Background (Q&A) about the Tennessee Board of Regents “Open Business Intelligence Initiative”

Last month at SunGard Higher Education’s annual conference or “Summit” in New Orleans a presentation was given on the Tennessee Board of Regents Open Business Intelligence (BI) Initiative http://bit.ly/hgs0YF. I’ve gotten requests for additional background information on the project which I’ve shared below. Your comments, ideas, and suggestions are always appreciated.

Description of the “Open BI Initiative.” How did it start?

This project was the result of an institutional effectiveness improvement initiative that began at Tennessee State University (TSU) and was subsequently expanded to encompass requirements for all Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR) institutions brought about by the Complete College Tennessee Act of 2010 (CCTA) TCA 49-8-101(c). The TBR system consists of six universities (including TSU), 13 community colleges, and 27 technology centers. TBR’s combined annual enrollment of over 200,000 students and a budget of $2.4 billion makes it is the nation's sixth largest system of public higher education.

Early in 2008 TSU engaged a third party consultant to identify the key performance indicators (KPIs) to track in order to improve institutional effectiveness. The process consisted of campus leadership interviews, review of institutional documents and plans (approx. 12 sources and plans including strategic and master plans), and research of external sources (SACS, NACUBO, IPEDS, THEC, NCAA, USN&WR, and other university dashboards). In the consultant’s final report to TSU (summer 2008), more than 200 KPIs were identified that crossed over 19 identified functional areas (approx. 180+ of the KPIs can be reported out of Banner). A complete list of the KPIs and the functional areas that are the focus of improvement can be found in .PDF format at: http://slidesha.re/9quuBL

In the spring of 2009, TSU and TBR entered into a partnership to develop the KPIs in the Consultant’s report by dedicating 1/5 time of 5 individuals to work with functional users to code and test the KPIs. In January of 2010, the project took on a new degree of urgency with the passage of the Complete College Tennessee Act of 2010. With CCTA, the funding formula for higher education previously based on enrollment headcounts changed to one that emphasizes student success and outcomes, including higher rates of degree completion. In addition, a zero-sum funding environment with no funding increases results in a reallocation of dollars from institutions with lower outcomes to institutions with higher student outcomes.

Based upon these developments, TBR and TSU “opened” the project up to any institution in or outside of the TBR system who wishes to participate. The only prerequisite is that the institution has to be a SunGard Higher Education Banner client that also uses ODS (Luminis preferable but not required) and the commitment is to develop 5 KPI’s every 90 days. As of this date there are now six institutions using and developing KPIs in and for the repository, with more expressing interest, making this a project that benefits multiple institutions.

What are the goals of your project?

The goals of this project have evolved over the 3+ years it has been in existence. As of this date, the six (6) major goals of the project are:

· Develop 180+ key performance indicators (KPIs), alerts, and dashboards to provide actionable intelligence on the efficiency and effectiveness of operations across 19 functional areas of focus for participating colleges and universities. These metrics are to be made available to all institutions that participate in the project so as to help institutions to improve institutional effectiveness and ­­­-- with respect to TBR institutions -- assist in better managing toward the requirements of the CCTA.

· Provide a secure and authoritative data management environment with complete and consistent data and metric algorithms that can be duplicated across the TBR enterprise or other institutions that use ODS/EDW.

· Portal/Web delivery of KPIs, alerts, dashboards, etc. to enhance institutional agility and decision making by ensuring that data is both accessible and transformed into actionable information in a timely manner.

· Enable participating campuses to push decision making down to the lowest logical level to avoid bottlenecks and allow acting on information in a timely manner.

· Attract/recruit additional institutions both in and outside of the TBR to participate in the project. BI projects are never completed and are always a work in progress. Additional talent and new perspectives can only increase the quality and quantity of valuable metrics that can be utilized by all institutions who participate to improve the effectiveness of their institution. A long term goal would be to explore with SunGard Higher Education the possibility of inclusion of the project into the SGHE Community Commons.

· Facilitate the development of “balanced scorecards” to be used by functional managers to keep track of the performance of activities by staff members within their responsibility and monitor any consequences that may arise from their actions.

What technologies are used for the project?

The project is based upon three technologies and development tools. A brief description and how they contributed to the project follow:

· Operational Data Store (ODS) – ODS is a companion product to Banner that is intended to provide a consistent view of institutional data across the enterprise for reporting purposes. Through an extract/transform/load (ETL) process, production data is extracted from Banner, transformed into “denormalized” tables, and then loaded into the ODS where it is presented to functional users using familiar business terms and definitions. This makes it easier for users to access the information they need for reporting, ad hoc queries, etc. without impacting the performance of the Banner production database. Since most universities and all community colleges in the TBR system use ODS, it was the logical choice upon which to build a major BI initiative since mapping data to KPIs is simplified by the ETL process and given the complexity of many of the KPI algorithms, performance of production Banner will not be impacted.

· Luminis – Luminis is a portal and web services environment that has been tailored to work with Banner and ODS. Again, Luminis is used by all TBR institutions making it the logical choice as the delivery mechanism for the KPIs, alerts, dashboards, etc. to executives and management alike. Its standards-based user authentication provides the level of security that was sought and delivers a consistent user experience that can be easily adapted by all participants in the project. Luminis also has the capability to build and manage communities, which is ideal for making it possible to “departmentalize” certain KPIs and build views targeted to certain constituents, such as presidents, provosts, vice presidents, etc. Lastly, the ability for users to contribute to wikis, have threaded discussions, and share resources and information was also seen as a plus for developing and documenting KPIs.

· Argos – Argos is a robust enterprise reporting software from the Evisions Corporation that is most effective for higher education reporting needs. Argos is easy to implement and easy to use for a wide variety of reporting needs -- from ad hoc reporting to advanced OLAP data cubes, as well as sophisticated dashboards and formatted reports. The Argos reporting tool contains an application program interface (API ) publishing feature that allows reporting solutions to be created and quickly shared with executive management across the campus. The Argos feature also allows end users to become self-sufficient for many of their own reporting needs, which can reduce the impact upon the information technology departments for attending to ad hoc reporting needs of their campus clients. Additionally, Argos has a lower cost of ownership than many business intelligence tools currently on the market while delivering enterprise-wide reporting solution across the campus.

It is important to note that institutions contemplating joining the initiative do not have to be Luminis or Argos users. Argos can generate SQL code that can be imported into other reporting tools, so any reporting software that can import SQL code can be used. Other portal solutions can be used as well. The strength of this project is that it identifies the data elements in Banner and ODS/EDW as well as the algorithm to calculate the KPIs.

What is innovative about the project?

TBR is utilizing a shared collaborative approach (unique for a BI initiative in higher education), where multiple colleges and universities (six as of this date) are involved in the development of the project. This approach is delivering the following overall benefits:

· Hard Cost Savings – Had this initiative gone out to a competitive bidding process, it is estimated that the development costs for a consultant led KPI development effort would be between $457K - $507K.

· Distribution of Soft Costs – The development of KPIs requires a significant investment on the part of an institution in soft costs in the form of technical and functional staff members both coding and testing the KPIs. Distributing the workload among multiple institutions ensures that no single institution is overburdened by the level of effort.

· Speed of Development – With multiple institutions working on the project, KPIs can be developed in parallel instead of serially reducing the time to completion of the project.

· KPI Quality – Involving multiple institutions in the effort enables management to identify and recruit the most talented staff members available to build out selected KPIs. E.g., an institution with exceptional staff in finance would be targeted for finance KPIs, whereas an institution with gifted staff in student affairs would likewise be requested to develop student KPIs. Additionally, with multiple institutions there are a larger number of technical and functional experts to poll and seek assistance, ideas and suggestions when issues arise, as well as a larger number of testers to assure better quality control.

A status report of the project that was originally presented to all TBR presidents and the Chancellor’s senior staff in August of last year can be found at: http://slidesha.re/gdijhx

How has the project impacted the organization?

The old management adage “You can’t manage what you don’t measure” is the fundamental crux of this project. Its intent is in delivering to the executive and management levels of functional areas across multiple institutions in the enterprise the tools necessary to measure and evaluate the effectiveness of their particular area(s) of responsibility. Unlike most software projects that only deliver on particular needs or requirements related to certain business needs or processes, this project is fundamentally at the core of leadership and management of an institution as it is all-encompassing and enables the multiple institutions that participate to address issues related to their functional investment portfolios, functional strategies, and even employee performance. Perhaps the ultimate impact has been that it is sending a message that measuring performance and outcomes has become an executive priority for the institutions, along with accountability for performance and outcomes.

What are some of the quantifiable measurements from the project?

It is important to note that at the outset of this project it was not intended to produce any particular outcome other than to provide the executives and management of participating campus a tool kit of KPIs that they could use to measure institutional effectiveness. Since the work product of this project is accessible to multiple colleges and universities, how the management on those campuses chooses to utilize the KPI toolkit can and will differ dramatically from campus to campus and their particular needs and mission.

The project has gone from zero (0) KPIs to monitor institutional effectiveness across 19 functional areas to an ever increasing inventory of KPIs (target 180+), all of which can be derived from Banner and the ODS. Interest in participating in the development of the KPIs has increased by 300%, and there is interest from additional institutions, both within and external to the TBR that will drive this number even higher. This would seem to be an indicator that the desire to better manage campus activities is becoming a priority with campus leadership, most likely due to tight budgets and legislative mandates.

A listing of the KPIs, complete with their category, descriptions, how calculated, units of measure, source, dimensions, and frequency can be found in .PDF format at: http://slidesha.re/9quuBL

Some examples of the KPIs developed can be found at: http://slidesha.re/hTLjE9

The number of KPIs by functional area are:

Access to Education - Distance Education	6
Access to Education - Financial	12
Admissions	15
Enrollment	16
Student Affairs	16
Graduation	10
Retention	3
Quality of Education	9
Program Management	3
Faculty and Staff	28
HR	2
Business & Finance	23
Development	18
Research & Sponsored Programs	13
President	6
CIT (Information Technology)	10
Facilities	4
Library	6
Athletics	11

Three examples of where KPIs are actively being used:

Graduation by Year and College within the University – For the period 2008 to 2009 the university combined graduation rates fell by 135 FTE or 7.96%. The following period 2009 to 2010 graduation rates increased by 42 FTE or 2.69%. The metrics enable college deans to track their graduation rates as compared to other colleges in the university and address issues.

New Freshman Enrollment by College – For the period 2009-10 new freshman enrollment in the College of Arts and Sciences (10.96% increase), College of Engineering (7.95% increase), and the School of Nursing (2.9% increase) indicated efforts to recruit into engineering and nursing were being successful without cannibalizing arts and sciences.

Revenue from Tuition by Term – Undergraduate out-of-state revenue, which the institution heavily relies upon, was demonstrated to be declining. Tracking revenue gains by all student types with undergraduate out-of-state student revenue growing by 2.52% and in-state students increasing by 6.34% and similar gains in graduate education demonstrated that efforts to reverse the decline were becoming successful.

Who can participate, what are the costs, and who should be contacted for additional information?

Any organization, consultancy, or vendor affiliated with SunGard Higher Education’s Banner ERP suite and ODS/EDW is welcome to join the effort. There are no costs to participate, and the only commitment is to help with the development of the KPIs that have been identified (and/or contribute additional KPIs that would be beneficial to the project).

For additional information, ideas, suggestions, and/or to join the initiative please feel free to leave a comment or send an e-mail.

Gauging Interest in a Multi-institutional Business Intelligence Initiative for Higher Education

Later this month SunGard Higher Education (SGHE) will have their annual conference or “Summit” in New Orleans, LA (March 20-23). I’m very much looking forward to this Summit for a couple of reasons. First we, that is the Tennessee Board of Regents (TBR) will be presenting our Open Business Intelligence (BI) Initiative. We’re calling it “open” because we don’t anticipate it will ever be completed and we want anyone in our system who shares our interest and passion in measuring institutional effectiveness to join us in this initiative. My second and more important motivation for attending though is that we want to float a trial balloon of exploring with institutions outside of the TBR their interest in joining the initiative as well.

The old business school adage “You can’t manage what you don’t measure” is the fundamental driver for this project. Its intent is to continually deliver to the executive and management levels of all functional areas across multiple institutions in the TBR enterprise the tools necessary to measure and evaluate the effectiveness of their particular area(s) of responsibility. It was derived out of a consulting engagement that identified more than 200 key performance indicators (KPIs) that crossed over 19 discrete functional areas, and is being built out of SunGard Higher Education’s Banner® ERP system and their operational data store (ODS).

We’re using a shared collaborative approach where colleagues from multiple colleges and universities (six as of this date) are involved in the development of the KPIs that have been identified in the $200K consulting engagement for the project. Since estimates for a consultant lead effort to build out the KPIs have ranged from $400K - $500K, those who join in the initiative will eventually benefit from a project that would conservatively cost any single institution somewhere in the neighborhood of $600K - $700K.

So … the purpose of this blog is to try to gauge interest in and perhaps attract/recruit additional institutions both in and outside of the TBR to participate in this Open BI project. Additional talent and new perspectives can only increase the quality and quantity of valuable metrics that can be utilized by all institutions who participate to improve the effectiveness of their institution. Initially, the thought is that participation would only require a commitment by an institution to building out at least 5 KPIs. Some briefing/background materials on the project can be found at: http://bit.ly/i9UUUc

If you will be attending the Summit please meet with our project lead on March 23^rd at 11:00 AM when she will present “Tennessee Board of Regents Business Intelligence Initiative (5010).” If you cannot attend but are still interested in learning more please contact me and we can perhaps arrange a phone call or even a webinar for after the Summit. We look forward to providing you additional information and an opportunity to convince you to join us!

Why Should Vendors Help Cost Analysts with Studies Regarding Budgetary Proposals?

Recently I was working on a cost analysis project to determine the rough order of magnitude (ROM) estimates for numerous elements of a rather large software development project. The ultimate goal was to develop a budgetary proposal to seek funding for the project. ROM estimates are useful where the project is in the planning stages and requirements are not specified in great detail. My approach was to use a variation of the actual cost estimation methodology by contacting vendors to ask them to provide costing data based upon their experiences with similar projects.

Thirty-five organizations were identified and contacted with ultimately 15 responding. This represented a 43% participation rate which I was happy with. However, during the course of contacting vendors and collecting data a question came up on more than one occasion (always from organizations that I had never worked with before) which was something along the lines of: “Why should I help you with your study?” It’s a question that has come up in past costing projects, and I feel I still haven’t come up with a really compelling response. So I’ve decided to use the power of the blog to attempt to identify as many reasons as I possibly could and to seek the ideas and input of others as well. I’d greatly appreciate your comments, thoughts, and suggestions about the five reasons I’ve listed below as well as your help in identifying the many I certainly have missed …

New business leads – Chances are the consulting firm doing the budgetary study contacted you and not the other way around. When they contacted you they were working for a company that represents a potential new client to you or they wouldn’t have contacted you in the first place. Additionally, and more importantly, by assisting the firm with their study, when they do similar projects in the future they are far more likely to contact you again if you have been helpful to them in the past. Thus there is the potential for new business now and additional leads in the future.

An inside scoop on a new business opportunity – The budgetary study may or may not eventually lead to a request for proposal (RFP) opportunity. Nevertheless, should an RFP be issued you will have a lot of information far in advance of your competition who did not participate in the budgetary study. This will enable you to respond more quickly, accurately, and with far more insight into the project than if you were just seeing the requirements for the first time. Your proposal has the potential of being of better quality because of your participation.

A third party introduction to a potential new client instead of a cold call – Nearly everyone would agree that the most desirable way of gaining new clients is through an introduction by a third party that the potential new client values and respects as opposed to contacting them independently with “cold calls.” The consulting firm that is performing the budgetary study most likely has earned the trust and respect of the potential new client as demonstrated by their receiving the business to perform the study. Your providing information to the firm will typically result in your organization being cited in their report as an organization that contributed to the report by providing information, expertise, guidance, etc. This constructively serves as an introduction to the potential client and tends to indicate that the firm respects your contributions enough to include them in their report. An added benefit is that by being listed in the report, you most certainly will be on the list to receive a RFP should one be issued.

A better understanding of budgetary estimating and the potential new client – Participating in the process itself can be both educational and useful for obtaining future business. These types of studies differ from traditional RFPs and RFIs in that there are no procedural or legal obstacles to prevent you from asking as many “relevant” questions as you like. Bear in mind that the firm doing the study can only provide you information that they are aware of or is relevant to the study, but they may share their perspective on the project. After all, if it was important enough to hire a firm to do a cost study, it may very well be worth your time to learn more by participating. In any event it is a great opportunity to learn what the process is all about and develop internal processes for responding in the future, regardless if an RFP is issued or not.

The Vendor Perspective – How many times have you as a vendor asked a potential client when requested to respond to an RFI/RFP: “What’s the budget?“ The whole point of your organization being contacted to participate in this process is to seek your expertise on what that budget should be. Your opinion, coupled with the opinions of other respondents (typically anonymously with respect to their estimates) will be used to determine a realistic budget for the project. Without the cooperation of vendors it can be difficult to determine a budget that is reasonable. So if you don’t contribute … please understand you may be the problem if you’re later faced with a potential client with high expectations but not enough funding to bring them to fruition.

Please share your comments?

Establishing ERP Implementation Principles and Desired Outcomes?

Earlier today I participated in a webinar sponsored by the Center for Digital Research and Converge Magazine. I was asked to share some of the lessons learned from ERP implementations along with ways to leverage an implementation to derive the most business value out of it. At one point I mentioned that a recent project was governed by the most senior of campus officials and a set of 9 principles that were adopted by the governance group. After the completion of the webinar I was asked if I would mind sharing what those principles were; they are reproduced below.

Recognizing that these principles along with their accompanying desired outcomes were created almost six years ago, I started to think what if anything would be changed, added, or deleted if they were written for an ERP implementation today? I would welcome your thoughts, ideas, and suggestions as to how they might be enhanced for the ERP challenges of today.

I. PRINCIPLE: This is a business realignment project with the focus on providing 21st century services to students, faculty and staff as well as providing the technological infrastructure upon which the educational tools and services of tomorrow can be built. Today’s students expect an environment that enables them to find information and to self-manage their experiences with our institutions. Desired outcomes:

• Flexibility in course offerings and scheduling.
• Improved planning and decision making capabilities for classes, HR/Payroll, finance, financial aid, marketing, and program offerings.
• Enhanced reputation for student centric support (24x7 access to virtual business services, their faculty, and essential learning tools).
• Ability to reach benefits, budgets, expenditures, revenue, etc. on-line.
• Ability to quickly adapt to future needs.
• Enable information from data.

II. PRINCIPLE: Customization at the system and campus levels must be minimized, and considered only where there is a statutory requirement or a business case that benefits the system as a whole. Shadow systems should be eliminated completely. Desired outcomes:

• Financial savings in the reduction of existing customization where possible and the elimination of the creation and maintenance of shadow systems.
• An understanding of the real costs versus the perceived value of shadow systems and other third party software.
• Significant reduction in the time to take advantage of features in new software releases.
• Greatly reduced risk in the installation of new software releases.
• Elimination of errors and inconsistencies in reporting brought about by shadow systems.

III. PRINCIPLE: Any options which can reduce the overall one-time and recurring costs for the ERP system must be considered. Desired outcomes:

• Cost analysis of the true cost of ownership.
• An understanding that there isn’t any competitive advantage for any TBR institution to continue to operate its own administrative systems in a silo.
• An understanding of the tremendous competitive advantage in redirecting any cost savings we can realize into expanding our academic programs, research, and outreach services.
• Better understanding of the risks through their analysis.
• Better network management and proactive monitoring.

IV. PRINCIPLE: Campuses and the system office will need to commit the necessary human resources to design, implement and test the system in a timely and efficient manner, with the understanding that it will require the dedication of many of their best “key” staff members. Desired outcomes:

• Historical perspective of current business practices.
• Willingness to seek out best practices and to improve present practices, with a goal not be to replicate the way business has been done in the past nor to modify the new system to sustain our historical business practices.

V. PRINCIPLE: We will choose our project leaders, steering committee members, etc. wisely and empower them to make the necessary decisions. At the same time ensuring that all interested parties understand that these decisions must be entrusted to those so empowered for the project to be successful and that we must accept and support their decisions. And those decisions must be made within the values set by the Steering Committee and quickly so that the project stays on time and in budget. Desired outcomes:

• Adoption of a rapid implementation methodology.
• Creation of a rapid decision making processes with 24 hour turnaround on every issue.
• Accountability and senior level reporting.
• Management of the change process and not allowing significant changes to either the software or the calendar.

VI. PRINCIPLE: Consistent data structures are essential. Access to information between campuses and the TBR must be governed by security policies and operational procedures and policies, and not limited by the design of the architecture of the ERP system. Desired outcomes:

• Adoption of common chart of account, data dictionary and “best practices.”
• Creation of a formal and informal technical knowledge transfer network.
• Technical training programs which can be used across all campuses.
• Better trained work force that can support other campuses when the need arises.
• The establishment of a common data warehouse and consistent reporting requirements to populate that warehouse.

VII. PRINCIPLE: Though processes and procedures need not be identical on each campus they must be sufficiently similar to remain within the common academic and business services and framework of the TBR. Thus data elements, screens, scripts, etc. should generally have the same meaning, look, and feel across the TBR. Desired outcomes:

• Adoption of functional “best practices” (learn from within, learn from others outside TBR).
• Create a formal and informal functional knowledge transfer network.
• Functional training programs which can be used across all campuses.
• Better trained work force that can support other campuses when the need arises.

VIII. PRINCIPLE: ERP systems do not eliminate people/positions. The project is not an employee reduction effort but rather a staff development process to provide enhanced services. A new ERP system can enable employees to acquire new software tools/business skills which will make it possible for them to work at a higher skill level. Desired outcomes:

• Shifting staff time to problem solving and higher priority concerns rather than transactional and “heads down” activities.
• Staff focusing on value added functions with high touch and high customer service rather than on low value and invisible back office data entry.
• Higher skilled workforce where decisions and accountability can be pushed down to the operational levels.
• Professional growth and advancement opportunities for staff.
  

IX. PRINCIPLE: Communications, education & awareness, and marketing plans, geared toward a broad range of constituents, should be prepared and delivered on a frequent basis, along with relevant measures of progress. Leadership must require a regular and visible progress reporting and feedback mechanism. Desired outcomes:

• Constituents developing a better appreciation for the project and its objectives.
• Valuable feedback giveing project management another pulse of how the project is progressing, thus enabling them to head off problems before they have a serious impact.

The “Good and Bad” of Peer/Aspirational Facilitated IT Assessment?

Recently I witnessed a listserv thread about performing an assessment of information technology for a college or university. Originally the request was for names of consultancies that perform such services with the dialogue morphing into a suggestion of asking peer and/or aspirational institutions to visit the campus as a team to do the assessment. Having participated in consultant and peer/aspirational led assessments in the past, I started thinking about the positives and negatives of each approach and began to try to catalog them as best I could:

Costs: Peer/Aspirational led assessments will most likely be the most cost effective. Even if the team members are paid a small honorarium along with expenses it will still be significantly less than contracting for a professional consultancy.

Technical Expertise: I’m somewhat undecided on if one would bring more expertise than the other, but I would tend to think that the consultancy would bring more expertise to the table than a peer led approach because of the volume they will have with technology refreshes. Peers/aspirants swap out technology typically after it has been depreciated whereas consultants primarily work with customers on new technology projects practically on a daily basis. This constant exposure to new technology would suggest the consultant has an advantage. Nevertheless, educational institutions are in the researching technology business, so there could be exceptions to this generality.

Organizational Issues: Personnel costs are typically the largest cost driver in an IT organization, not technology. Additionally, dysfunctional IT organizations are usually dysfunctional because of personnel issues and not technology. I would tend to think that consultancies are in a better position to identify and make recommendations on organizational issues than peer/aspirant led assessments based upon their greater experience in dealing with large numbers of customers, along with matters related to candor discussed below.

Commitment/Thoroughness: Who will do the better job: the professional consultant or the volunteer peer/aspirant? I would think that assessment isn’t the core competency of the peer/aspirant whereas it is for the consultant. Peers are learning on the job while professionals come to the job with many assessments behind them, along with a methodology for conducting, scoring, etc. I’m not convinced the volunteer peer/aspirant would or could be as thorough or committed to the assessment as the professional.

Candor/Discretion: My inclination is to think that the consultant is going to be more candid about the problems in an organization than a colleague, especially as they relate to personnel issues, management style, etc. I would also imagine consultants are better prepared in how to break disturbing news and proposing solutions than colleagues who you’ll run into time and time again at meetings, symposiums, and the like. Finally, if there are major problems, is it really a good idea to air such dirty laundry with colleagues?

I recognize I’m most likely missing a lot and have perhaps oversimplified in many respects. So … what’s your opinion? I welcome your thoughts and commentary on the strengths and weaknesses of each approach. Consultants are especially encouraged to comment!