Complete Intelligence

CI Banner
Login

Tag: strategic toolkit

Categories
Visual (Videos)

Supply Chain Innovation, Transformation, and Sustainability

How can leaders and finance teams enable business growth, innovation, and resilience through supply chain management (SCM) and digital transformation? And, how does sustainability affect supply chains? To answer these questions, we spoke with Jon Chorley, Chief Sustainability Officer and Group Vice President of Oracle, and Tony Nash, CEO & Founder of Complete Intelligence.

 

This video interview first appeared and originally published at https://www.cxotalk.com/video/supply-chain-innovation-transformation-sustainability on April 17, 2021.

 

💁‍♀️ Check out more of our insights in featured in the CI Newsletter and QuickHit interviews with experts.

🎯 Discover how Complete Intelligence can help your company be more profitable with AI and ML technologies. Book a demo here.

 

The conversation includes these topics:

 

Jon Chorley is group vice president of product strategy for Oracle’s supply chain management (SCM) applications and leads the team responsible for driving the business requirements and product roadmaps for these applications. Chorley is also the chief sustainability officer for Oracle.

 

Tony Nash is the CEO and Founder of Complete Intelligence. Previously, Tony built and led the global research business for The Economist and the Asia consulting business for IHS (now IHS Markit).

 

 

Show Notes

 

Michael Krigsman: We’re discussing supply chain innovation and transformation and sustainability with Jon Chorley of Oracle and Tony Nash of Complete Intelligence. Jon, tell us about your role at Oracle.

 

Jon Chorley: I run the supply chain management strategy group at Oracle, responsible for our overall investment priorities and directions for our supply chain solutions. I also have the chief sustainability officer role at Oracle where I help coordinate all of our sustainability policies and practices for the Oracle Corporation and help drive some of those ideas and thoughts into the products and services we deliver to the market.

 

Michael Krigsman: Tony Nash, tell us about the focus of your work.

 

Tony Nash: Complete Intelligence, we’re a globally integrated and fully automated artificial intelligence platform for cost and revenue proactive planning. We do forecasting for enterprises and markets in areas like continuous cost budgeting, continuous revenue budgeting, automation of certain, say, forecasting tasks. We also offer agile budgeting and forecasting.

 

We measure our error rates, so that’s important that someone is planning, especially around supply chain. We’re trying to help people reduce the risks around their future costs.

 

Supply chains are very complex: time, cost, quality, all sorts of considerations. Our focus is on the cost element of it, and there are many other things and why we’re working with Oracle. They have so many other things to bring to the table that try to complement them on that side.

 

Michael Krigsman: You met Jon through the Oracle startup program. Just briefly tell us about that.

 

Tony Nash: Oracle for Startups program is a fantastic way for early-stage companies to integrate with the Oracle ecosystem. There is the Oracle technology product side of it, but there is also meeting people like Jon, meeting people like his colleagues, and the Oracle marketing team, Salesforce, and product teams. Amazing opportunities to understand how an organization like Oracle works and how a company like Complete Intelligence can come alongside them and enhance Oracle’s end customer experience for the better.

 

 

How did supply chains function during the disruptions of 2020?

 

Michael Krigsman: Jon, during the last year, supply chain became a household topic for pretty much everyone.

 

Jon Chorley: Yes.

 

Michael Krigsman: What did the last year tell us about the nature and the reality of supply chains?

 

Jon Chorley: Well, that they’re central to everything that makes the modern world. When you see an empty shelf and realize it’s an issue with the supply chain. Or you see a run on a product as some shortage or some challenge in some way. People now understand that the complicated infrastructure that brings those products to them is the supply chain.

 

As we’ve gotten into the more recent months where we’re looking at the vaccine distribution, people understand that yes, it’s a technical problem to produce the vaccine, but it’s also a supply chain problem to get it in people’s arms.

 

All of those things, I think, have helped take the supply chain from the back office, from the folks like Tony and I who work in it day-to-day, into the board room, which I think is very important. But also into the dining room. People now understand the importance and centrality to efficient supply chains.

 

Michael Krigsman: Jon, give us some insight into the kinds of weaknesses that this last year exposed in how we handle supply chains.

 

Jon Chorley: I think that there are a couple of areas there that I’d point out. One is we had a very uncharacteristic demand shock. There was a real change in short-term demand.

 

Some of that was upside. A lot of charcoal sold to power the grill. A lot of toilet paper.

 

Some of it was downside. Restaurants challenged, hospitality, and so on.

 

Those demand shocks forced people to look at different ways to look at their traditional forecasts. That is supportable by the kind of technology Tony and I can help deliver, but it does require people to look carefully at how they’re forecasting their demands. That’s one angle.

 

Another angle, I would say, is the overall concern about resiliency. A lot of folks looked at ways of single sourcing, for example. Maybe relying on goods out of Western China, for example.

 

All of those things had a lot of challenges, and that forced people to look at, was the single-sourcing strategy driven by cost only the right answer? Did they need to look at A) maybe simplifying their product lines a little bit, so they had more flexibility, and B) looking at alternate sources of supply? I think resiliency came a lot more to the fore.

 

Tony Nash: We’ve had even companies like semiconductor companies (who have been based in Asia) start to build facilities in the U.S. so that they can regionalize some of those supply chains and de-risk the downturn impacts of future shocks like this. Electronics manufacturers, other people who are assembling goods, or even some primary goods, are regionalizing their supply chains so that they don’t see huge impacts or any future issues like COVID or other shocks.

 

There’s at least a little bit of a buffer by region, which saves. It’s greener in terms of saving on the sea freight fuel and that sort of thing, but it also helps cushion any shocks on the supply side so consumers can get what they need when they need it.

 

 

Challenges associated with overseas manufacturing operations

 

Michael Krigsman: Jon, I’ve heard you talk in the past about the inherent challenge of manufacturing goods overseas (in China, for example) and the timeliness of getting them here in the U.S.

 

Jon Chorley: It has a lot of advantages in terms of costs, scale, and so on. But it does bake into your supply chain a certain fixed amount of time. That is fine if you have predictable demand. But if you have variable demand, it becomes a lot trickier to manage.

 

The same is true really of the innovation cycles. The speed with which you may want to innovate can be constrained by working those things from points of consumption (let’s say Europe, North America) and points of production (let’s say the East, China, Vietnam, and so on). Those are factors folks are considering.

 

I think, in some areas, certainly advances in things like automation and technologies like 3D printing, rapid prototyping, those things are changing the equation a little bit in terms of what constitutes the most cost-effective or the most efficient, or the most responsive approach to manufacturing. I think you’re going to see those factors gradually have more and more of a play as people develop new ways to balance those equations.

 

Tony Nash: Michael, that’s interesting because, as we look at how the history of supply chains have evolved from keeping POs on 3×5 notecards 30 years ago to the digitization of that, it started with EDI (electronic data interchange) from, say, the ocean lines and the airfreight firms so that you knew where your package was, all the way down to today where you have everything kept, let’s say, in a bill of material within an ERP system or a supply chain system.

 

What people have been doing for the past few years is really bill of material versioning, where you’re running scenarios on the same product configuration, of bill of materials for multiple locations, to understand where they should make a certain good. Those considerations are allowing people flexibility. They can make the time and cost tradeoffs to look at when they can have goods in a market, whether it’s seasonality or whether it’s some disruption or whether it’s some demand pop for some reason people may not know. Allowing people to run multiple bills of material or versions of bills of material allows them the flexibility to identify what they should produce where and what it should be made of.

 

Michael Krigsman: It sounds like this is a data and analytics problem.

 

Tony Nash: It is, and the way things have been done typically is, as a manufacturer, you sign a longer-term agreement for your raw materials with a vendor. They provide that for you to a certain point. You make it in factory A somewhere and then ship it out. Of course, there is not necessarily a single factory for any large company, but it’s a well-worn path.

 

We’ve had an atomization of that with mini manufacturing, or regional manufacturing, flexible manufacturing, so people can have localized versions or, like I said, seasonality. These sorts of things. Manufacturing and finance teams can only make those types of decisions with data and with automation. It’s a simpler way on how to make better business decisions.

 

 

Digital tansformation and sustainability in supply chain

 

Michael Krigsman: You need clarity around the goals and the strategy. You need the right kinds of data. Then you need the cultural willingness to innovate and do things differently. Is that an accurate way of summarizing?

 

Jon Chorley: I agree. I think you need to have some idea of where you’re going. Although, that probably is going to change. But you need to have that idea. You need to have the information, as Tony has discussed, that helps you navigate that path.

 

Then you need to be able to course-correct because we live in the real world, and nothing quite goes the way you expect it to. You need to be able to constantly course-correct.

 

Like I say, if you have a great set of headlights, you can see what’s coming. You’re coming to a cliff. If you have no brakes and no steering wheel, it’s a huge problem you’d rather not know.

 

The ability to course correct is like having brakes and a steering wheel. You need to be able to make those adjustments as things change around you. That means flexible systems, flexible processes, a willingness to look at new ways of doing things, cultural changes. All of those things become important.

 

Michael Krigsman: Tony, I have to imagine you spend a lot of time thinking about the sources of data as well as the machine learning models and other types of models that you create.

 

Tony Nash: I get excited about things like data governance, but most people don’t. I get excited about it because I understand that it helps to have much better forecasting applications and tools to make those decisions.

 

Yes, we’re thinking about the granularity, the frequency, the level of detail people have. Are they using the data that they have to make decisions today because it’s not just, let’s say, a cultural change of let’s rely on automation of things like forward-looking views or forecasting or proactive planning? It could also be a cultural change: are we looking at our data to make our decisions? How much of our data are we looking at? Are we looking at maybe the error rates of the way we plan? Are we looking back on that from time to time?

 

Although that may seem mundane and small, it’s actually very big for things like digital transformation because you have to take inventory of what you’re doing today so you can plan where you’re going tomorrow. As Jon said, it’s never going to go exactly to plan – never. I wish it would, but it never does. You have to understand yourself well today so that you can identify what’s possible.

 

Michael Krigsman: Jon, we’ve been talking about the complexities of supply chain. Let’s shift gears slightly and talk about the complexities of sustainability. How does sustainability intersect supply chain?

 

Jon Chorley: Most people would agree that supply chains are about making and moving physical goods around the world. That is a huge part of what’s impacting the environment. It’s a huge impact on sustainability.

 

The way we design those supply chains, historically, has been what I would call a linear supply chain. Which is we make a product, we sell a product, we forget the product. We then make another product, sell that product, and forget that product. It’s a fire and forget mentality, if you like – to some degree.

 

If we want to be sustainable, we need to think about the full lifecycle of those products and how they get recycled back into the forward supply chain. As we progress into the future and start thinking about these things more — and we’re required to by the markets, by regulations (potentially), and by what constitutes good business — we will increasingly move towards adjusting our supply chains to be more circular. That is, looking at the full lifecycle of the product.

 

That begins with how you design it. That’s going to be a fundamental change in the way we think about all supply chains.

 

Advice on supply chain transformation for business leaders

 

Michael Krigsman: As we finish up, Tony, can you offer advice to business leaders and finance teams who are listening to this who say, “Yes, we want to change, transform our supply chain, but where do we even begin? It’s such a daunting challenge.”

 

Tony Nash: I would say, really start with the easy stuff. Get some successes. Do a pilot. Then you can accelerate it very quickly.

 

Data scales very quickly. Technology scales very quickly. But your team may be uncomfortable with digital transformation, especially around supply chains. Help them see some quick wins and then push forward as quickly as possible after that.

 

Michael Krigsman: Jon, you discussed earlier the cultural dimensions of supply chain transformation. It’s really important, so just share some further thoughts on that and advice that you have for folks who are listening.

 

Jon Chorley: I think any change is at least as much cultural as it is technological, and the people who implement those changes are key to its success. I think part of what’s needed is a willingness to understand that the way you did things in the past may not be the way you need to do things in the future.

 

Quite often companies, for example, feel that they have a certain special way of doing a process that’s absolutely required, and they hold onto that even though there is really no business differentiation for them to do it that way. They’ll invest a lot of time and energy to duplicate that on a new platform.

 

We always encourage people to step back a little bit and leave behind some of those preconceptions. Not everything is your secret sauce. Your secret sauce is a little bit on the top. It’s not stuff on the bottom.

 

Leave behind those preconceptions. I think that’s probably the single biggest cultural shift.

 

Then the other point we mentioned earlier is board support. I think that’s top-down. Having that support from the upper levels of the business is critical to any large-scale transformation.

 

I think the great thing, if there is a great thing from 2020, is that boards are aware now of the criticality of supply chains in their business and are probably more open to those kinds of conversations. Those difficult conversations from supply chain professionals with their board. Now is the time. The folks that make the investments now are the folks who are going to benefit from the uptick that we all hope is coming.

 

Michael Krigsman: Jon Chorley and Tony Nash, thank you both for sharing your expertise with us today.

 

Jon Chorley: All right.

 

Tony Nash: Thanks, Michael.

 

Jon Chorley: Thank you so much. Great talking with you all.

 

Tony Nash: Thank you.

Categories
Podcasts

Stories from the Cloud: The Forecast Calls For…

Tony Nash joins veteran journalists Michael Hickins and Barbara Darrow at the Stories from the Cloud podcast to talk about the forecast calls for businesses, and how AI and machine learning can help in predicting the futures in budget forecasting. How does his company Complete Intelligence dramatically improve forecast accuracy of companies suffering from a huge 30% error rate. He also explained the AI technology behind the CI solutions and strategic toolkit, and how this practically applies to global companies. How can they benefit from this new technology to better be prepared in their budget planning and reducing risks in costs?

 

Stories from the Cloud description:

It’s not easy to predict the future. But when it comes to business and cash or financial forecasting tool or software, the right data and the right models are better than any crystal ball.

 

Tony Nash, CEO and founder of Complete Intelligence, explains how AI and the cloud are giving companies better cash forecasting software tools to see into their financial futures.

 

About Stories from the Cloud: Enterprises worldwide are turning to the cloud to help them thrive in an ever-more-competitive environment. In this podcast, veteran journalists Michael Hickins and Barbara Darrow chat with the people behind this massive digital transformation and the effects it has on their work and lives.

 

Show Notes

 

SFC: Hey, everybody, welcome back to Stories from the Cloud sponsored by Oracle. This week, I am here, as always, with Michael Hickins, formerly of The Wall Street Journal. I am Barbara Darrow. And our special guest today is Tony Nash. He’s the founder and CEO of Complete Intelligence. And this is a very interesting company. Tony, thanks for joining us. And can you just tell us a little bit about what the problem is that Complete Intelligence is attacking and who are your typical customers?

 

Tony: Sure. The problem we’re attacking is just really bad forecasting, really bad budget setting, really bad expectation setting within an enterprise environment. Companies have packed away data for the last 15, 20 years, but they’re not really using it effectively. We help people get very precise, very accurate views on costs and revenues over the next 12 to twenty four months so they can plan more precisely and tactically.

 

SFC: It sounds like a big part of the mission here is to clean up… Everybody talks about how great data is and how valuable it is. But I mean, it sounds like there’s a big problem with a lot of people’s data. And I’m wondering if you could give us an example of a company, let’s just say a car maker and what you can help them do in terms of tracking their past costs and forecasting their future costs.

 

Tony: So a lot of the problem that we see, let’s say, with the big auto manufacturer, is they have long-term supply relationships where prices are set, or they’ve had the same vendor for X number of years and they really don’t know if they’re getting a market cost, or they don’t have visibility into what are those upstream costs from that vendor. And so, we take data directly from their ERP system or their supply chain system or e-procurement system and we come up with very specific cost outlooks.

 

We do the same on the sales revenue side. But say for an automaker, a very specific cost outlook for the components and the elements that make up specific products. So we’ll do a bill of material level forecast for people so that they can understand where the cost for that specific product is going.

 

Before I started Complete Intelligence, I ran research for a company called The Economist and I ran Asia consulting for a company called IHS Markit. And my clients would come to me and say, there are two issues at both companies. Two issues. First is the business and financial forecasting tool or even strategic toolkit that people buy off the shelf has a high error rate. The second issue is the forecasts don’t have the level of context and specificity needed for people to actually make decisions. So what do you get? You get very generic data with imprecise forecasts coming in and then you get people building spreadsheets and exclusive models or specific models within even different departments and teams and everything within a company.

 

So there are very inconsistent ways of looking at the world. And so we provide people with a very consistent way and a very low error way of looking at the future trajectory of those costs and of those revenues.

 

SFC: So I’m curious, what is the what is the psychology of better business forecasting software? So on your customers and I’m thinking, if I’m a consumer, so this is maybe not a good analogy, but if I’m a consumer and I look at the actual costs are of a phone that I may have in my pocket, I may think, jeez, why making a thousand dollars for this? But then part of me says, such things mark up and well, I guess so. There are uncertainties in financial projections. So on me, I mean, I don’t need a financial projection software to tell me that the components of the pocket computer have don’t add up to what I paid for them. But I kind of understand that there needs to be money made along the way. I just I want it. Right. How does that translate on a B2B perspective? What are the people’s attitude about price and how do they react to the data that, as you said, I mean, heretofore, it’s kind of been unreliable.And all of a sudden, I think you say a lot of procurement projections have been around 30 percent, which is huge. Right. So how does that happen and how do people react to something that seems more trustworthy?

 

Tony: Well, I think that expectations depend on the level within a manufacturing company that you’re talking to. I think the more senior level somebody is, of course, they want predictability and quality within their supply chain, but they’re also responsible to investors and clients for both quality and cost. And so at a senior level, they would love to be able to take a very data driven approach to what’s going on. The lower you get within a manufacturing organization, this is where some of the softer factors start to come in. It’s also where a lot of the questionable models are put in as well.

 

Very few companies that we talk to actually monitor their internal error rates for their cost and revenue outlooks. So they’ll have a cost business forecasting software model or a revenue forecasting model that they rely on because they’ve used it for a long period of time, but they rarely, if ever, go back and look at the error rates that that model puts out. Because what’s happening is they’re manually adjusting data along the way. They’re not really looking at the model output except for that one time of the year that they’re doing their budget.

 

So there really isn’t accountability for the fairly rudimentary models that manufacturing companies are using today. What we do is we tell on ourselves. We give our clients our error rates every month because we know that no no business forecasting software model is perfect. So we want our clients to know what the error rate is so that they can understand within their decision making processes.

 

SFC: And it’s kind like a margin of error in a political poll?

 

Tony: Yeah, we use what’s called MAPE – mean absolute percent error. Most error calculations. You can game the pluses and minuses. So let’s say you were 10 percent off, 10 percent over last month and 12 percent under this month. OK. If you average those out, that’s one percent error. But if you look at that on an absolute percent error basis, that’s 11 percent error. So we gauge our error on an absolute percent error basis because it doesn’t matter if you’re over under, it’s still error.

 

SFC: Still wrong, right.

 

Tony: Yeah. So we tell on ourselves, to our clients because we’re accountable. We need to model the behavior that we see that those senior executives have with their investors and with their customers, right? An investment banking analyst doesn’t really care that it was a plus and a minus. They just care that it was wrong. And they’re going to hold those shares, that company accountable and they’re going to punish them in public markets.

 

So we want to give those executives much better data to make decisions, more precise decisions with lower error rates so they can get their budgeting right, so they can have the right cash set aside to do their transactions through the year, so they can work with demand plans and put our costs against their say volume, demand plans, those sorts of things.

 

SFC: I have to just ask I mean, Michael alluded to this earlier, but I want to dive into a little more. You had said somewhere else that most companies procurement projections are off by 30 percent. That’s a lot. I mean, I know people aren’t… I mean, how is that even possible?

 

Tony: It’s not a number that we’ve come up with. So first, I need to be clear that that’s not a number that we’ve come up with and that’s not a number that’s published anywhere. That’s a number that we consistently get as feedback from clients and from companies that we’re pitching. So that 30 percent is not our number. It’s a number that we’re told on a regular basis.

 

SFC: When you start pitching a client, obviously there’s a there’s a period where they’re just sort of doing a proof of concept. How long does that typically last before they go? You know what? This is really accurate. This can really help. Let’s go ahead and put this into production.

 

Tony: Well, I think typically, when we when we hit the right person who’s involved in, let’s say, category management or they actually own a PNL or they’re senior on the FPNA side or they’re digital transformation, those guys tend to get it pretty quickly, actually. And they realize there’s really not stuff out there similar to what we’re doing. But for people who observe it, it probably takes three months. So our pilots typically last three months.

 

And after three months, people see side by side how we’re performing and they’re usually convinced, partly because of the specificity of projection data that we can bring to to the table. Whereas maybe within companies they’re doing a say, a higher level look at things. We’re doing a very much a bottom up assessment of where costs will go from a very technical perspective, the types of databases we’re using, they’re structured in a way that those costs add up.

 

And we forecast at the outermost leaf node of, say, a bill material. So uncertainties in financial projections are solved. A bill Of material may have five or 10 or 50 levels. ut we go out to the outermost kind of item within that material level, and then we add those up as the components and the items stack up within that material. Let’s say it’s a mobile phone, you’ll have a screen, you’ll have internal components. You’ll have the case on the outside. All of this stuff, all of those things are subcomponents of a bill of material for that mobile phone.

 

SFC: So I am assuming that there is a big role here in what you’re doing with artificial intelligence, machine learning. But before we ask what that role is, can you talk about what you mean by those terms? Because we get a lot of different definitions and also differentiations between the two. So maybe talk to the normals here.

 

Tony: OK, so I hear a number of people talk about A.I. and they assume that it’s this thinking machine that does everything on its own and doesn’t need any human interaction. That stuff doesn’t exist. That’s called artificial general intelligence. That does not exist today.

 

It was explained to me a few years ago, and this is probably a bit broader than most people are used to, but artificial intelligence from a very broad technical perspective includes everything from a basic mathematical function on upward. When we get into the machine learning aspect of it, that is automated calculations, let’s say, OK. So automated calculations that a machine recognizes patterns over time and builds awareness based on those previous patterns and implies them on future activities, current or future activity.

 

So when we talk about A.I., we’re talking about learning from previous behavior and we’re talking about zero, and this is a key thing to understand, we have zero human intervention in our process. OK, of course, people are involved in the initial programming, that sort of thing. OK, but let’s say we have a platinum forecast that goes into some component that we’re forecasting out for somebody. We’re we’re not looking at the output of that forecast and go, “Hmmm. That doesn’t really look right to me. So I need to fiddle with it a little bit to make sure that it that it kind of looks right to me.” We don’t do that.

 

We don’t have a room of people sitting in somewhere in the Midwest or South Asia or whatever who manually manipulate stuff at all — from the time we download data, validate data, look for anomalies, process, forecast, all that stuff, and then upload — that entire process for us is automated.

 

When I started the company, what I told the team was, I don’t want people changing the forecast output because if we do that, then when we sit and talk to a client and say, hey, we have a forecast model, but then we go in and change it manually, we’re effectively lying to our customers. We’re saying we have a model, but then we’re just changing it on our own.

 

We want true kind of fidelity to what we’re doing. If we tell people we have an automated process, if we tell people we have a model, we really want the output to be model output without people getting involved.

 

So we’ve had a number of unconventional calls that went pretty far against consensus that the machines brought out that we wouldn’t have necessarily put on our own. And to be very honest, some of them were a little bit embarrassing when we put them out, but they ended up being right.

 

In 2019, the US dollar, if you look at, say, January 2019, the US dollar was supposed to continue to depreciate through the rest of the year. This was the consensus view of every currency forecaster out there. And I was speaking on one of the global finance TV stations telling them about our dollar outlook.

 

And I said, “look, you know, our view is that the dollar will stabilize in April, appreciate in May and accelerate in June.” And a global currency strategist literally laughed at me during that interview and said there’s no way that’s going to happen. In fact, that’s exactly what happened. Just sticking with currencies, and for people in manufacturing, we said that the Chinese Yuan, the CNY, the Renminbi would break seven. And I’m sure your listeners don’t necessarily pay attention to currency markets, but would break seven in July of 19. And actually it did in early August. So that was a very big call, non consensus call that we got months and months ahead of time and it would consistently would bear out within our forecast iterations after that. So we do the same in say metals with things like copper or soy or on the ag side.

 

On a monthly basis, on our base platform, we’re forecasting about 800 different items so people can subscribe just to our data subscription. And if they want to look at ag, commodities, metals, precious metals, whatever it is, equities, currencies, we have that as a baseline package subscription we can look at, people can look at. And that’s where we gauge a lot of our error so that we can tell on ourselves and tell clients where we got things right and where we got things wrong.

 

SFC: You know, if I were a client, I would I would ask, like, OK, is that because you were right and everyone else is wrong? Is that because you had more data sources than anyone else, or is it because of your algorithm or is it maybe because of both?

 

Tony: Yes, that would be my answer. We have over 15 billion items in our core platform. We’re running hundreds of millions of calculations whenever we rerun our forecasts. We can rerun a forecast of the entire global economy, which is every economy, every global trade lane, 200 currency pairs, 120 commodities and so on and so forth. We can do that in about forty seven minutes.

 

If somebody comes to us and says, we want to run a simulation to understand what’s going to happen in the global economy, we can introduce that in and we do these hundreds of millions of calculations very, very quickly. And that is important for us, because if one of our manufacturing clients, let’s say, last September, I don’t know if you remember, there was an attack on a Saudi oil refinery, one of the largest refineries in the world, and crude prices spiked by 18 percent in one day.

 

There were a number of companies who wanted to understand the impact of that crude spike on their cost base. They could come into our platform. They could click, they could tell us that they wanted to rerun their cost basis. And within an hour or two, depending on the size of their catalog, we could rerun their entire cost base for their business.

 

SFC: By the way, how dare you imply that our listeners are not forex experts attuned to every slight movement, especially there’s no baseball season. What else are we supposed to do? I wanted to ask you: to what extent is the performance of the cloud that you use, you know, important to the speed with which you can provide people with answers?

 

Tony: It’s very important, actually. Not every cloud provider allows every kind of software to work on their cloud. When we look at Oracle Cloud, for example, having the ability to run Kubernetes is a big deal, having the ability to run different types of database software, these sorts of things are a big deal. And so not all of these tools have been available on all of these clouds all the time. So the performance of the cloud, but also the tools that are allowed on these clouds are very, very important for us as we select cloud providers, but also as we deploy on client cloud. We can deploy our, let’s say, our CostFlow solution or our RevenueFlow solution on client clouds for security reasons or whatever. So we can just spin up an instance there as needed. It’s very important that those cloud providers allow the financial forecasting tools that we need to spin up an instant so that those enterprise clients can have the functionality they need.

 

SFC: So now I’m the one who’s going to insult our readers or listeners rather. For those of us who are not fully conversant on why it’s important to allow Kubernetes. Could you elaborate a little bit about that?

 

Tony: Well, for us, it has a lot to do with the scale of data that’s necessary and the intensity of computation that we need. It’s a specific type of strategic toolkit that we need to just get our work done. And it’s widely accepted and it’s one of the tools that we’ve chosen to use. So, for example, if Oracle didn’t allow that software, which actually it is something that Oracle has worked very hard to get online and allow that software to work there. But it is it is just one of the many tools that we use. But it’s a critical tool for us.

 

SFC: With your specialization being around cost, what have you looked at… Is cost relevant to your business and so on cloud? How so?

 

Tony: Yeah, of course it is. For us, it’s the entry cost, but it’s also the running cost for a cloud solution. And so that’s critically important for us. And not all cloud providers are created equally. So so we have to be very, very mindful of that as we deploy on a cloud for our own internal reasons, but also deploy on a client’s cloud because we want to make sure that they’re getting the most cost effective service and the best performance. Obviously, cost is not the only factor. So we need to help them understand that cost performance tradeoff if we’re going to deploy on their cloud.

 

SFC: Do you see this happening across all industries or just ones where, you know, the sort of national security concerns or food concerns, things that are clearly important in the case of some kind of emergency?

 

Tony: I see it happening maybe not across all industries, but across a lot of industries. So the electronics supply chain, for example, there’s been a lot of movement toward Mexico. You know, in 2018, the US imported more televisions from Mexico than from China for the first time in 20 some years. So those electronics supply chains and the increasing sophistication of those supply chains are moving. So that’s not necessarily sensitive electronics for, say, the Pentagon. That’s just a TV. Right. So we’re seeing things like office equipment, other things. You know, if you look at the top ten goods that the US receives from China, four of them are things like furniture and chairs and these sorts of things which can actually be made in other cheaper locations like Bangladesh or Vietnam and so on. Six of them are directly competitive with Mexico. So PCs, telecom equipment, all these other things.

 

So, you know, I actually think that much of what the US imports will be regionalized. Not all of it, of course, and not immediately. But I think there’s a real drive to reduce supply chain risk coming from boards and Coming from executive teams. And so I think we’ll really start to see that gain momentum really kind of toward the end of 2020 and into early 2021.

 

SFC: That is super interesting. Thank you for joining us. We’re kind of up against time, but I want to thank Tony for being on. I want to do a special shout out to Oracle for startups that works with cool companies like Complete Intelligence. Thanks for joining us. Please try to find Stories from the Cloud at on iTunes or wherever you get your podcasts and tune in again. Thanks, everybody.

Categories
Podcasts

Fixing terrible forecasts and the lack of context

Tony Nash joined Geoffrey Cann in Digital Oil and and Gas podcast to talk about his revenue forecasting and predictive intelligence analytics startup company Complete Intelligence — how does the company solve the problem of terrible forecasts and the lack of context around data?

 

Geoffrey Cann joined us in QuickHit: 2 Things Oil & Gas Companies Need to Do Right Now to Win Post Pandemic.

 

This podcast originally appeared at https://digitaloilgas.libsyn.com/159-interview-with-tony-nash-of-complete-intelligence?utm_campaign=interview-with-tony-nash-of-complete-intelligence

 

Digital Oil and Gas Description

 

 

Jul 22, 2020

Today’s podcast is an interview with Tony Nash, CEO and founder of Complete Intelligence. Specializing in revenue forecasting and predictive analytics, Complete Intelligence develops artificial intelligence solutions. In this interview, we discuss predictive intelligence analysis, how Complete Intelligence works, and what value these forecasts can generate. 

 

Show Notes

GC: Welcome back to another episode of Digital Oil and Gas. My name is Geoffrey Cann, the host of the podcast. And I’m joined today by Tony Nash, who is the CEO and co-founder of Complete Intelligence. Tony, welcome to the podcast.

 

TN: Thanks, Geoffrey. It’s good to be here.

 

GC: You and I met probably a bit of a month ago. We did a short video exchange, and it was so much fun, we agreed that we should probably do something a little more involved, and here we are today. Of course, my interest is how digital innovation and digital strategic toolkit are transforming how the oil and gas world operates.

 

Your area of interest and expertise, the focus of your startup is in the application of smart technologies in agile budgeting and forecasting and market modeling. And that’s a big area of interest for oil and gas. That’s the reason why I thought you’d be a terrific guest to come on the show today and talk a little bit about that.

 

TN: Thank you very much.

 

GC: What’s your background? You were with The Economist, is that right?

 

TN: I was with The Economist. I led their global research business for a while. And I built what’s called the Custom Research business. It was a small niche business when I joined. It was a pretty sizable revenue by the time I left. Great organization. Had a lot of fun there. I then moved to a company called IHS MarkIt. Information services firm. I led their Asia consulting business. And from there, we started Complete Intelligence. I’ve been in information services off and on for way too long, since the late 90s.

 

GC: And what’s your education background? Did you start out in computer science or something?

 

TN: I was a graduate at Texas A&M in business and my grad work was in Boston at a school called The Fletcher School, which is a diplomacy school. So I was trained to be a diplomat, although I’m not very diplomatic at the moment. I have my moments.

 

Part of the reason I started going down this road is because in grad school, I had a trade economics professor who was amazing, great guy. I started my career after undergrad at a freight forwarder and customs broker. I didn’t have a glamorous first job. I was actually working the night shift in a warehouse at a freight forwarder, receiving exports and typing out airway bills and all that stuff. I got to know the nuts and bolts of world trade pretty specifically and pretty firsthand. I don’t know of any other trade economists who have started the way I have. I look at trade data differently than almost every other economist that I know of. I look at it somewhat skeptically. It’s that skepticism that I realized in grad school with this fantastic professor that my skepticism was an asset. My skepticism was an asset within statistical, mathematical models, within economic discussions and so on, so forth.

 

I had used it in business before that, but I didn’t think that I necessarily had the ability to apply it in this big world before I had this experience in grad school. So I then took it and I joined The Economist. I kind of conned them into hiring me, which was great, and then within a year or so, I was heading their global research business. From there, we just kind of took off.

 

GC: What are some of the products out of The Economist? Because I buy the magazine every week. And The Economist publishes an occasional handbook of global statistics, GDP by country and balance of trade and so forth. Were you involved in those kinds of products or were the products you were involved in much more specific to a client or customer requirement?

 

TN: I wasn’t. A lot of those are extracts from, say, IMF data. That’s part of The Economist publishing, which is a slightly different business to what I was doing. A lot of what I was doing was really applied work with clients. Solving real problems, figuring real things out. Some of this was corporate forecasting, looking at costs, looking at revenues, those sorts of things. Some of this was doing work for example the World Health Organization in places like Cambodia, comparing different treatments for mother-child transmitted HIV.

 

We had all kinds of cool, different approaches. And from my perspective, we could really play with different methodologies. We could really understand what was working and what wasn’t working. It was a huge sandbox for me. Again, really great smart people. That really started a lot of this kind of true love for me, which is what I’m doing now.

 

GC: What is the business problem that you saw that was sufficiently vexing that you decided to devote a lifetime in a career to trying to solve?

 

Because your career builds you to a point and then you say, “You know what? This is the problem I think I’m going to aim to solve.“ And you know what? You may go on to solve other problems, but at that moment, why would you become a founder to go solve something unless it was so big and so vexing, it was worth your time?

 

TN: I think I became a founder because I underestimated how hard it would be to build a business. Almost every founder will tell you that. When I was with both The Economist and IHS Markit, I had two really consistent feedback points that people gave me.

 

First is the quality of forecasting within information services, within corporate, say, strategy, finance, forecasting units, is pretty terrible. Most people forecast through, let’s say, a moving average approach. Some of the largest companies in the world will forecast using a moving average. If they are super sophisticated, they’ll use a very small maybe regression model or something like that.

 

But what mostly happens is one of two things. Either they look at last year’s and add a small percentage. “We’re just gonna have three percent on this year.“ That’s pretty common. The other one is really just a gut feel like, “I really think it’s going to be X this year.“ If a Wall Street analyst understood how unscientific the way outlooks are done within large companies, they’d be pretty shocked.

 

I mean, there is a belief that there is a lot that goes into the sausage machine. Traditional forecasting is terrible. Any forecast you buy off the shelf? Pretty terrible. Any forecast you’d get within a company? Pretty bad. Even the data scientists that are on staff with a lot of these big companies, really brilliant people, but they’re not necessarily fine tuning their forecasts based on error. And this is the key.

 

Companies who forecast should be required to disclose their error for every forecast they’ve done historically. That’s what we do for our clients. Because the number one problem was the quality of forecasts. So we spent our first two and a half years focused on that problem. We continue our approach to that.

 

GC: When you say “publish the error,” do you mean error in hindsight? How bad were we last year or do you mean here’s what we think our forecasted error is likely to be this year?

 

TN: Every year, any forecaster on planet Earth should say, this is what we forecast last year and this was our error rate. When we look at consensus forecast, for example, for energy like crude oil, natural gas, industrial metals, consensus error rates are typically double digits. Typically double digits. We just did a calculation. When I talk about error rate, I’m talking about absolute percent error. I’m not talking about gaming off pluses and minuses because that’s really convenient. But you look at a plus 10, you look at a minus eight, and that becomes a nine instead of a one.

 

People who forecast should be required to publish their error rates. Companies, especially energy companies, are paying hundreds of thousand dollars, if not seven figures to buy data. Those guys [forecasters] know they’re between 15 and 30 percent off in their forecasts regularly. Businesses are making decisions based on these data.

 

That’s the thing that, as someone who’s run businesses, not just analysts businesses, but run real proper businesses in different spaces, seeing planning people make decisions with a 30 percent error rate or 50 percent error or whatever it is, but no accountability from the information services provider? That’s a problem.

 

That’s a 1990s business model where you could play with the opacity around data. But in 2020, that should not be the case at all. We regularly show our prospects and our clients our error rates because they deserve it. They deserve understanding what our error rates are line by line.

 

GC: In oil and gas, when I’m building up a forecast, particularly for, say, an oil project, I’m having to forecast currency exchange rates, interest rates for my borrowings, the price of certain critical commodities like cement and steel. I’m having to forecast project delivery timeline and schedule. I’m having to forecast future market demand like, where’s my product likely to go? If each of these has a 15 to 30 percent error rate built into them and I’ve added them all up to get to a :here’s my forecasted economics for the year.“ Have I built in and basically had an accumulated error rate that makes my forecast pretty unreliable at that stage? Or these different errors, all sort of stand alone?

 

TN: That’s the budgeting process.

 

GC: I’ve been in that process. Right.

 

TN: Anybody who’s worked on a budget like that, they understand it. Maybe they don’t want to admit it, but we talk to people all the time who tell us. We have a client in Europe who admitted to us that some of their core materials that they buy, they know internally that their forecasts typically have a 30 percent error. And when we say that to people, to other companies, that’s feedback we get consistently that the people who actually know, the data know that their companies have error rates that are 20 to 30 percent or in some cases worse. They’re that far off.

 

When you think about it from a finance perspective, you’re over allocating resources for the procurement of something and that resource could have been used for something else. That’s one of the reasons why it’s really important for us to help people really narrow that down.

 

We check ourselves all the time and we looked at some industrial metals and energy stuff based on a June 2019 forecast for the following twelve months through the COVID period, comparing some consensus forecasts and our forecast. On average, we were 9.4 percent better than consensus. This is a Complete Intelligence forecast. It’s an aggregate looking at one of our manufacturing clients.

 

When you look at the different horizons, we look every three months, what was the error every three months, even up to the COVID period. On average, we were 9.4 percent better on a MAPE (Mean Absolute Percent Error) basis. If you’re buying off the shelf forecasts from some of the typical service providers, you’re looking at a pretty large disadvantage. They’re not using machine learning. They’re not using artificial intelligence. If they are, it’s typically very, very simple.

 

Now, part of what we’ve done through the process is we’ve removed the human process, human involvement in every aspect of data and forecast. From the data sourcing to the validation to anomaly detection to processing, to forecasting, we do not have human analysts who are looking at that and going, “that just doesn’t look right.“

 

GC: OK. It’s all done by machine?

 

TN: Right. We have machines that apply the same rules across assets. Because if we have human beings who gut check things, it just inserts bias and error through the whole process. And with no human intervention, we have a massive scale in terms what we do. We forecast about 1.1 million items every two weeks. Our forecast cycles are every two weeks. And we do it very, very quickly.

 

GC: And nine percent less error rate or a lot lower error?

 

TN: For the ones that we checked for that one client, yes. I would say in general, that’s probably about generally right. In some cases, it’s better.

 

GC: So a few things. One is the huge range of things that you can forecast when you remove all the humans out of it gives you these scale-ups. And then the fact that you can do it over and over and over again in much tighter cycle times than someone who just does it annually, once for a budget. And third, you’re testing your accuracy constantly to improve your algorithm so that you’re getting better and better and better over time.

 

TN: Exactly. When you consider something like crude oil, there are hundreds of crude forecasters who know that, they know that they know the six things that drive the crude oil price, right? And I guarantee you those crude oil forecasters who know what they know, what they know what those six things are, manually change their output once their models run. I guarantee you.

 

GC: I remember working for an oil company in Canada where the coming of the oil sands, but it was the monthly oil sands production expectation and would come into the finance function, where I was working, and the numbers would come in the spreadsheet and the finance people go, “add five percent to that.” Because they would say, they’re wrong every month, we’re tired of being embarrassed about being wrong. And they’re wrong because they undersell their performance. So just add five percent. And that was the number that would go to the market.

 

TN: And then that’s the error, right?

 

GC: And was that even the final error? There may or may not be on top of that?

 

TN: Probably not. And there are very few companies, we have some German clients, so they’re pretty good about doing this. But there are very few companies who actually track their error. And so most companies Are not even aware of how far off they are, which is a problem.

 

Here’s the second problem. The first one is forecasting quality is terrible. So we’ve developed a fully automated process. We measure our error, that sort of stuff. The second one is the context of the forecast. What I mean by that is, let’s say you’re making a specific chemical. You can go to some of these professional chemical forecasters, but they’re not making the chemical exactly where you make it. They don’t have the proportion of feedstocks that you have. Because we’ve built this highly iterative forecast engine that does hundreds of millions of calculations with every run, we can take a bill of material for that microphone in front of you or a chemical or a car, And we can forecast out the cost of every component to that every month for the next 12 to 24 months.

 

GC: Really? So, at any scale or any, I mean, you do it for a phone, you can do it for a car?

 

TN: That’s right. So if you look at a bill of material with, say, a thousand levels in it. Not a thousand components. But, you know, if you look at the parent-child relationship within a bill of materials, these things get really sophisticated really quickly. Some of the largest manufacturers have this data. They have access to it and we can tap into that to help them understand their costs, the likely trajectory of their costs over time. What does that help them? Helps them budget more accurately. It helps them negotiate with their vendors more accurately.

 

If you’re a, let’s say you’re a 20-billion dollar company and you have one percent on your cogs, how additive is that to your valuation if you’re trading at 15 or 20 times EBITDA.

 

GC: Yeah. And just right to the bottom line at that level.

 

TN: Exactly. This is what we’re finding. For the high context as of the second kind of business problem that we’re solving, and so we do this on the cost side. We do this on the revenue side. For that second problem, which is high context, again, the platform that we’ve built allows the scale, because if we had analysts sitting there scratching their head, rubbing their beard for every single thing we’re forecasting, there’s no way we could do this scale.

 

But because it’s automated, because it’s scalable, we can actually do this. And so it adds a whole level of capability within major manufacturing clients and it adds a whole level of risk protection or error mitigation to those guys as well.

 

GC: Just think about the current year that we’re in, which would include, at least in Canada, a pipeline constraints and the potential for rail expansion activity south of the border to either curtail production, the behavior of OPEC. When you think about getting into forecasting world of commodity prices… I can understand a manufacturer bill of materials and get into cost of goods sold and forecasting quite precisely what their forward manufacturing cycle will look like. I can use the same thing, though, in the oil industry, though, and probably gas, too, I would suspect.

 

TN: Yeah, yeah. Absolutely.

 

GC: And what’s the industry’s reaction to it? Because there’ll be people inside oil and gas who are doing forecasting today and they’ll be fairly proud of the models that they built that delivering a forecast. You’re walking in and saying ”I’ve got a whole new way to do this that is so many more cycles faster than what you can manually do, looking at many more products than you practically can. And if I show you that you’re nine percent off, 10 percent off with it.” I can imagine a negative reaction to this. I can also imagine for some organizations, pretty positive reaction on balance. How companies react when you told I can sharpen up your numbers?

 

TN: OK. So I’ll tell you a story about a gas trader. October of 2018, we went into a natural gas trader here in Houston. We showed them what we do. Gave a demo, give them access for a couple weeks so they could poke around. And we went back to them later and they said, “Look, you are showing a like a 30, 31 percent decline in the price of natural gas over the next 6 months. There’s no way that’s going to happen. So thanks, but no thanks.”

 

GC: This was your data telling them? All right. Refresh my memory. What was going on in October of 2018?

 

TN: Nothing yet. But Henry Hub prices fell by forty one percent within six months. So these guys were completely unprepared. The kind of conventional wisdom around natural gas prices at that time were unprepared for that magnitude of fall. But we were showing that that was going to happen. And so when you look at that, we had an 11 percent error rate at that point, which seems kind of high. But conventional wisdom was a 30 percent error rate.

 

We don’t expect to be the single go to source when we first go into a client. That’s not our thought. We know we’re a new vendor. We know we’re offering a different point of view. But we’re in a period of history where you have to think the unthinkable. And this is 2018, ‘19.

 

With the volatility that we’re seeing in markets, you really have to be thinking the unthinkable, at least as a part of your possibility set. It’s really hard. I would think it to be really hard for really anybody who’s trading any magnitude of oil and gas product to put something like this outside of their arsenal of strategic toolkit that they use.

 

GC: Well, certainly, if you had that gap in expectation of gas prices, the gas producer should have been thinking about hedging at that moment. And if their conclusion was, you’re completely wrong and I’m not going to bother with hedging, then shame on them really, because they should have done a far better job of managing to the curve. That’s a great story because it illustrates the challenge.

 

TN: That’s normal. It’s kind of the “not invented here” approach. And I see a lot of that within oil and gas.

 

We see a bit more interest in chemicals. They have to understand the price of their feedstocks. They have to understand their revenues better. And so we see a bit more on the downstream where there is a lot more interest. But midstream, upstream, it’s just not really there.

 

GC: What’s the untapped potential here to sharpen up forecasting? If you’re talking with a company and you say, “I can sharpen up your forecasts and your estimates and tighten up your variability and your business plan.” How does that translate to value and how do you extrapolate that to here’s the the slack, if you like, that’s built up economically within the system and as a whole that we stand potential to extract out and it’s going back to the misallocation of capital, the inadequate negotiations with suppliers, the margin left on the table because of the numbers aren’t just that reliable.

 

TN: We just went through this exercise with a manufacturer with about 20 billion dollars of turnover to help them understand. If you look at, say, the nine percent difference that we had in that exercise that I told you. So let’s say we’re working with the manufacturer with a 20 billion dollars and a PE ratio around 20, which is kind of where they’re trading. If instead of a nine percent or even four and a half percent improvement, let’s just say we had a one percent improvement in their materials. That one percent improvement in their costs translates to a three percent improvement in their net income. That’s three percent improvement in their net income translates to a 1.1 billion dollar improvement on their market capitalization.

 

We’re not going out there saying, “hey, we’re gonna help you save 10 percent of your costs.“ We’re not going out with statements that are that bold. We’re saying, “OK, let’s run a scenario where we help you with a quarter of a percent,“ which would help them add 280 million dollars on to their market capitalization. So procurement management and planning is kind of that tightly calibrated that if we helped this company with 0.25 percent improvement in their costs, keep in mind we’re nine point four percent better than consensus, that actually helps them add 280 million dollars onto their market cap. It’s just exponential.

 

GC: Well, it’s the leverage effect of earnings per share as you drop those earnings to the bottom line. And so anybody who’s actually measured on EPS or stock price should take a very interested look at this because you’re not selling a hardware, big capital investment, stand up a big department, not stuff. This is about taking the current process, that’s their budgeting, and squeezing out the variability or the error rate and trends that translates directly to value. When you think about it, it’s a complete no-brainer. Like, why would you not do this?

 

TN: It is. And we’re not going to charge them 280 million dollars to do it. But we could charge for this agile budgeting and forecasting. But we’re not going to.

 

GC: What you would do is you’d say, we’ll take shares in your company.

 

TN: I mean, that’s been suggested many, many times.

 

GC: Yeah, no, I totally get It. I say to oil companies, I’ll sell my services to you based on the price of oil. But the shareholder actually values the volatility on oil pricing. So they’re not prepared to give that away. And I’d be the same. I wouldn’t do that. But on the other hand, the back to this question of untapped potential. The ship, the bulk of the economy is operating off of wildly inaccurate consensus estimates. I think that’s fair to say, I don’t know if that’s accurate or not, but that would be my my conclusion. The bulk is operating off of inaccurate assessments. And so over time, what should happen is we should see a considerable improvement in that, which in turn translates into much better performing economy, allocation of capital and supply chains and so forth.

 

So you’ve been an entrepreneur now for how long’s it been three years?

 

TN: It’s five. We started as a consulting firm. It’s been about five years now. We actually started the company in Singapore. I moved it to Texas at the end of 2018. I couldn’t really find the coding talent and the math talent in Asia. I know this sounds really weird, but I couldn’t. And so I relocated the business to Texas in 2018.

 

GC: Yeah. And the talent pool is rich enough in the United States to fulfill this ambition?

 

TN: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Totally fantastic.

 

GC: And what lessons have you taken away from all of this experience? Would you do it again?

 

TN: I would do it again. But I would do It differently. Anybody who starts a business has to realize that markets aren’t necessarily ready for radical new thinking. And it really takes a long time to get an idea of this out there. The kind of AI industry and the talk about automation has been around for a long time. But things like this, companies aren’t really ready to just let go of. It takes a lot for them to consider letting go of this stuff.

 

If your idea is pretty radical, it’s probably to take a while to socialize with an industry. But I would say it’s also, we as a company, we had a staff issue about a year ago, actually, that really shook us. And out of that, we developed our principles and our values. For anybody who wants to do this, you really have to understand what your own principles and values are from early on. It’s not something you wait until you’re 100 people to develop.

 

That issue a year ago was a very clarifying moment for us as a company. It really forced us to think about what kind of business we wanted to build. And I’m grateful for it, although it was really terrible at the time. I’m grateful for it because we have our values. It’s actually posted on our website. Whenever we recruit new people, that’s one of the first things I send to them and say, “Look, this is who we are. If you’re not comfortable with this, then this is not the right place for you. I’m sure you’re talented, all that kind of stuff. But we really live by this stuff and and those things are important.“

 

The other thing I would recommend for anybody who’s doing this is you’ve got to play nice with everyone on the way up and you got to play nice with everyone on the way down. It’s easy for tech entrepreneurs to really think a lot of themselves. And I think that’s fun. But it’s also not really helpful in the long run.

 

There’s a lot that I’ve learned about recruiting leadership teams, finding fit, looking for investors. I have the Asia experience. I have the U.S. experience. The math and the tech around A.I. is almost the easiest issue to solve. With technology, as long as you think big but retain humility, you can do a lot. You have to be bold, but be comfortable with mistakes.

 

The trick is getting the right team and the right investors who are comfortable with that environment. And if you get the right team and the right investors who are comfortable with that, then it can be much more fun. You actually have a chance at being successful because so many startups just fail. They don’t last a year or two years, much less for five. It’s really, really critical to get the right people.

 

GC: Yeah, I completely agree. The people and the money, it’s both sides. If the investors don’t have the patience or they’re marching to a different drum like they want short term results, and that’s as much of a death knell for for many startups as a talent talent deficit.

 

Tony, this has been excellent. Thank you very much for taking the time to join me today on Digital Oil and Gas. And if people want to learn more about Complete Intelligence, where do they go? What’s your website?

 

TN: Our website is completeintel.com. And we’re on Twitter. We’re on LinkedIn. There’s a lot of information there. And like you did about a month ago, we have a lot of five-minute interviews we do with industry experts and a weekly newsletter. There are a lot of ways to get to learn about us.

 

GC: Fantastic. Tony, thank you very much. This has been another episode of Digital Oil and Gas. And if you like what you’ve heard, by all means, press the like button and the share button and add a comment, and that helps other people find the show. And meanwhile, tune back in next week, Wednesdays, when we’ll issue another episode of Digital Oil and Gas. This is Canada Day week. So happy Canada Day to my all my Canadian listeners.

 

And Saturday is Independence Day. It’s July 4th. So, Tony, have a great time on Independence Day. Be socially distant and be safe out there. Thanks again.