times for a service, or for a set of services, if you have a lot of synchronous integration between those services, this could actually be an indicator that you haven’t drawn your boundaries correctly. What this could be an indicator off, is that you’re actually on a path or is a distributed monolith, which is not much better than your regular type of monolith. If you’re able to demonstrate that your services can actually integrate easily via events, that could be just another way for you to be a little more sure about the boundaries that you’ve created and a little more sure by your architecture.

Anastasia Belozertseva:

There’s a reason, for example, that when you place an order, oftentimes your credit card is not going to get charged right away. In fact, a lot of times your credit card is not going to get charged until a few days afterwards. And that’s because payment is oftentimes a really great example of a process that can happen asynchronously. Here, the boundaries are correct. So this is what we’re looking for. And if you’re prioritizing these event based integrations, proving to yourself that they achieve work and you’re able to satisfy your use cases via events, that can be a really nice pat on the back.

Neal Ford:

Yeah, it’s one of the super powers of architecture, is getting asynchronous messaging to work. Because it has an impact not just on coordination, but virtually all of these operational architecture characteristics, like performance and scalability and elasticity, and all those things that benefit from basically it’s the difference between building a single threaded versus a multi-threaded system versus a architecture. I think that’s good advice. Because that’s the, you know, get the hard boundary conditions working first. And that’s in many cases are going to be the hard boundary condition, because a lot of these ERP systems want to be very synchronous and transactional. And if you can pry some of that control away from them, that gives you a lot of flexibility within your integration architecture.

Ashok Subramanian:

So one of the things we speak about, or we spoke a lot about on the technology journey and making sure that, how do you make successful visible? Now in terms of the people and taking the organization on the journey, and getting people who’ve been used to working in a very different architectural style, pattern, systems, and almost showing them the promise of what is possible, what did that journey look like? Any tips for our listeners to be able to take away and learn as to what worked in that context?

Aleksandar Serafimoski:

Yeah. No, absolutely. I think, taking the employees, your employees or the employees of a company that you’re working with on a journey is quite important. Without the journey or without the education it feels like an overnight chain saying, “Oh, we did the ERP, now we’re going to do modern architecture, go to it.” Which basically doesn’t work. Right? So we were lucky to have executives who bought into this vision. And so what we used to do is we developed a program which is very similar to TW, which is our own ThoughtWorks University training program for people who come out right of university. So we took some of the sessions from that program, we created a specific training program which was around six months. And it evolved starting a new APR, a new project, all the way from the inception.

Aleksandar Serafimoski:

So agreeing on what are the deliverables, and getting shared vision of the product. And then pairing with ThoughtWorks developers for six months where we divided it into, I think, three stages. So the first stage was the ThoughtWorkers would drive and then the client developers would follow. Then we had a second stage where they would actively pair. And the last stage was the clan developers driving and the ThoughtWorkers following. These allowed us to offer training that was tailored specifically to them, and then offer consistency in training across the globe, because we had development teams in multiple countries and multiple time zones. I think without training the client developers, this whole strategy would’ve fallen apart. Because once ThoughtWorks leaves, if no one is there to support it moving forward, basically there’s no future for this strategy.

Neal Ford:

Okay. One last question for you, if given the choice of your next project of doing a Greenfield microservice project or working on another ERP integration project, which would you pick?

Aleksandar Serafimoski:

Personally, I would probably pick the ERP integration. I think there’s a lot of different challenges that it introduces, along with scalability. And it pushes you to think and do solutions where there’s no silver bullet, like we mentioned earlier. And I find that super interesting and exciting. So for me, it’s ERP. Anastasia?

Anastasia Belozertseva:

Can I say both? Where you have an ERP and you have everything to modernize some of your ERP, some of the processes that I hit in within your ERP, but you also have an opportunity to build something Greenfield at the same time. Of course, both is sort of a joke. But I think that ERP definitely has so many challenges that we’re still just unveiling. That, yeah, I would probably go with that as well. I think the question of data democratization is something that I found very interesting, and it’s something that we were solving during our previous engagement. And data democratization and then data federation is something that I would definitely would like to be involved in going forward as well. And I think there are a lot more opportunities for that if you are coming into this ERP heavy world.

Brandon Byers:

And look, I don’t think there’s any question from a technology standpoint, I’d much rather do Greenfield microservices and cloud and continuous delivery from the start. But my authentic belief is that these longstanding legacy evolutions represent probably the hardest problem in IT to solve. And when organizations have multi-decades and billions of dollars in some of these systems with standardized business processes around it, and an inability to adapt to the market. In some cases, it’s an existential threat for very successful companies in a digital world. Solving the hard problem is rewarding, even if it’s a much longer run and you don’t get to necessarily play with the latest tools in the toolbox.

Neal Ford:

So the good news for all of us, it sounds like from all three of you, that there’s hope. That while this is a big problem that’s lurking out there, there are solutions to this problem. It just takes some work to get there, but it’s not something you’d run screaming away from there. There’s hope. And there is a city on the hill there somewhere.

Brandon Byers:

Absolutely agree.

Anastasia Belozertseva:

[crosstalk 00:39:01] It’s a marathon.

Neal Ford:

Yeah, there you go. It’s a marathon, not a sprint. All right. Well, thank you very much. Fascinating insights and a great opportunity to plug into your experience and expertise in that project. So thanks very much for coming on the podcast, we really enjoyed it.

Mike:

Hi, my name’s Mike. And on the next episode of the ThoughtWorks Technology Podcast, join us to learn about the future of digital trust.