Get a demo
Select the type of demo you'd like to experience with Indico Data.
Select the type of demo you'd like to experience with Indico Data.
Watch Indico Data CEO Tom Wilde step in as co-host alongside Michelle Gouveia, VP at Sandbox Insurtech Ventures, in season 2 episode 4 of Unstructured Unlocked with Chris Payne, Partner at EY.
Tom Wilde:
Welcome to another episode of Unstructured Unlocked. I’m Tom Wilde, your co-host.
Michelle Gouveia:
I’m Michelle Govea
Tom Wilde:
And we’re really excited, Michelle. Today we’ve got a great guest with us, Chris Payne from ey. Chris is a partner that leads the insurance technology practice across EMEA for ey. Chris, how are you?
Chris Payne:
Really good, really good, Tom. Good to meet you and good to meet you Michelle. You too.
Michelle Gouveia:
Thanks for joining us today.
Tom Wilde:
Yeah, we’d love to hear a little bit more about how you developed this practice at ey. You guys have a very large practice, specifically around partner platforms like Guidewire and others. We’d love to hear more about that to kick us off.
Chris Payne:
Yeah, of course Tom. Well look, I’ll try and keep it succinct, but yeah, so I guess I joined EY back in around 2005, 2006, and it was probably a couple of years after that that we started to really build the technology practice in amea. We leveraged very much off our US capability. We were traditionally playing in more things around cyber and IT risk and those kinds of areas, and I think we saw a market opportunity. There was definitely a shift towards re-platforming. There was the emergence of some of the platforms like Guidewire and we were very much on, I guess the first wave of that myself and a number of key colleagues were then really working on driving that dialogue with the major insurers in Europe. We built a tremendous story from that really, I guess we built it around being very, very globally connected.
I mean that’s one of the things I think within EY that makes us a little bit different to the other big four. We moved into that what I would call SI role, but of course with all of the added capability around all our other services so we could actually understand the op model, we could understand regulation and I think when you were trying to put new technology into new markets, naturally one of the biggest challenges, making sure that the regulatory and the distribution dynamics of those markets in Europe are understood. And I think that’s always been a key challenge for US software coming into Europe and therefore I think our partnering model worked really, really well. And I guess bringing it up more to modern day, my role is more centered on, I lead more on the go to market and the alliance side. So I’m really playing, I guess we would say in football terms PO a game of two halves.
I mean one half is very much trying to make sure that we win in the big scale end-to-end tech transformation type scenarios, be that around policy, billing claims, those sorts of areas. And then increasingly, I’m also spending a lot of time with, I think we’ve seen so much new market entrance into technology has been clearly evolving rapidly. You guys are a great example of that that I’ve definitely devoted a lot of time to started off with the sort of InsureTech phenomenon. I think now we’re seeing of course an evolution of that, but really keeping an eye on innovation and the emerging tech and the emerging things that we want to be bringing to our clients or we want to be partnering with particular organizations that are solving the key business problems for insurers. And a lot of that is centered in underwriting and claims for sure.
Tom Wilde:
You’ve had a front row seat at a lot of these digital transformation projects, cloud-based projects and more, and these are often very big ticket items for these companies in terms of dollars, in terms of people and time. And some of these projects are multi-year projects. What are some of the success patterns you’ve seen or maybe asked conversely, where are some of the pitfalls in doing these projects because they’re large and complex and critical to the core systems that these companies need to use to run their business
Chris Payne:
Completely? I mean, I think that there’s a few things and they’re probably things that get sometimes said repetitively, but they’re not so easy to put into practice. I think they’re easy to talk about. So I think first things first, I think the program has to have a kind of clear vision of what it’s trying to achieve. So I think the more recent programs that I’ve been involved in, I think that what’s characterized them has been that sense of trying to define a future state and a future reason for why the transformation is happening. I think in the past, the programs tended to be more driven by the sun setting of old technology, but there wasn’t necessarily a big strategic vision behind the why. And I think that’s important because you have to have certain things in place for these types of programs to be successful.
You need clear leadership and time from the top. You absolutely need the buy-in of the people within the organization. So I think establishing that, I think in the past there probably wasn’t that focus on, well, why are we doing this? That’s centering around customer, that’s centering around new distribution models, new products and thinking about that and saying, actually we do need to change our technology because the future business requirements that we’re going to need, the things we’re going to be needing to be able to do in the future, we can’t do right now or we can’t do them in a cost or a time efficient manner. So I think the success I have seen is it’s quite interesting programs where you’ve got a VC or private equity involvement. I’ve definitely seen a different dynamic on those types of transformations. We’ve worked on a couple of pretty significant ones here in Europe in recent times, and I think one of the merits of that is that you cut through a lot of the internal bureaucracy and conflict around decision making and what the clear vision and mission is for the program. So I’d sort of state that generally as a positive trait. And then meaning
Tom Wilde:
When a private equity owner is one of the carriers owners, you’re saying
Chris Payne:
Absolutely because they bring a focus, they bring a sort of clarity of outcome, a clarity of purpose, and I think that that definitely can be advantageous to kind of get the job done. I see too many of these programs that have gone on too long culturally, the organization’s known that the program isn’t on the right path, but the culture gets in the way of the right decision being made that says, we need to change this. If we don’t change this, we’re going to get the same outcome. So there are some programs in the UK market and across Europe that I’ve seen that have just gone on and on and on, and there’s reasons for that. But I definitely think the circumstances to kind of create success is around that vision piece, but also engaging the people in the program itself. So hearts and minds is absolutely key to the way you engage with the organization and you drive that forward. It has to feel like it’s a program that everybody involved. It’s their program. It’s not something that’s being done at them, and you’ve got to have a real clarity around the business purpose and what you’re trying to achieve. And I think generally organizations are doing a much better job of that now than perhaps 10, 15 years ago. Those drivers were perhaps not there.
Michelle Gouveia:
Chris, you mentioned, and I agreed with you that maybe at the start of what became known as digital transformations was meant to be this all encompassing sunset. Every legacy system we have, everything’s going to be on this new program and we’re going to force it through however it works. And I think that dynamic has changed a little bit where it’s more iterative, right? There’s a business need to use case and maybe then it expands into the broader organization. But I’d love to get your thoughts on maybe insurance carriers that are more of a federated model where it’s not updating a single workflow or process or system, but that you’ve got these companies that have been put together that maybe are bringing five or six different core systems to the table, and then they have to both agree on that transformation piece, but then also on the new workflow and the new process side, what are some of the differences that you see between those two executions?
Chris Payne:
I think these things go in fashion, Michelle. I mean, I’ve been involved in two or three really major multi-country implementations and I’ve worked with insurers with very sort of centralized and very decentralized type management structures, organizations that kind of let the local business really drive what they’re doing and others that were centralized perhaps too much and what are the dynamics around that? So I think initially what we saw was there was this sort of utopian view that what you could create in one country, you could create in many. And I think the dynamic around that was flawed at times because the businesses within that business, within those countries were often very, very different. Cultures were different. So the idea that one platform could deliver a common almost similar solution, identical solution per market, I think that thinking was in fashion maybe 10 years ago and then it ebbed away.
I think there’s interesting that there seems to be a trend coming back around that, but I think some of those lessons have been learned and I think what we found on some of those bigger global, I mean I’ve worked with some major clients moving perhaps doing seven or eight countries in Asia or 30 or 40 countries globally, and I think the most important thing is that you have to get all of them on board to the purpose of the program with an absolute clarity of what the business requirements and priorities are for the program, and then you evolve from there. The danger is that I think if you go with one country as a pilot and then roll out, you tend to overfocus on that country and then you get into this kind of bespoke build syndrome market by market, by market, and you’re just layer caking the thing and that isn’t efficient and it doesn’t tend to produce the best results.
I think the best programs I’ve seen that have been most successful in that sort of global type rollout model are those where you’ve brought the core groups together at the start, you’ve worked through the fundamentals of the scope and the requirements at a level, and then tried to implement those in, I guess in value drops. So bringing perhaps two or three countries at a time. I mean, we work with a major French insurer. I think we covered something like 30 or 40 countries worldwide. And that thing came in on time on budget because I think what we did was we invested that upfront time with the overall group rather than taking something that was implemented in Country X and expecting countrywide to accept it. So I think it had to be, so many of these things are about actually the people aspect I think that people miss, and then it’s around that control of scope and that prioritization to make sure that actually what you’re developing is driving value for the organization rather than every country being very, very different because you then get into all kinds of issues around upgrade paths and things like that.
That would be one of where people have got it right, Michelle,
Tom Wilde:
We’re sort of in another hype cycle now with generative ai. In some ways it’s rolled back to six years ago when five, six years ago when you saw the appearance of senior level executives, VPs of AI five, six years ago, and it’s sort of returned again. I don’t know that we’re in the trough of disillusionment yet with gen ai. My guess is we’ll get there, not because of gen ai, but just because every technology has inflated expectations when it first appears, and this one appears to be very profound and maybe as profound as the browser or something else that becomes sort of foundational to how digital works. What have you seen though in insurance with the carriers? Are we in a trough yet or are they still seeing gains? I am curious what your perspective is on that one. Yeah, sure,
Chris Payne:
Sure. Well, I’ll give you a few, Tom, actually, it reminds me a little bit. You talked about hype cycles. It reminds me a little bit of what we had. I remember 5, 6, 7 years ago I did, I think one of the first scaled RPA robotic process automation implementations in the UK market, and there was a lot of hype around that at that time. We had some vendors that people will know. Well, that came through and fairly quickly, organizations, initially organizations, everybody thought they needed to do this. It then kind of evolved. Then we also got into levels of concern about where were humans being removed from, almost like decision-making processes quite similar, not on the same scale as now what we’re seeing on Gen ai, but the principles of that, not having the human in the loop. Are we really making a decision around a critical illness claim with RPA technologies where a human has not been involved? We’re removing empathy and that human touch from the process. I think there was a lot of
Tom Wilde:
Concern. Even the regulators are not, well, the
Chris Payne:
Regulators, absolutely. So there was a lot of, I remember working with some really big, big top three global insurers around that, and we had great success on one level, but there was a line that was drawn where we said, we’re not going here, right? We will not use this technology in these areas. And so I think there was a sort of an ethical sense to that, which I sort of see now within Gen ai. I mean, my couple of comments to your specific questions are the dangerous, every conference you go to, every podcast, every conversation we have, I think there’s a danger that we overtalk about gen ai. So I think that there’s some genuine areas where it’s driving value already. I think it really, really depends on which carrier we’re talking about because I think it would be dangerous to just sort of stereotype.
I think some of the major players have actually working in and around some of this general stuff for quite a while. It just hasn’t really been in the public domain. But I think what we are seeing is there are some clients and some clients we are working with who’ve genuinely kind of started to drive value from the deployment of gen ai. I think one of the things is to make sure it’s being deployed in the areas it’s designed for. So I think big area for us has been working certainly in general insurance, looking in the contact center and around customer sales and service. And so there’s a focus towards self-serve of course, but actually the deployment of the specific use case in general, AI models around making the customer contact center call and dialogue with the customer much more efficient sentiment analysis. So there’s a bunch of use cases that we’ve developed certainly with one client that are already scaling and actually being deployed into live environments and getting significant financial backing to drive that.
I think more broadly the market, there’s a lot of people just thinking, we need to do this at shiny and new, select it on the bandwagon. So there’s lots of people trying to learn about it and doing smaller pilots or test cases. But actually I think one of the other learnings is that there’s a lot of other things you need to get in place to successfully deploy and scale the models, the gen ai. So I think having decent data and having some of those other things in and around are as important, if you like, as the use case. So I think there’s a little bit of obsession around gen AI use case, and then the danger is that you go to every claims conference or wherever you might be, and people just feel they need to talk about it when actually there’s a lot of other things and fundamentals that need to have equal priority.
In my view. I am quite excited about it. I think there are some things that are really going to evolve, and I think the challenge is that some of these things are quite new, so it’s not a case of saying, Hey, we found these great use cases and ideas over here. Let’s roll this out across the piece. I think it needs to be done, I mean, for all the right reasons, it needs to be done in the right way. And then I think backing this up is just the, you’ve touched on it already, Tom, some of the regulatory and ethical considerations, some of those are not that defined yet, but it is interesting. I mean, I guess give one quick story. A lot of this is also about culture. So take two, UK insurers, I came across as Jen, I was sort of in all, its sort of hype nine, 12 months ago, one organization.
It was a very rapid sort of mobilization of innovation and ideas and a level of excitement on how they leverage this technology. The other player brought every leader from the functions into a room and tried to create a charter of control and governance around what was not allowed to be done. So again, I think it’s a lot of this is around how you embrace and what the culture of your organization is, whereas one saw it as an opportunity, other saw it as a massive risk, and hence the approach from those organizations naturally very, very different. And I think there’s probably still a bit of that holds true. Now there’s believers and non-believers, right? And I’m obviously, I’m biased, I’m a consultant, so I’m going to say I’m a believer, but I think it’s got to be done in context and it isn’t the answer to everything. It’s not going to solve world hunger, but I think in specific areas it can drive significant value creation for the organization.
Michelle Gouveia:
Chris, how do you think diving deeper on that compliance and ethical standards point, in a lot of ways the decisions and the opportunities that the carriers have in front of them are ahead of the regulatory landscape and the recommendations and things coming out. So how do you think about carriers having to navigate that of building, I’ll say internal controls or guidelines and then having to maybe shift them or change them based on how the regulatory landscape develops? Is it bringing in third party vendors to help assist with model compliance? Is it driven internally by experts that know the business and know the insurance landscape more deeply? How do you think about that? I
Chris Payne:
Think it’s a bit of everything, right? I mean, it’s nothing new that sometimes the carriers are running ahead of the regulator. So I mean, it’s a well-known model that a lot of the regulation that we define, I mean, I’m just thinking of some of the stuff we’ve got going on in the UK right now. I mean, we’ve had things like consumer duty, fair pricing, things like that. The typical model is that it’s organizations like ourselves and some of the other major consulting players who tend to help shape the thinking with the regulator very often. And then that starts to then be, goes to consultation. And no doubt Michelle knows some of these processes. So I don’t think it’s unknown for the carriers often to be running ahead of the regulation. Certainly that is the case in this area, but I think it’s also the fact that how we’re going to see gen AI applied and deployed is evolving, but changing really, really quickly.
So I think there will be more clarity as we go through that sort of the hype cycle, as Tom said, into genuine things being deployed. And I think that will then start to create a lot more clarity around some of those ethical considerations. But I do think most of the clients certainly that I’m talking to are very, very clear on, as I say, on the ethical and this thing about the role of that human in the loop, which is probably an overused term, but nobody, nobody’s I think thinking, right? We’re just going to let these models run and run. But I think it feeds into another challenge or focus, which is we talk about operating models, consultants talk about operating models, but it’s the same thing with cloud adoption. There is a requirement with these new technologies and these new areas of focus that you have to evolve your own organization with it.
So one of the things certainly with gen AI will be the management and the evolution of those models over time because it isn’t just about deploying something and job done. So I think we’re seeing some sort of quite interesting solutions evolving around the management of models, to your point, and how do you do that most effectively? And then how does the organization evolve because you are going to need to, just as many organizations have gone through significant cloud transformation have realized that actually the old operating model of before needs to change radically. Hence, you’ve seen as much focus around that operational change in the context of cloud transformation as much as the shift itself. So I think we’ll see some similar patterns, but it’s still early days. I don’t think we’re seeing that level of scaling yet around gen ai. But of course I expect us to see that in the coming months. I mean, I’m not sure what the picture is in the states, but certainly kind of UK out into Europe, I think probably my view is fairly accurate.
Michelle Gouveia:
So the other side of leveraging generative ai, and this is nothing new. The insurance base is the quality and the accuracy and the structure of your underlying data. In order to train the models accurately, they need to be trained on good data. This has been an area of focus for many, many years. It’s not now that gen AI is here that everyone is saying, oh, we need to figure out our data strategy. That’s been one of the top strategies or strategic focuses for a decade at least. I think. How do you guide insurance carriers or help them think through a data governance, a data strategy, especially now as it relates to wanting to deploy some of these jet AI solutions.
Chris Payne:
You make a couple of great points there, Michelle. So I’ve got a couple of views on this, right? I think the first one is just to look at the pattern and what we’ve seen. So we talked a little bit about earlier in the conversation around that sort of shift of the drivers around what creates a successful program and why is it different now to what it was before. I think what we’ve seen is if we go back to that point, certainly at that time there was not enough focus around data and customer within the focus of the program, if you like, in terms of where money was being spent, focus was being applied. There’s been a massive shift so that when you start to see those bigger transformation programs, now you are kind of seeing a trend. We see a trend at ey 50, 60% of the budget being allocated to those transformation programs tends to be centered around the data model and the customer layer, let’s just call it that.
And I think therefore, yes, there’s been a much, much greater focus around data. I think from an EY point of view, what we’ve tended to do is we’ve always centered on getting fundamentals in place for our clients. So you’ve touched on those terms, data governance, data dictionary, the taxonomy of the data, really, really important to focus on those areas. I think there’s a lot of clients in the past on the technology and under focused on the fundamentals. So they’ve bought a master data management tool, they’ve spent 20 million on it, but frankly they’re not going to drive value from it because they haven’t put those fundamentals in place. So I think the trend right now, and I’m looking across UK market, there’s a massive shift of focus onto platforms like Snowflake, Databricks, things like that. Almost every other client we talk to at the moment is in some very, very significant data transformation or is about to set sale on a significant data transformation. So I think this is absolutely key, but I think it’s starting and getting those fundamentals right and clear as against being technology led to technology led and believing that the latest, greatest new piece of software is going to solve everything. Actually, no, I think you’ve got to get the sequencing right, otherwise you can burn a lot of money in my experience in this space. Yeah, I mean that would be probably my main observation to your question.
Michelle Gouveia:
This may be a strange analogy, but I liken it to trying to organize your house before you declutter it. You can buy all the fancy organizational bins and everything, but as you’re doing that, if you’re getting rid of things or finding things as part of that process, it’s going to take longer. You’re not actually going to get to the end state that you want versus if you understand what’s their first declutter, then you can rightfully put things where they belong and move forward with the strategy. No, I agree.
Chris Payne:
It has been interesting, but some of the stuff that we’re talking about is not that exciting. It’s not that sexy, but it’s really fundamental to just getting those basic foundational things in place. And then I think you can start to drive value. And I think we’ve seen that, we’ve seen that sequencing. So I mean I’ve got some lovely diagrams, not for a podcast, but that picture of, we had the kind of era of just straight replatforming. Then we’ve evolved more into, I suppose now understanding more modular deployments, best of breed deployments of technology. But I think the thing that’s really changed has been that centering around, as I say, around the data itself and the data model. And then I think that’s going to evolve into, I was saying this a year ago, it hasn’t quite happened yet, but I’m starting to see a real shift in certainly in general insurance and personal lines, a real shift in focus around cut the customer related technologies.
So we had, back in the day, we had the sea bulls and all of that and the single view of customer 20, 25 years ago. I think what we’re seeing again is there’s going to be a focus and investment on proper customer related tech and solutions. That’s going to be the next wave. But to get value from that, you’ve got to have organized your data, as you say in the right way. And then I think you’re getting into that world of actually achieving what we would call sort of actionable insight. And there’s a few players we’re seeing in the UK market certainly that are starting to get there, but I think that’s going to be a big trend in the evolution of where investment is going to take place around technology. It’s going to move into that customer, that customer space, and it’s going to be, yes, people are still going to buy things like Salesforce, things like dynamics, but it’s actually going to be the knitting together of a lot of smaller solutions. Same trend I see in claims, same trend I see in things like underwriting workbenches, which obviously is an area where for example, in deco plays very strongly.
That’s going to be where we see those trends definitely playing out. I think organizations also want to buy, I think you touched on it, Michelle Big isn’t necessarily better. People are looking at driving value drops. So it’s actually to drive chain zone in an underwriting function. It’s the hardest area. I mean, I think there’s a number of hard areas to dislodge technology or get new technology adopted. It’s far easier to drive transformation in claims. In my experience, claims functions often have been underinvested in slightly unloved. When you come with new technology, they’re excited, they want to work with you, you’ve got momentum before you start. Trying to achieve that in underwriting functions is completely different because underwriting is somewhat, we use the terms, the black box, the dark arts, it’s a bit of an art, it’s a bit of a science, and the technology needs to be deployed in a way that the underwriters continue to feel that they’ve got control that they’ve not been disintermediated, if you like, from the thing that they do.
And so I think it plays very nicely to not deploying one sort of underwriting solution, but providing an improving value along the chain and then centering in on that. And I think that’s why certainly we’re working with players and working with our clients on that kind of basis and vision, if you like to do that. And then the winners of the people that orchestrate that and knit that together the best, integrate it the best and bring the people along with them, that’s where you’re going to get true value creation in underwriting and true transformation. Otherwise, it’s glorified workflow and people don’t really embrace it. Nothing really changes. Maybe you’re doing some things a little bit quicker in certain places, but it doesn’t fundamentally change the way the underwriter is operating. It’s maybe a little bit more efficient, but it’s a process thing rather than an insight driven thing, which I think is where obviously underwriting is going because we’ve got so much new technology coming in that’s giving more, and I mean they’re drowning in information, let’s be honest, is how they harness and use that in a time efficient manner to make better informed risk decisions.
I mean, that all sounds very simple, but broadly speaking, I think that is the direction of travel that we’re seeing.
Tom Wilde:
I mean, the reality is what you’re displacing in underwriting is Microsoft Excel. I mean that the platform of record for an underwriter. And so you have to show that you can deliver more value than Excel because that’s really been burned into the process in every corner of it. So it is a fascinating space, and I agree. I think that I continue to be, what’s the right word? Encouraged sometimes surprised at how large carriers are willing to really lean into best of breed solutions from emerging companies with the belief that that is where the competitive arena will be won or lost in the future. So there’s certainly an appetite for it. I think I always push back a bit on people’s perception that insurance companies are overly conservative. I’ve not seen that. I think they’re very willing to try. It’s just they’re big complex businesses and it’s not a simple straightforward path to getting there. But the willingness and the budgets are certainly there to do it.
Chris Payne:
Yeah, I think the key thing, Tom, is to avoid what I’d call kind of point solutions. So when I think back to the emergence of some of the ins, InsureTechs, they were kind of solving something, but if that wasn’t able to be joined up and orchestrated, I’m sort of thinking of the claims area. One of the big areas of focus there is around orchestration. And I did a sort of interview a couple of weeks ago and I was making the point, okay, it was a generalization, but I think it holds true that too many of the claims functions that I’ve worked with or spoken to have been way too internally focused around their op model and what they’re doing and not externally focused enough around orchestration of supply chain management of indemnity. Because those are the areas that actually have the greatest opportunity to drive value and bottom line return.
So stop worrying about the paperclips and the edges and sides of your internal lot model and look outwards and think, and I think some of those solutions that are able to help orchestrate that in a more effective manner are having dramatic, and they’re not necessarily big companies. They’ve very much been designed to drive value in a very, very specific area. But then I think the orchestration around that, so when I look to the future, yes, you need technology that’s really, really good at something, but the secret is how you deploy and integrate it into the broader operation. Because otherwise, if it’s not joined up, it’s no point having something that’s sort of super efficient in one area and then it tails away very, very quickly into kind of manual process. So I think it’s about finding balance within that. And I’m a true believer in this thing about don’t try to over STP everything.
I think you’ve got to keep certainly saying claims, right? You’ve got to retain empathy. You’ve got to retain a human input to this area because without that, this is so much about the value proposition and what insurers actually deliver for their customers. And I do think that the claims area gets underappreciated in that area, but I think we’re seeing renewed investment again in that claims area. But some of the tech for my liking is too focused on being kind of the digital brain, but it’s actually about how do you get the best of that, but you do not lose the effective kind of empathy and kind of culture of the people that work within that function because that’s really key and definitely is something that drives value in my view, that creates loyalty. I mean, I think this is something that the insurers are hunting for.
Certainly. We’ve seen a shift in the UK market from, it was all about growth and acquisition. We’ve had some really tough dynamics with claims inflation. We’ve had obviously the cost of living crisis here in the UK and Europe, and I think that now a lot of those players are looking at retention, loyalty, old thinking around customer lifetime value. All of those types of things are kicking back in because we’re seeing such ramping up of premium costs or premium being charged. We’re seeing also a lot of churn on a lot of movement in those books of business. So it’s an interesting, certainly in personal lines, the uk, it’s an interesting time when you’ve got motor and home writing at an average of well over 1 10, 1 15 in some cases up to one 20. That’s not great. Whereas the market leaders are still writing at a profit. There’s a real disparity in the UK market at the moment. Certainly when you look at the trends in the results, which is sort of something we, our clever actuarial people pull that together on a regular basis and it tells a pretty tough story of the winners and the losers.
Michelle Gouveia:
There’s a lot to unpack there and may have to have you back on to talk more about that, but I think we’ll end on your wise words and sound advice at the moment.
Chris Payne:
I’m sure they were. I hope they were Michelle.
Michelle Gouveia:
Absolutely. Yeah. This has been another episode of Unstructured Unlocked. We’d like to thank Chris Payne, partner at EY for the very informative conversation we had today.
Tom Wilde:
Thanks so much. Yeah, Chris, really appreciate it. Thanks so much. Thanks,
Chris Payne:
Tom. We enjoy Switzerland. Take care.
Check out the full Unstructured Unlocked podcast on your favorite platform, including:
