Nippin Anand 0:00
Welcome to Embracing Differences with me, Nippin Anand. I am joined with a great friend, Desai Link. Desai is based in Australia,

Nippin Anand 0:11
sorry, New Zealand, and Desai has written a wonderful book called Beyond Incidents. Desai, thank you so much for joining. It’s so good to spend some time together.

Nippin Anand 0:23
Maybe you can do a little introduction, and then we can get into the discussion. Yes,

Desai Link 0:28
sure. And first and foremost, thanks for having me. It’s a great pleasure to be here. So,

Desai Link 0:35
me in a nutshell, is that I practice in health and safety. I currently have a role in a construction company in New Zealand. I’ve been in the safety space for about 1516 years. Prior to that, I worked in law, so I was admitted over in Western Australia to the Stringle Bar,

Desai Link 0:52
and I’ve really taken a lot of those things that I learned in law and applied them to my safety practice.

Desai Link 0:58
And part of that was motivation for writing the book. I saw a lot of gaps in the way that we do investigations that could be filled with tools and techniques and things from law, and so the book is a compilation of those things.

Desai Link 1:11
And how long ago was this book published? I say not long after yours, because within my book is a list of recommended reading and your book is at the top of the list. Okay. Well, thank you. I didn’t know this is going this direction. Okay, all right. Great. No, that’s that’s great. Desai, where should.. what.. what should we talk about, and where should we begin? You think I thought a really interesting thing to talk about might be just culture,

Desai Link 1:39
because it links in a lot of those themes from law,

Desai Link 1:43
but it’s something that’s quite popularized in the safety space, and I think it would be an interesting discussion. I was wondering also if I could start with a bit of a story. It

Desai Link 1:53
might not seem relevant at first, but I think that it is, and the story is that some years ago I was involved in a car accident and I suffered a spine injury, which took some years to develop into a problem.

Speaker 1 2:06
I could still get to work, I could still get around as per normal, but the pain got to a point where it was intolerable, and I needed surgery to fix it. So I sorted myself out and got ready to do the surgery, and I took myself to the hospital, and admitted myself, and did all of that, and I noticed that as soon as I donned the patient’s robe, I suddenly became a patient, and my role and my identity changed, and I noticed that once I had that robe, I needed to have a nurse with me, you know, if I wanted to go to the bathroom, I needed to inform someone. As they wheeled me to the theater, I had.. I couldn’t walk, even though I walked into the into the hospital that day. I needed to be on the bed, they wouldn’t permit me to walk into the theater down the corridors, and I just.. I’m not saying that any, any of this is a bad thing, I think there’s all good reasons for it, but I just found it interesting that I became the role of patients and the nurse became the role of a carer, and I think a similar thing happens in investigations when, when day by day a person might be a safety advisor with an organization, but when an investigation happens, they become the investigator, and with that comes an identity. It comes a role to play, and similarly, with the with the person affected, they become, you know, the involved person or the injured person. They also lose sometimes a bit of bodily autonomy, you know, sometimes they’d be directed to go to the medical office. Sometimes they’ll be directed to undertake a drug test. And I just find it interesting that, again, I’m not disparaging any of these things. I just find them interesting that we tend to fit into these roles, and this is where I think just culture becomes relevant, because when we use the word just, we’re bringing in the language of justice, and when we bring in the language of justice, we start to talk about things like a wrong if there’s if there’s justice is being sought, then there’s probably a wrong that’s happened, there’s probably a wrongdoer, there’s probably a victim, and there’s probably a need to correct or make that right again. There’s the need for someone to independently make a decision or judge the matter, and I think that importing the language of justice through a just culture model into an organization brings with it those roles and responsibilities that people now need to play. I was just interested in your thoughts on that.

Nippin Anand 4:49
Yes, and you know you’re absolutely right. Inherent to all of this is who has the power and. Who is powerful in this situation? Because, well, whether you talk about justice or you talk about culture or you talk about just culture, one cannot escape the question of who is powerful and who is powerless in the situation, and it is so interesting what you said, because that discussion does not happen in even in the definition of just culture, in the way just culture is defined. Forget about how it is applied, that does not exist to a common person. Just culture means distinguishing between an honest mistake or willful negligence, so yeah, that’s that’s how I see it.

Speaker 1 5:50
Desai is, yeah, yeah, it’s an interesting, it’s an interesting point, because just culture starts from the position that there’s been doing, it’s about someone’s conduct and behavior first and foremost, and I’m not at all suggesting that people shouldn’t be blamed or held accountable for their actions. It’s just the way in which it’s done, and I think that in some cases just culture imports that framework into a situation that could probably best be dealt with with just managerial decisions, or just normal day-to-day operational decisions. They can sometimes be sort of forced, it forced into a, into a place where it doesn’t necessarily belong.

Nippin Anand 6:38
So, true. Yeah, the the other thing I find fascinating is that if you are talking about trying to understand, because the whole idea, you know, the premise behind all of this is to find out whether somebody did something wrong and how far did they go from the from the accepted behavior, you know, and when we start to discuss about drawing the line between willful negligence or honest mistake, the other question is Who has the the understanding of the context? Who understands the context well? So there are two questions here, I think. One is Who understands the context well, and and whether they would be able to apply it in a way, in an objective way. Yeah, so my own, from my own experience, the second part is even more problematic, because when I wrote the book on cost of Concordia, the people who condemned the actions of the captain for going close to the island were the captains of cruise line ships, you know, who were very aware of this maneuver, that the ship goes very close to the land. It was very accepted up to the point when the accident happened, but these were the people who are most vocal and most critical of the captain’s action, so I think we rely so much on an independent advice to determine whether something was right or wrong, but I think it’s a very questionable assessment mode of assessment. The other thing is the whole notion of an expert that who well to be able to make a decision, you know, you should be familiar with the context, you should have an understanding of the context, you need people who are experts, and from my own experience, decide what I have seen is that experts have a tendency to to to go into into areas where they’re probably not even sure about suddenly they trespass a lot so it’s very hard for an expert to say I do not know or I’m not aware of you know the totality of the situation and often things are not so simple straightforward in my world. For example, you have a problem in the engine room, and you ask an engineer, but then when you start to open up the situation, it goes in different directions. It goes nautical, it goes on deck, it involves cargo, but then it’s very hard for an expert to say this is the limits of my knowledge, and that’s all I can say. But I would appreciate if you involve other experts also, so there too we have a problem that experts do not realize and recognize the limits of where they should stop making judgments about other people’s behavior, so we have at least two problems, the limits of expertise, and which is trespassing, I call it this way, and the other one is this whole idea of independent and objective assessment. I think both of them are very questionable in my view. Yeah,

Desai Link 9:52
yeah, yeah, I think there’s some very good points there. The one about experts, you know, to me and. Expert is defined by not only what they know, but also the limits of their expertise, and if they’re not willing to draw that boundary around it, then that’s that’s problematic, to say the least. And I think we’re, we’re faced with this, that you know, there’s high-profile incidents like Costa Concordia, but I think that scaled down this is something that’s dealt with every day by someone who works in an organization in some sort of risk or safety capacity, where they’re forced into positions to be that person in the moment without necessarily having had the training, and you know we talked about just culture, creating roles for people, but sometimes you know the scope of my current role involves injury management, so sometimes I’m I’m the person on boots on the ground for someone to talk to to address their trauma, and I’m not, I’m not the right person for that, I can, I can listen, and I can direct them towards someone who can be that person for them, but we have this expectation. I think a lot of organizations have this expectation that the person that sits in that role is the answer to every situation that is presented to the company, that they can be at all times, you know, the risk assessor, the investigator, the trauma counselor, or playing all of these different roles, and it’s really hard to draw a line around that when, when your employer is imposing that one, when the organization expects

Nippin Anand 11:37
it, our society, and particularly male-dominated cultures do not make too much space for people. It, in fact, makes it very hard for anyone in their capacity in senior positions, for example, turn around and say that is as much as I know, and now this is outside of my area of expertise, and I would appreciate if you seek someone else’s advice on this. I have yet to meet that person in my many years of career, I think, and this was the word I was trying to emphasize more. It’s called epistemic trespassing. I have a story just to share with you, which has nothing to do with just culture and nothing to do with the incidents or accidents, but this happened to with an Ayurveda doctor that I have in India, back home in India, and I just called him to discuss a particular issue that I’m having with my health, and the idea was that we’re going to take a vacation in India in the next few weeks, and I just wanted to know from him, from his point of view, what could be the issue, and he was less interested in telling me about the problem that you know, the kind of things that I need to be careful about, and more about the logistics of getting from one place to another place, that this airport is good for you. This tourist spot would be better for you. This is where you should stop. This is where you should avoid. And I felt in doing that he crossed the boundaries, and he went too far ahead from his own area of expertise. If he had just told me that, okay, you’re coming to India, you’re going to spend four weeks here. This is, you know, the time of the year, and this is the kind of allergies you need to consider. This is the kind of food you need to avoid. That would have been good enough. I didn’t need his advice on which airport I should get to, and how I should make my way from one city to another city. And this is so I bring it back to the organizational world, this is a very big problem with experts, that not only they are experts in one area, they seem to do, think that they know much more than what, what, and I think that applies to me also. Sometimes we all do that, but I think we need this awareness that the word expert is a double-edged sword, that as much as we know something about some things, there are things that we have absolutely no clue about, and we shouldn’t be afraid of saying that.

Desai Link 14:16
Yeah, yeah, it’s an interesting insight, the idea that’s most of the time, I think it comes from a good place as well. You know, in the example of your doctor, I can’t help but think that he just wanted to share some useful information that he had and help you as much as he could, even though you’re quite right, he was stepping outside the norms and the bounds that are normally between a doctor and patient, and I feel like that’s it’s also a similar situation in the workplace. You want to help, you want to problem solve, you want to get things going and make things happen. That’s why you’re there. That’s the whole purpose of work, is to keep things going and make things happen, so. Is constant tension that exists, and where you’re being asked to step outside of your expertise, you want to be the helpful person, the good worker, but here you are, you’re presented with a, with a dilemma.

Nippin Anand 15:14
I think Carl Wake was probably a very, very clever man in this space, and I first read his book, Managing the Unexpected Desai, and he had one particular section on deference to expertise, and he actually made it very explicit and very clear, which I think one only one needs to understand this, this really well, that all expertise is relational, that I am not an expert until somebody else comes and says that, yeah, I recognize that you have the right kind of knowledge and expertise in this space. I think when we look at the way many organizations are set up, and we create silos of experts in the organizations. You know, this is from one department, that is from another department. One thing we miss out is that a lot of it is self-proclaimed. People become very territorial about what they know and what they do not know, and what Wake suggests is that one way to break that barrier is to make expertise move away from the idea of experts and embrace the idea of expertise that I am no one unless somebody else comes and says that yes, I see that this person knows something about this particular subject, and I think that’s what makes it very interesting, but also there would should be enough opportunities in organizations where people get together and challenge the expert on their knowledge, so the more we challenge, the more we disapprove, the more we question, we take, we move away from experts to the idea of expertise, and I think we should move more in that direction, from from bit from expert to expertise, and that was Vic’s point, and I think that’s a very clever point, actually very powerful point.

Desai Link 17:09
Yeah, that’s it’s reminding me of my time when I worked in the firm, and it was quite a large firm, and we had lots of different legal departments or teams that dealt with different areas of law, and I found that when you, when we studied as an undergrad, you get exposed to all different areas of law, the main areas, and then there’s you might specialize in a few different sections with a few subjects, but in the firm, you know, if you’re in family law, then you’re if you get presented with a property matter, you have to draw a line and say actually that’s not my area of expertise. Hopefully, that you know there’s property team sitting next to you that you can turn to and say, hey, I’ve got this issue, I think it’s this, can you give me your view on that, so you have a sense of what’s over there, because you did property law as an undergrad, and you should have a sense of what could be an issue, but then you need to, you need to speak to someone who specializes in that area, and I’ve seen that happen with what was I thinking of, you know, I’ve lost my train of thought. It’ll come back to me, I’m sure. But this idea that you, you get it, you get trained in other areas in order to know that you’re not the expert in those areas. And I’ll give another example, the after I graduated law school, you go through an articles training program. Articles is a bit like an internship that a training doctor might have at a hospital, similar situation, and you do some training as a part of that, and part of that training is accounting, and you do the accounting for two reasons: one is because you need to know how to manage a trust account for your firm. The second reason is because you need to identify when you have an accounting problem and not a legal problem, so that you can then seek the advice of an accountant to help solve, and it’s really being familiar with another area, so that you know that you’re not the expert in that area, so yeah,

Nippin Anand 19:24
that makes a lot of sense. I think everyone should go through some kind of cross-disciplinary education or experience to realize the limits of their expertise. Far too many people become specialists in one particular area, at a very early age in life, and they do not have the lateral understanding to compare between different perspectives and seeing the world from different points of views. I think that’s very important, but coming back to just culture, it is important because you are making decisions. That would affect somebody’s life, somebody’s career, somebody’s behaviors, and and you’re not always trained in this space to make those those judgments. So I think that you know I wanted to share something very practical with you on this particular thing. There was one oil major at one point decide they had a very clever model, and that was that when an accident happens, they would reach out to at least three experts in different disciplines, completely different disciplines, to find out their point of view about whether this person, whatever they did, is acceptable or not, and they were very successful for two reasons. One is that this person was independent of the line, he or she was never part of the line management, and the second thing was they came from different disciplines to comment upon the behavior of this person within that context, so, so they came from a, from, from diverse perspectives, diverse in the sense subject matter experts, but also they were independent of the line, so they were more objective, and I thought, you know, when you are running a large scale organization, and you obviously want some solutions, you know. You don’t want too much theory, you don’t want too much philosophy. You want some simple, reliable advice that you can use. I think that was a very, very, very nice way of doing it. But again, this I, you know, I come back to the same thing, that we can give lots and lots of advice to people to say this is what you should do, and this is what you shouldn’t do, but human beings, by their very nature, are two things we should consider in this equation. Who has the power and who is powerless? And until we are able to make that conscious, I think there is no such thing like just culture, that’s a very important question to begin with. You know, in that moment, Nisa, you tell your story, that from a normal person, from a healthy human being, you went, you had an injury, and the next moment you see yourself on the bed, on the patient bed, you’re already powerless, you’re already vulnerable, right? And you have submitted yourself to somebody who is going to take care of you, so that person is within this equation more powerful than you. So, I think that equation needs to be understood well, in.. and I think, yeah, I would say so, yeah, there’s lots we can talk, yes,

Desai Link 22:44
yes, yeah, definitely, you know, and, like, I said, in the context of a hospital, there’s a lot of good reasons for the way things happen, and not being disparaging of that at all, but I think we just, it’s just something that we need to be conscious of if we’re going to inject or force the just culture process into a safety investigation process. Then we need to be conscious of the power dynamics, the language that we’re using, what that means for the people involved, and sometimes it might not be necessary. You know, I talked about, you know, there being a wrong, a wrongdoer, victim many day to day safety related incidents that certainly I deal with, the injured person or the wrong is that an injury has happened, but the victim is also the wrongdoer, the person that caused the injury, and someone’s just made a mistake, and they’ve injured themselves. Now, inserting a just culture model, and the idea of justice, what in what other circumstance do we seek justice against someone that’s hurt themselves? And to be honest with you, I can’t think of any, you know, invariably the wrongdoer is a separate person to the victim. So, this is just one example of how I think it’s forced into to play a role that it doesn’t really fit with. Another example is a big part of the legal system and public justice is that justice is seen to be done, and there’s an element, and again, this is not a disparaging comment, but there’s an element of the legal system, which is the theater, the scene to be done, and invariably, in an employment context, if someone is undergoing just culture as a disciplinary process, they is it’s a confidential process, so that that’s theater that seemed to be done is absent, so can it ever really be just on that basis?

Nippin Anand 24:55
Isn’t that fascinating? The last, you know, couple of sentences from you. Are so profound, so profound design. I like you to repeat what you said, so that people understand the depth of what you have just said. The two things, the theater bit, which is all performative, I think it’s something we need to understand, that a lot of what we do in organizations is not about determining what is right and wrong, but to preserve reputation, preserve order, and a lot of times truth, or seeking truth, is not a priority at all. That’s right, it’s a, it’s a ritual. Yes,

Desai Link 25:39
and maybe, and again, not, I don’t mean that in a disparaging sense, you know, we, we have rituals that carry meaning in many aspects of our lives, you know, we, we, we say the words and we make the gestures, and at a funeral, and and then we’ve addressed death in that context, and we can move on, you know, and similarly we say the words and make the movements and do the things, and we can say that we’ve had a just outcome to a court case. It’s a very similar thing that’s happening in investigation. We’re going through the motions, where we’re finding our version of truth that we think is important, and at the end of it we can say what we’ve, we’ve done, that’s that’s we can close that book now, that’s we’ve made the gestures, we’ve said the words, we can move on,

Nippin Anand 26:32
and you know what you said earlier, now think about it from another perspective, just to add to what what I’m just repeating what you said, it’s not my words, but I find it very profound. Is that here is a situation where the victim is also the vulnerable one, so the person who is hurt is also the person who is the wrongdoer, in your words, right? If you have an accident, a road accident, for example, somebody came and hit you, they are the ones who are culpable, you know, and you are the one who is vulnerable. But in this industry, the injured person is also the cause. It’s a very fascinating situation. The Greeks have a word for it, which is used in another context. It’s called pharmacos, which means you are the disease and you are the cure.

Desai Link 27:31
Yeah, yeah, that’s that’s why I think, in that context, you know, if we, if someone has injured themselves, calling them the wrongdoer and the victim, it doesn’t make sense, and that’s that’s my point entirely. Is that the language just doesn’t fit, the framework doesn’t fit that context.

Nippin Anand 27:49
Oh, we openly say injured person, IP, you know how many times the word IP repeats in the accident, and when I use the word farmer course, what I meant was the only way out is to let go of this person, is to discipline him or her, send them through a training, retraining, refresher training, whatever you want to call it, or get rid of them from the company. So you are the disease and you are the cure for the problem. How fascinating is that? And we call it just culture. How is that just in, in any sense?

Desai Link 28:26
It’s not always clearly punitive, as we might be making out, or some people might be getting the impression, you know, and restorative just culture is often provided as the answer to that. This is not about being punitive, it’s about responding to people’s needs, and you use the word when you list it off, you know, dealing with a person with the idea of retraining or re-inducting or some sort of re-evaluation of that person, in a sense that is also implicitly punitive, and I say that because if I need to be retrained, implicit in that is the idea that I didn’t get it the first time, so

Nippin Anand 29:12
I’m

Desai Link 29:13
everyone else got it, I didn’t get it,

Nippin Anand 29:15
yeah,

Desai Link 29:16
and therefore there’s something wrong with me,

Nippin Anand 29:17
and if you’re dealing with an expert who has spent years and years and years doing something. This is seen as dehumanizing. Sending somebody for retraining means it’s their fault. It’s like telling a rape victim that you should have done better, you know. It’s a very crude example, but that’s what it is. You have been raped because of your fault, so you need to get better. You need to be more careful. You need to be wearing proper clothes when you go out. You need to avoid going out in the evenings, or during the night, or during antisocial or unsocial hours, whatever. But the point is that the injured person, again, is made to believe that you are the cause and you are the care. For this problem, nobody else.

Desai Link 30:02
Yeah, I want to pick up your point about experts as well, because you know the example that you gave with the company, that’s the organization that had three independent experts of different fields come and look at the incident and give a different perspective, and I think that’s a wonderful idea. The one of the things that I talk about having brought from law is the idea of an extra witness, and in law you will get, I used to work in medical negligence, and there’d be instances where a doctor’s conduct was in question, and the question is, was the surgery that they performed in accordance with best medical practice at the time that it was performed, because obviously that things develop over time. The only way to determine that was to get another expert in that field to give an expert opinion, and I think that that’s something that’s typically lacking from an investigation within an organization is the idea that okay, we’ve had a, we’ve had a carpenter, we’ve had a machine operator who’s the subject of an investigation due to an incident, but let’s talk to another machine operator who wasn’t involved, might not even be aware of the incident, and just say, “Hey, what? What’s a normal day look like for you? What does good practice look like for you? What do you do when you’re presented with these types of challenges? And then eventually get to the point where you say, “What would you do in this circumstance that directly addresses that incident, and I think that that also gives an interesting perspective.

Nippin Anand 31:47
Absolutely, you know, there are many ways to deliver justice. It is possible, whether you look at how things usually go well, involve experts, independent advice outside of the line, getting to understand the rich context, and we touched upon some of these things. I think Desai, I do still think that no conversation on justice or just culture can ever get to justice or deliver justice if we are not prepared to listen to the voices of the powerless, you know, we, I go back to your situation when you won the hospital, the moment you are injured or moment you are lying on that bed, you are vulnerable and somebody else is more powerful than you, and and if you don’t recognize this equation, that you know, whenever we are, when things go wrong in an organization, somebody will be vulnerable by default, and somebody will be more powerful, and given that much of power is unconscious, you know, the people who are in the position of power are totally unconscious about it, then you know that they don’t think of themselves that they are doing something consciously. In fact, they do believe that they’re custodians of safety management system, and it’s their duty to deliver justice. So, they come from a position of power and authority, and with certain rules and regulations and procedures in mind. I think if we do not realize that they are at natural advantage and their job to start with is to listen, is to really listen to people involved in action without an agenda, keep your agenda aside and just listen to them. I think we can create any tool in the world into a political, weaponised tool against the marginalized, against the powerless. I think that is a very important thing for people to take to understand when they talk about justice and just culture. And unfortunately, most of our models and methods tend to assume otherwise, that there is no such power equation. They don’t even talk about

Desai Link 34:00
it’s absent, and you know, if I’ve been asked before, what’s some good questions to ask, because you know part of the book is talking about cross-examination questioning techniques, and the whole idea of a good interview with a witness, and you know, I’ve been asked, so what’s the best question to ask, and really, it’s not a question, it’s “please tell me your story, and then silence, and then active listening, and the best interview is is the one where the fewest questions are asked, and the person’s just able to tell their story in their own words and in their own time.

Nippin Anand 34:39
Yeah, yeah, I mean, I, you know, I’ve said this before, but I’ve had an instance where I was interviewing a Middle East worker, and that changed my perspective about just culture so much. I was interviewing this guy, and he was lying in the bed, he was, he had actually toppled off from the forklift and broken his leg this high, and I asked him, so what have you learned from this accident? Him and his first response was, what is there to learn, sir? It is, it was God’s will. Now, what is justice if we do not understand his understanding or his faith about what justice means to him? Justice and learning is submitting to his God, you know, his God. So, divinity is more important than anything else for him. So, how many accident investigators or senior leaders would be willing to accept that as a, as an explanation, you know? But, but that’s what it is. Just because you’re in a position of power, you’re telling me that your so-called root cause is more important than his prayer to his God, and I think that’s just arrogant, because we all know where the root cause goes when an accident investigation starts. It’s as unscientific as his faith in his God, when at least with him he knows it is faith. With us, we think it is science, and I think that’s something people need to think about.

Desai Link 36:02
Yeah, we there’s a, there’s an overconfidence, isn’t there, with the way it’s delivered.

Nippin Anand 36:07
Absolutely, I keep going back to the same thing, decide until we talk about power. Who has power and who’s powerless? Many of these conversations, we will, we will not be able to resolve, get much out of them, and I’m actually very surprised that there’s books written on just culture that do not discuss the nature of power at all. They tend to assume that both justice and power is power and culture is power neutral, and it’s.. it doesn’t make any sense to me.

Desai Link 36:36
That’s right. And conversely, when you read about books on justice from law, it’s they’re very conscious of the power that’s that’s involved.

Nippin Anand 36:45
Oh yeah, oh yeah, to

Desai Link 36:48
direct people to do things and to keep people in custody and to impose fines and injunctions, and that’s central. It’s a central thing.

Nippin Anand 36:57
Absolutely. Yes. Well, great. Great Congress. Is there anything else you would like to say as we close this wonderful conversation?

Desai Link 37:04
It has been great. I really appreciate it. I have so much more to say, and I would really welcome another opportunity to have a chat.

Nippin Anand 37:11
Shall we? Shall we continue this conversation? Then maybe this is the first part, and then we can build upon it as we go. I’m very interested to take this conversation with you in a more cultural, you know, we have talked about justice, and we’re just enough, but perhaps we need to now also talk about culture. Why the notion of culture is problematic also when we talk about just culture, because I think that could be another discussion, and I just started that with that little example of, you know, in one culture justice means submitting to God. So maybe we should build upon that as we move forward in this series. Yeah,

Desai Link 37:50
that would be great. And, but in light of this conversation, I have to caveat that I’m not an expert in culture, so

Nippin Anand 37:54
neither am I. So we can, we can just, just have a conversation. I think it’ll be brilliant, because the notion of what is right or wrong also varies as we move across cultures and so radically different and the culture of safety and risk is by and large based on the Western mythology and maybe this is a conversation that we need to have in the next discussion

Desai Link 38:24
sounds great. Let’s do

Desai Link 38:25
it.