Rob Zochowski
Rob Zochowski is the President and Chief Executive Officer at The International Foundation for Valuing Impacts. He was previously the Program Director for Impact Investing and Sustainability Special Projects at Harvard Business School. Rob has extensive experience in investment product innovation, strategy and development, and private wealth management. He has also consulted with various organizations and received his MBA from Columbia Business School with a concentration in social enterprise and impact investing.
There are some impact purists who will say nothing is impact except if there is a very clear additionality. Right. So under that definition, nothing in the public markets fits that because if I sell it, somebody else buys it. Right? I think we're moving away from that a little bit, right? And more and more, we're thinking about specific impact for that company or that investment. But if we think of impact as a change in an outcome for an external stakeholder, then there is that ability through public markets by investing with a company. A lot of organizations don't just say it's their investment. It's how they vote proxies, it's their shareholder engagement, it's all of those things, and they're helpful in steering the company.
— Rob Zochowski
Interview transcript
To start, I'll introduce myself and then we can move on to your background and path towards making an impact. I'm Italian, as you might hear from my accent, and I've spent around 30 years in the field of innovation and sustainability. My focus has been on creating products and services that have a positive impact on the environment and humanity, while also regenerating the ecosystem. I've worked as a consultant, balancing my time between academia and industry, and enjoy educating people who come from diverse backgrounds like law, finance, architecture, design, and engineering. I help them develop creative strategies to tackle today's biggest challenges. When I refer to design, I don't necessarily mean the design of a physical product, but rather strategic and creative thinking to solve problems.
During my path, I've been fortunate to meet people like Luis Javier Castro, the founder of the Mesoamerica venture capital fund in Latin America, who has been active in creating impact through his venture. He's now transforming himself into an impact investment profile and working alongside Brian Gallagher, the former president and CEO of United Way. Together with Javier, they're exploring innovative ways of creating impact through finance. We're looking at how to finance the gap between having a great intention and actually creating impact in the most effective way possible. Instead of creating another impact fund vehicle, they decided to use the design process to rethink the way impact should be financed. We're talking to people in the field and gathering insights to understand the donor and receiving side, as well as the third parties involved. Our goal is to identify opportunities to create more effective ways of financing impact, especially using digital technologies like blockchain and other platforms. They've identified 25 people around the world to have conversations with online to learn from their experiences and gather insights. In a couple of weeks, Diana and the rest of the team will come up with findings to identify areas in the ecosystem of impact investment where a creative process could be applied to rethink the way things are done. We're using creativity and design to rethink the problem before jumping into the usual solutions. That's why we're here. I hope this gives you some context.
No, it absolutely gave me a lot of context and you both have a big impact. Simona, you have done a huge amount in your career as well. So your earlier statement is a huge compliment to me. As for my background, I started my career at Goldman Sachs, specifically in private wealth management at GS, then moved over to GSAM (Goldman Sachs Asset Management) and held about four different roles while I was there. Between 2012 and 2019, I got to work on a number of cross-cutting projects and also helped start and build up a business area in third-party distribution. I learned a lot, but every time I would get a new job or something, about six to eight months into it, there would be this sort of feeling that I'd finish a huge project and then it would just go out into the world, and there would be nothing tangible to show for it. So I kept thinking about this. Before I went to college, in high school, if you read my college applications, you would think I was going to be a doctor. For a number of relatively silly reasons, looking back, but at the time, they seemed like insurmountable things, so I decided not to pursue that path. Anyway, I did an MBA on the weekends and nights during my last two years at Goldman, and I basically cobbled together a major for myself with a focus on nonprofit management and impact. I took everything and sat in on every lecture that had to do with this space. I was very lucky that an MBA colleague of mine had just moved to Boston and was working with George Sarafem, who was opening up an impact-weighted accounts project. She saw that he was looking for a director and encouraged me to apply. George Sarafem sold me on this idea that a lot of people think what we want to do is impossible, like actually valuing impacts and creating a holistic view of corporate or investment performance, but he thought we could do it and that it could change the world. I was in, so I moved my whole life to Boston, convinced my husband, and the cat had to come along too, but she didn't have a choice. From 2019 onward, I worked there and was also asked to manage other impact projects in private markets. We had an amazing team that I can credit with writing a lot of those papers and research. At Harvard, our mandate was to prove feasibility rates, so we did a number of analyses around our corporate estimates of environmental performance, employment performance, or product employment, compared to things like the ratings from Sustainalytics or MSCI. We found significantly more decision usefulness for market materiality elements and higher correlation. We are on the back of the G7 impact task force report, which was released in December of 2021, which called for impact accounting as a destination. We took stock and asked ourselves if we could do all this, and the answer was no. We needed to scale and get more independence. Harvard was a wonderful platform, but we needed more independence and staffing. We looked at a number of different structures and mergers, and we formally spun out the whole team and all the IP in December of 2022. So we are now an independent organization, and I serve as the executive director for it.
That's a fantastic story, and very contemporary in terms of innovation. It's a beautiful tale. I do have some questions about your intrapreneurial journey, but I want to start with the reason why we are here. Diana, if you have any comments on my description of the journey so far, please feel free to share them. Otherwise, I am happy to proceed with my questions. I didn't want to interrupt you if you had any questions of your own.
Okay, great. So, Rob, Patrick suggested that we talk to you due to your expertise. However, I prefer to have a conversation with you that is not too deep into the technicalities of impact investment, as we can read about that elsewhere. I would love for you to guide us more on the psychological and behavioral aspects of people deciding to invest for impact. What motivates them to put their money on the impact side versus not doing it?
Before we get there, could you tell us the story of how you ended up in Boston? What was the moment or the epiphany that made you move there? I'm sure the job was appealing, but what happened inside of you that made you want to spend your time on things that matter and create impact? Was there a particular dynamic that motivated you?
Yeah. I mean, I loved my time at Goldman. Like I said, there kept being this sort of itch of like, "Is there something, you know, like more right, or like something like that?" It just didn't give me the feeling that I'd worked super hard on a project. I'd be so proud of it, and then I would do it, and I was proud of it. But I didn't feel that like viscerally. Right? It didn't feel like I had made a massive sort of difference. Right? And massive, right? That maybe that's an overstatement, but like, and so I guess my thought was, "I'm sure, as great as I think I am, you know, whatever, you know, whatever. But even on my last day, right? I'm sure four weeks after I left, there was some other eager person to sit in that seat at Goldman. And so, you know, I would say, in the role, I was still working with the very bad, like the wealthiest, most well-connected clients. That's who we really serve, right? And so, there's this beautiful phrase that says, "What will you do with your one beautiful, marvelous life, right? Or something like that?" And then it just kept building up, right? I said, "I want to do something that feels additional and feels like, you know, sort of, like, you know, and frankly, right, like, I think even we've just had a big bank collapse here in the US, but like, even if Goldman Sachs didn't exist, right, it would be disruptive. But those clients, there would be other banks lining up to help those clients." And so that was a little bit of what drove me, and in this space, I felt like, do I have such sort of hubris to say like, I was the only one who could do this? No, but I was, you know, I was willing to write, I took a pay cut and, you know, like, but it was so worth it to me and I had to move and uproot my life. But the reward I get from doing this work at the end of the day, right? Just like every job, there are frustrations, but like, I actually feel like I am doing something really interesting. It could potentially help to change the economy and how it functions. And I love the conversations that I'm having every day, right? Things about worker equity, fairness, and sustainability. So that really just drives me.
This is inspiring. Let's quote someone who was interviewed: "So if we move into more like, you know, let's say that there is the word and actually I want to just quote someone we just interviewed with – Kusi from Dalhberg, he just wrote a book that we will, it's called 'Scaling Impact'.
When I had to meet him and have this kind of conversation, I always felt like I was no one in this field and I was talking to the experts. So I needed to find a bridge. Even before doing all this storytelling as a live video, I said that I know nothing about finance. I just started by having him introduce himself. I asked him why he landed on impact and so on. He made me feel so at ease and so comfortable. I asked him, you know, what is the impact for you? And he said: 'Well, basically Simona, sorry if I'm explaining it in a very simple way, but since I was a child, I've realized that in the world, there are people with a lot of wealth, and there is a lot of richness, and there are resources, and there are people who are very poor, and so on. And I always found that very unfair. And so I wanted to spend my time on it. Because ultimately, it goes back to that, isn't it like, in terms of having agency and creating new vehicles and understanding how we could unlock more impact in the world or more like financial possibilities for impact to happen? In the end, isn't it about that? Like there are situations, people, organizations with funds, there are communities, projects, initiatives, you name it, that need funds to create impact? So what's the psychology of not doing? Why do people who could potentially use their resources to support impact not do it? And once again, I'm very much on the behavioral side of psychology. It's something that is not just to do with the fact that they want to return on the money. I mean, that's the super clear one, but what's happening there?"
So, you know, it may be a little reductionist, but I think people are for a certain thing. There's this group called the Pre-Distribution Initiative that I know the founder of well, and they are thinking of a few things. Our expectations, right? I think a lot of the culture we have, especially in wealthy societies, is 'more is better'. Right? So, if I have $10 million, I learned that actually working in private wealth, some of the most unhappy people I met were our clients, right? And they had tons of money. My boss one time called up this client, who was always unhappy and said, "You have $50 million liquid, right? You have a beautiful apartment, and are you ever gonna be happy?" And he said, "No, because it's not 60 million. It's not 70." There was even this competitiveness around people sitting around at some of these events and saying, "My investment manager got me 9%." That's right. It's one of the reasons I think Bernie Madoff was able to go as long as he did because he was offering these unbelievable returns. I think there's another psychological thing, I think on one end, we are sort of conditioned to seek that return, right? And I think a lot of people are worried that there's a very heavily cruel form of capitalism in the United States, which is basically that the company's only responsibility is to its shareholders. Right? If you look back at the earlier part of the last century, corporations actually provided generous pensions to their employees, many places would also build housing for employees, like there was a little bit more of a sense of responsibility. And that was also on the other side, the employee then would spend their whole career there. That system is really sort of broken, there's really not, there's sort of understood minimal duties as an employee to your company, right? But also, the company to the employees. Shareholders say, or people who are potential investors say: "There has to be a catch, right? Like, you can't do good, right, you can't raise employee wages and not take away something from my pocket." And I think that's a little bit of a short term view. A lot of research and thinking in the impact space is that there's actually well, and there's been empirical studies of comparing Costco versus Walmart. Costco has much better employee benefits and pay, but because of that, their employees stay much longer, and it turns out, they're much more efficient. So they end up earning more revenue, but it's a longer term investment and co-creation of value. The organization that I was talking about, the Pre-Distribution Initiative, is doing a lot of thinking about how our expectations for returns are way too high. Effectively, what organizations have been doing and investors have been getting is they've only been paying half their bills. The simplest example is if my personal finances would look much better if I didn't have to pay my taxes every year. But taxes are a part of life, right? Some of the work that we're trying to do is get a more comprehensive view of that. I'll say one other thing. In the US, there is a belief that this is the land of opportunity, and if you're poor, it's your own fault. It underlies and underpins a huge amount of conversation around social programs, the duties of the government and people, and taxation. The wealthiest feel like they earned their money and it's theirs, and you can't give it to those people who are just lazy. It really blocks us from looking at systemic inequality.
You mentioned that sometimes people have expectations of returns that are too high. I find that statement interesting. From the work you've done so far, how do people balance short-term returns versus long-term impacts? I ask because we also spoke to someone at Fidelity about sustained investments. It was fascinating to hear him talk about the volatility involved in sustainable investments. Some investors prefer stable returns and dislike volatility, but that's not always possible. How do investors react to this and navigate that tension?
Yeah. So one thing, and this is not related to the impact, but rather one of the other projects we're working on with Wharton. We've gone out and talked to many investors and asked them to fill out a survey. One thing that makes me nervous is that a lot of impact has been sold around. I'm not totally convinced that in the long term there is... [non-audible conversation in the back]. Well, I don't think that it has to mean no return impact, right? But if your base condition is "I get to exploit the earth and take as much as I can as quickly as I can," and then that paradigm changes, it fundamentally changes the business cost structure. So I think returns will go down. Where I was going is that the impact industry has sold a lot of ideas, and a lot of money has moved into this space. I used to hear most investors talk about slightly concessionary returns or things like that. Now, I'm overwhelmingly hearing that you can get market-rate returns with impact. They often talk about unicorn companies with co-linearity, where you're delivering the product, and the more product you deliver, the more impact you have. That's a very specific condition, and it's also very sector-specific. Many impact investors are classifying all healthcare as impactful. That's not to say healthcare isn't impactful, but I'm also hard-pressed to say that all healthcare is impactful. For example, investing in a group of plastic surgery clinics in LA is not truly impactful. However, I'm not saying all plastic surgeries are not impactful. Plastic surgery helps victims of accidents, burns, and other things in tremendous ways, but we need to be more specific about what we mean by "impactful.”
Yeah, we see that a lot too. Right. One of the things that concerns me is that, and that's not to say that they're all like that. I'm not trying to paint the field as all deliberately greenwashing. But there is greenwashing or whatever washing you want to say that exists. I worry that I worked on a product years ago called Liquid Alternatives. They were a UCITS fund vehicle in the EU and a 40x mutual fund vehicle in the US, which were generally much more regulated to make them safe for everyday, non-expert investors. The idea was that you could do a lot of hedge fund strategies in those structures and see similar returns. One company sold $30 billion for this fund, but it was not like most hedge funds. Most hedge funds are meant to do with volatility diversified and a beta diversifier. This fund sold the product wrong, and it returned what it was a model two, so like 3 or 4%. People were expecting it to do more, and almost overnight, the sector disappeared. Nobody wanted to talk about the asset class. I'm very conscious of that. This is some of the project work that we were doing. Let's characterize what is impact and what actual realistic returns are because it's actually very hard to get data on it and look at it. We don't have a field that has tremendous potential to change lives but yet hurt because of incorrect expectations.
I'm sorry I'm going into the weeds here.
No, no, no, it's interesting. The question was about balancing the act between short-term and long-term goals. So..
I have a quick follow-up question: Do you see any differences between public and private markets in the impact space? I've heard different things, like there's more concentration and it's easier to operate in the private sector. However, when it comes to the public sector, there are crowdfunding platforms, but they are still relatively immature. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.
And I was just talking about this with somebody who's been in the impact space for years, actually, just yesterday. There are some impact purists who will say nothing is impact except if there is a very clear additionality. Right. So under that definition, nothing in the public markets fits that because if I sell it, somebody else buys it. Right? I think we're moving away from that a little bit, right? And more and more, we're thinking about specific impact for that company or that investment. But if we think of impact as a change in an outcome for an external stakeholder, then there is that ability through public markets by investing with a company. A lot of organizations don't just say it's their investment. It's how they vote proxies, it's their shareholder engagement, it's all of those things, and they're helpful in steering the company. But I will say, I think there's a lot more dollars. So that traditionally led to a dichotomy. ESG is all public markets and impact is in the private markets. You also have just a lot more control in the private markets, usually.
Sorry, I have two or three questions. I'm trying to determine what's best. Anyway, you have extensive knowledge and experience, and you've identified a clear path to assessing impact. You found that we need new tools and methodologies in this area, and you're developing them. What other two areas do you believe require innovation in financing impact? I prefer the term "financing impact" to "impact investing." We need to unlock much more potential. Measuring impact is critical, and we still lack clear metrics. What other two areas would you suggest exploring for innovation? If you had a magic wand, what two areas would you choose to work your magic on?
Yeah, great question. Give me a second to think about it.
Yeah, of course. Take your time.
I think, I mean, I think raise awareness and education.., right. It sounds really basic, but helping helping people to understand, right that like, you know,
I'm so happy you say that!
Yeah, okay, good. Helping people to understand the world seems very individualistic today. It's sort of each person for themselves. I think the US is an extreme example of that, but even in Europe, and in different ways, framing it in a way of collective responsibility is helpful. Managing expectations is also important. Metrics and measurement are obviously big ones. I'm really interested in your idea of coming at this from a design perspective because a lot of what has been done in impact has been taken from the venture financing world and adapted. But I don't know if someone has come in and said, "This is the most impactful." One of my board members is Tracy Palandjian, who is the founder of Social Finance, which really pushed for social impact bonds and outcome-based financing. This was a way of shifting the risk from the government to investors who know how to manage social programs much better. But I think there's a tremendous amount more that could be done, and looking at it from an outside perspective could be helpful.
Super interesting, thank you! That's exactly the kind of zooming gap questions we wanted to ask you. In fact, we felt that one of our first assumptions is that we should really focus on creating awareness and education because people might not act, even those people who want more than 50 million, they're not happy and want 60 million. There also might be a lack of awareness of what could be the alternative, not financially, but more like what it would mean for them and for people. Are they really aware of the challenges and what kind of feedback loop they would need, how to engage or feel connected, and so on? It seems like many of the people we interviewed who decided at some point in their life to donate their entire wealth or significant parts of it to purpose-driven initiatives were often related to a specific moment, a specific epiphany, getting to know a community, understanding a problem, or a challenge that someone was facing in that exact moment and feeling like, "I want to participate, I want to have an agency, I want to create impact." So I'm glad you mentioned awareness and education because we believe there is a lot to it. People keep doing what they do because they don't know alternatives. I mean, even when we go to a restaurant or when we go out, it's easy to go with what you know, you don't take risks, and so on. You talked about social investment, and we call it social impact. Yeah, the founder of the personal…
Oh, Tracy Palandjian. It's called social finance international
Yes. One of the assumptions of this project is that we can learn from the dynamic of collective impact, which involves many stakeholders and partners from different backgrounds coming together to achieve a specific goal, often in the realm of social impact. Our question is whether we can transfer this dynamic into the finance world. We are particularly interested in identifying opportunities and barriers to multi-stakeholder action in the investment field, with the goal of making it more informative, effective, and overall better.
Can you share with us situations or cases where you have seen different stakeholders working together towards impact? We are especially interested in understanding how the receiving side, such as communities, individuals, NGOs, and organizations receiving funds, can be more engaged in decision-making and governance, and more involved in the dynamic of impact investment or financing impact. If you have any interesting cases to share, we would love to hear them.
Yeah, so. I've seen... Let me answer the second question first, which is, this is a big thing that comes up in our space, right? Of like valuation, right? How are you getting this valuation? Are you, you know, Rob's Kowski sitting in Boston, trying to make a determination about cultural or sort of like, invite, you know, all of these changes in outcomes and well-being for somebody who lives in Sub-Saharan Africa, right? Like, we might have very different signs on these things, right? But there's also, right? Like, sometimes you need to. Sometimes we often impose our own sort of five DS, and I think this is this, there's been criticism of like the DFIs for doing some, you know, this of like, imposing our own expectations, our own values, and norms onto others, right? And so, having inclusive stakeholders, sort of processes to actually understand what is needed, what is wanted, right? You know, what sort of innovation is, you know, or like outcomes do people want? It's very easy to take a sort of Western or democratic view to these things or it's sort of the norm. But I think that the way to make things even more stakeholder resonant is to include them in the design process or ensure that your development process includes some stakeholder sampling, right? It's never going to be exhaustive, but, you know, some sort of sampling from it. Where have I seen organizations come together? I mean, I think that there's the UN PRI, the principles for responsible banking, right? There are some of these, you know, norms. I mean, the UN SDGs is probably one of the bigger items but where it's come up though, I often think some of those are overly used and leaned upon. You know, we're also seeing some organizations gather like in join like the net zero Alliance. And, you know, organizations come together some public-private partnerships. So where a foundation will and this has often been some of the like World Bank or IFC will kind of foundation or the IFC will provide the first last tranche in order to write two bills to sort of guarantee the first losses, and then that incentivizes investors who are a little bit less or a little more risk-averse, right? Or want a slightly higher return but it's more to actually give that dampen the volatility that I've seen work as well. I don't have more specific cases that will give it some thought.
Sure, there's a lot of work to be done in the space of aligning people and making it as simple as possible to join. Creating a true ecosystem of amenities is the key, with not all of them focused on return or looking for the same sort of win from operations. We believe that by creating more ownership and engagement on the receiving side, we can create more sustainable projects and initiatives in the long term. Often, these projects and initiatives come to a halt once funds run out, due to a lack of ownership, engagement, and agency from the receiving side.
Yeah
Okay, so this is the very last question before we let you get back to your day. Specifically, we want to know what you do on a daily basis and what you find the most interesting aspects of assessing impact. Additionally, what do you think still needs to be done in your field? Looking ahead to the next three years, where do you see opportunities to add value or create innovative solutions? It doesn't have to be a radical innovation, but where do you believe your skills are most needed?
Yeah, I mean, there's I could go so deep but at the...
No, but you can, here you can you can go
Unknown Speaker 44:56
My summary is that I want to change the way decisions are being made. Right? Even given all of the metrics, right, and all the data, which we're still far from that place, right, adult believe that it's sort of. So most boards in the, you know, the biggest company of the publicly traded companies are comprised of people who were excellent in their field, you know, in their particular field. Those companies and those boards are net, excuse me, you're being asked to make decisions that they've never made before. Right? They've never made a net zero commitment, right? They've never made a living wage commitment. And right, or a supply chain diversity commitment or things like that, right, and then implemented those, right. And we live in a world of finite resources, right, and time is the most scarce of all right, and there's only so much like, you know, management attention that can go to this, you know, in each year, right. And so, I think a lot of the times, it comes down to personal values, right? It comes down to what's like the biggest buzzword in the sort of eco system, or Twitter verse, you know, today, right, and so, but I would love to what I think the potential power of our work is, is it translates disparate impacts, right? So company reports, 100 million metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions? Well, intuitively, you know, I'm putting myself in their thing, right? Intuitively, I know that, you know, greenhouse gas emissions, having zero is probably better, right. But we're at $24 billion company, right? Is 100 million, a lot, or is it not? It's not pretty good, right? How do I then even compare, right? So even understanding that, I mean, think about like, fine particulate matter pollution, versus like, and how do you weigh those those consequences of focusing on one versus the other? In my ideal view, they are using our methodology to come up with comparable estimates, right, for what the impact would be, and what the sort of, you know, impact return on investment would be and using it at at nothing, you know, if nothing else to minimize negative externality, but hopefully to actually identify opportunities for positive impacts and things like that. So I would love to write I don't know that we'll get a regulatory mandate in three years. But if we could demonstrate meaningful, so it's possible, right, but if we could get meaningful, sort of changes in.. and not just at the board level, right? There's decisions being made every single day by managers and Division Heads, right about like, you know, design for packaging, or product design, right? Are we going to, you know, use plastic? No, I right, or, you know, there's so many decisions, every decision has an impact in some way. But again, they're in their position, usually, because they're an expert in their field, not an expert in managing impacts. And so if we could change the way those decisions were made more proactively, rather than reactively, or just by sort of like, you know, sort of gut feeling. And then if we can also change the flow of capital, right, to reward those decisions, and move capital to the more impactful companies, the more impactful sort of opportunities. That's my vision.
You do it. You make it with some help maybe from the policymakers, but like,
Thank you. Yeah. Diana, any final comments or questions?
No, I think you've covered a lot of the thoughts that are in my head. It's interesting to see these themes emerge in our conversations with GIIN and Fidelity. I also spoke with a think tank in Hong Kong that conducts research on impact investing and philanthropy. It's great to see these themes coming up consistently.
Thank you for sharing your background with us as well. Personally, I can relate to your experience, having worked in seven different roles at Goldman Sachs. I'm proud of the work I did, but always felt like something was missing. It's nice to know I wasn't the only one who felt that way.
Rob, we hope to keep in touch. What is next for us? Starting tomorrow, Diana, Iskra, and I will hold a debriefing session about your interview and others. We'll look into what we call juicy areas, meaning interesting areas that we haven't yet fully codified. These are designable areas, juicy opportunities, insights, and other areas where we sense something needs to be done.
Next week, we have a meeting on Tuesday with our partners, including Patrick. We'll start informal conversations with them about some of our intuitions and also invite some guests from the interviews. I might send you an email about this, and if there are a couple of hours available, it could be interesting for you to attend and meet other players in the field.
By the end of April, we'll come up with our output and describe these areas that we think the server design intervention. Hopefully, there will be a second phase where we start thinking about what should be designed, such as new vehicles or operational dynamics. We'll keep you posted.
Wonderful!
If we use any of the content you have shared with us for publication, we will ask for your permission to quote you or mention you. Thank you for taking the time to speak with us. I found the conversation very insightful, and I appreciate you using simple language to help me understand.
On a separate note, I am currently working on building a new educational platform called the Impact Institute. This platform will teach several verticals, including design, finance, and project management, with the goal of delivering impact and creating leaders who can work with impact. I may reach out to you in the future because we are currently shaping the very first pilot programs, some of which will be focused on impact investments. Perhaps we could collaborate on a module in the area of assessing and evaluating impact, as you suggested, and keep it more experimental in nature rather than presenting it as 'knowing it all.' As you mentioned, the field is still evolving.
Thank you again for your time and insights. Diana might also be involved in this project, although I haven't talked to her about it yet.
That all sounds wonderful. Look forward to seeing the results of your work and happy to help with the