Strategic Agility is the result of the interplay between essentially three sets of capabilities, or three set of forces. One is around understanding the world around you better in a more forward-looking way, in a more sensitive way to the diversity of inputs and to the rapidity of changes. The second one is around the ability to redirect resources toward opportunities or threats or in new requirements to face new competition or whatever. And the third one is really to act as a team at the top of the organization and also to act collectively in a committed way among the workers, among the employees, the middle managers, toward implementing those decisions. And it's really the integrated effect of O3 and the interdependency between O3 that drives strategic agility. Strategic agility is particularly relevant for companies that are exposed to these fast-happening challenges where conditions are changing, where technologies are changing, and where they have been successful. Because being successful quite often means that you become strategically rigid. If you take the first, strategic sensitivity, you can think of it mainly as two dimensions. One is being better informed around the world, about the world around you, in a timely fashion, in an anticipatory fashion, learning from sources that are not necessarily obvious, like away from your clients and competitors to different people in different fields of human activity. And that's really the first aspect. The second aspect, which is more difficult, is also to be on the lookout for anomalies in your own operations. So what is it that may signal something that you did not expect, but that may turn out to be extremely important? And time and time and time again, we find that major catastrophe. Just to take one example that we all remember is the famous 9-11 attacks on the Twin Towers in Manhattan were preceded by a memo from a flying school in Texas, which said there are 20-odd Saudi young men taking flight lessons here. And very strangely, they are not interested in landing or takeoff. That went to the FBI and nobody paid attention because the idea that someone might fly a plane into these towers and destroy them was just too far-fetched for anyone in the U.S. at the time. Interestingly enough, the Israeli, when they were building their first skyscrapers in Tel Aviv, had actually role-played the attack of an airliner against these skyscrapers. So you have to be very sensitive to the anomalies. The second dimension is, again, in principle, very simple. In reality, quite difficult. It's being able to relocate resources from one activity to another. It's being able to modify the budgets to draw resources into new operations and not get stuck into inter-unit siloed rivalry where budgets are set in stone and people get very defensive about them. And it's not just budgets. It's also the mobility of key people. It's also the mobility of collective assets. How do you manage brands? How do you manage core technologies? Car competencies and the like, which are not very easy because, again, they are not very tangible. And typically, they don't belong to anyone in the organization per se. Perhaps the brand does. But car competencies seldom do. And then the third dimension is around, again, the need to work together, to act together, not to fly apart. And at the top, this is really achieving unity within the leadership group and collaboration. Collaboration is what you cannot delegate. Everyone in an organization will watch for the lack of collaboration at the top and behave accordingly. And collaboration at the top also reflects itself into higher commitment of people down in the organization. So you need really this. And also the link to strategy. You need the link back to strategy. I was 30 years ago when visiting an IBM plant in France and asking line workers what they were doing. And they were actually ramping up the yield of a semiconductor operation. And they told me they were able to relate what they were doing. They told me this contributes to the strategy of IBM in the following way. And these guys were right. In most companies, you ask the line worker how he contributes or how she contributes to the strategy. Most people don't know. So this quality of understanding, I think, and again, that's part of the integration. The three dimensions, you know, the people working down the line and the operations have to know about the strategic intent, have to know about the strategic ambition, have to know about what kind of strategic agility we need. The people in the middle need to be able to be playful resources. So it's really how do we work together and how do we manage to integrate the three dimensions. The three first things are going to depend on where you start from. But generally speaking, there is one big approach, which is becoming more open to the outside, open your strategy process to more inputs, more influence, be it more inclusive internally, more externally, respond very active, responsive. That's one. Open up. The second one is really at the other end of the spectrum, is to say, you know, build a team at the top. And it's not just, you know, being social and being friendly with each other. It's create real interdependencies. So success has to become collective success. And you avoid this one-on-one, fragmented, siloed relationships between the CEO and individual business units. And then the third thing, which also relates to the first two, is replace debate with dialogues. Get people to talk and listen rather than present and conclude. I think that's very fundamental. In most companies I see, there is way too much discussion. But discussion is a debate. It's an opposing discussion. Who wins, who loses? In a dialogue, a solution is jointly developed. Everyone wins and everyone can say, this is my solution. Or at least I contributed to it. So I think those three things are, to me, the most fundamental dimensions, the most fundamental points.