Episode 55: Inovia Capital Panel on Making Acquisitions A Success from the People, Cultural, and Technical Side 

Episode Transcript  

Shiv: All right, Krista, Meryl, Kory, welcome to the show. How's it going?

Krista: Good Shiv, how are you? Thank you for having us.

Shiv: Yeah, excited to have the three of you on. So why don't we start with the background? Obviously we don't do a panel that often. So we'll go around the table. Krista, we'll start with you with the background about yourself and your role and then, and then Inovia as well. And then we'll go to Meryl, Kory right after.

Krista: Excellent, thanks. So my name is Krista Scaldi. I am a Partner in Chief at Talent Officer at Inovia Capital. Been in this role for just over three years now. Prior to this, I was heading up internal HR for a big sovereign wealth fund, the private markets team in the Middle East, and started getting pulled into value creation projects with our private equity and venture capital team. So led me down this path with Inovia.

Shiv: Awesome and Meryl.

Meryl: Thanks, Shiv. Thanks for having me on. I'm excited to be here. Hi, everyone. My name's Meryl. I work at Inovia Capital at the moment, and I'm a director in our corporate development team. So similar to Krista and Kory here, we sit on our platform team, which we'll go into a little bit after this. Thanks.

Shiv: Awesome. And last but not least, Kory.

Kory: Hey Shiv. Kory, I wear two hats at Inovia. I'm a principal investor on the Venture and Discovery Fund, where I do a bunch of investing in practical applications of artificial intelligence. And then the other side, which is probably more of what we're talking about today, is I'm part of the CTO office. I'm the VP of Technology, where I work across our entire portfolio, helping CTOs, CPOs, CEOs about how to deliver world-class technology and products. Prior to this, I spent close to a decade at Google, where I oversaw engineering operations for Canada at Google.

Shiv: Awesome. And so thank you for those introductions. And I think maybe we'll start with Krista here is just talk a little bit more about what really separates Inovia's approach in this space. And there's a lot of private equity firms and VC firms out there. So how do you see the market differently or the value that you're bringing to your companies?

Krista: Yeah, maybe Shiv, I'll start with, right, kind of that private equity venture capital difference, because we do, because we invest across the stack, right, from pre-seed, seed all the way to growth equity. There are some similarities, slight similarities maybe with our growth equity companies that look more like private equity value creation. But when you think of kind of the process improvement org structure, right, kind of more of an organizational design framework that you'd put in place in private equity or later stage growth. And then on the earlier investing side, earlier portfolio company side is earlier stage is more about that innovation, go to market, right? Kind of that scale that needs to happen at the right pace and for the right reasons, but a little bit different. think where we're starting to see a little bit of similarity between the two, and this could be technology that's driving that, but I belong to a private equity talent group here in Toronto. And some of the questions that those folks are starting to ask around looking more like the venture capital model of driving innovation, right? Kind of less about the process improvement and organizational design and more about that kind of driving leading change and innovation. For us at Inovia, I think there is a, cause a lot of venture capital firms like private equity firms have these value creation platform teams in place.

For us, the differentiator is really sitting here with Meryl and Kory in the teams around CorpDev and product and tech. It's not to say that talent and marketing communications aren't important. It does put a challenge for myself and my colleague, Isabelle, who heads up our marketing efforts to innovate ourselves around what we could be doing differently, better, et cetera. But looking at kind of those differentiators that are going to drive exponential value for our portfolio companies, whether it be an M&A and then product and technology. And then our approach in saying that we're looking at a couple of things, it's we're not forcing ourselves on our portfolio companies when, you know, Chris Arsenault likes to say that we back great founders and then get out of the way and let them, let them build from there. So it's not support for support sake. It's not checklist. You know, we've checked the box. I supported X number of founders today. It's support for companies that need and ask for it. And then kind of thinking of it, it either allows a founder or management team to get something done easier, faster, cheaper, more effectively or efficiently and, or a combination of the above, is, know, those are for us is how we're trying to, whether it differentiates us or at least level sets us on a continuous basis.

Shiv: Yeah. Just piggybacking on that a little bit, Meryl, maybe you can give us some more color on the corp dev side and why that area and how do you see value creation coming about from corp dev activities?

Meryl: Yeah, Shiv, it's a great question. If you think about a founder's journey through the different stages of their business, the different stages of raising, the different stages of capital allocation, I think what's interesting is that the thing that's most important to us at Corp Dev in Inovia is building what we call optionality. And optionality is really a way for founders to generate paths for outsized returns. And that doesn't need to be today. It can be five years from now. can be seven years from now. And so, know, Krista and Kory and myself constantly get involved alongside our investment team and board members with the company very early on. And so, you know, how do we think through those paths? How do you set yourself up well for it well in advance, whether that's using advisors, whether that's using you know, us and your investors, how do you consider your stakeholders in the decisions you make that you're making today, but that will have the impact maybe tomorrow or, you know, a year or two from now. And so I can speak to it a little bit more diligently, but, you know, that's really it.

Shiv: Yeah. Do you mind giving an example of that? Like what are some decisions or avenues available to founders that changes decisions in the future or outcomes in the future?

Meryl: Yeah, so I mean, look, I think there's like every large opportunity ahead of you, most early stage and growth stage businesses and venture capital will experience those at different stages and different sizes. I think a strong management team is constantly prioritizing effort and like capital. So to give you a specific example, think today your business is at a crossroads of deciding, hey, do you build in-house? Do you partner or do you go buy something? Right. And that itself can be a monumental decision for management because you have to consider your internal culture. What's important to you? What is, what is really the outcome you're driving for and what is the best way to do that? And so whether it is, it ends up being the answer of build, buy, or partner, it changes the trajectory of your business and neither accelerate can either slow down. And there's different pros and cons to each of those things that, you know, at Inovia, try to. I would say advise and just support that decision making. So at the end of the day, it's the management team that decides and organizes their thoughts around it and their teams around it. But it's a little bit of like, hey, how could we help you and support you to get to that response?

Shiv: So just tagging you in Kory into this concept of build, buy, or partner, the product side is a pretty important aspect of that, right? So talk a little bit about how you're looking at that side of investments and on the technical due diligence side or just product diligence and how do you make some of those decisions or what types of data points are you bringing to the table to help make that kind of a decision?

Kory: Yeah, sure. So we spend a lot of time on the technical due diligence side, specifically supporting investment teams, trying to understand sort of the quality of the team and the opportunity. It always starts with product, right? You could have the best engineering team in the world. And if you're building the wrong thing, it doesn't matter. The way I think about this a little bit is like the engineering triangle. If you've ever heard of that, you know, there's speed, there's quality and their cost. You can have two of those three things, you cannot have all three of those things at one time. And the answer of which two you want depends on what you're trying to do, right? And so, you know, are you building a toaster or are you building a rocket ship? And you shouldn't always build a rocket ship because it's super expensive and slow, but the quality is really high. You, maybe if you're trying to toast toast, you want a toaster, you could do it really quickly and it's kind of cheap, but the quality is really low. And so really understanding sort of what the product roadmap, how that works, who the visionary is, who's the doer of the things. Like this is sort of what we dig into. And then after we figure out all of that, it's okay, well then how are you building it? Right? What are you using? Does it make sense? Where are your strengths? And a lot of this depends on what stage, right? We're a full stack investment. Like we do early, early all the way up to pre-IPO. So pre-IPO, you expect to see a lot more structure. You're looking at things like cloud infrastructure and DevOps and how the different functions work together. And then early, early, you're kind of just looking at what's this group of people, how quickly are they able to iterate and get something into market, because really you're iterating on product market fit, right? So that's at a high level, what we focus on on the before investment diligence side.

Shiv: Right. We work with a lot of PE groups where M&A is like the one of the main value creation levers. So Krista, on your side, like how are you making these capital allocation decisions? Because you can build or you can buy it or slash partner. And all of those are legitimate avenues for companies. And so how do you decide between those options and looking at opportunity costs of where else you can deploy capital in terms of people or programs or just headcount versus just capital deployment to buy another asset and growing inorganically.

Krista: I'm going to ask both Meryl and Kory to step into this one as well, Shiv, because to me, there is that decision point on the buy versus build, depending on what you're looking to buy or build, right? Because it could be just the pure talent. I'm looking for talent. And that's a decision that doesn't come without consequence, right? We understand it. We're working with a portfolio company right now where that question has come up. Meryl mentioned culture at one point. You know, even a remote team that you've bought has an impact on culture, right? That comes in or a company that you've acquired just for the talent. It's not necessarily the product. So looking at the different decision points that will come into impact, I'm and Kory, please step in if this is, you know, if I thought of an acquisition because I want the talent, but I'm not interested in the product, right? My product will be, or the core product will be deployed and that team will continue to work on it. I think my assessment, the assessment criteria is gonna look a lot different than if I'm looking to integrate that product as an add-on into mine, right? So it really depends on what the strategy, reason for the, because I think there's a high level buy versus build and that satisfies one part of a strategy and has its, you know, cost implications. But then peeling back that onion as to, what are the different components? And potentially where we've seen, and Meryl, this would be your area of expertise more, but where we've seen that that doesn't, isn't always successful is maybe the onion hasn't been peeled back far enough to decide like, where might some of those riskier areas be or areas that we need to pay more attention to.

Kory: Yeah, like maybe just, I'll jump in for a second as like, Meryl will do this better, but essentially like you're buying either you want the product, you want the people, you want the technology and depending on which one you want or two of three or three of three really matters. There's nothing worse than taking a good product and engineering team from my side. And I was part of a lot of acquisitions at Google and integrations after, right? The acquisition in my opinion is the easy part. It's what happens after where companies succeed or fail. so nothing worse than taking a high functioning product and engineering team and saying, don't worry, we're going to add the bolt on this piece to the side of you and that's going to make you go faster. And it just becomes a massive boat anchor. And it screws everything up, derails your entire product roadmap. And then you end up having to rebuild the platform anyways that they built. The integration takes two years. It always takes something like magic. It's always going to take two years. Like, so my point here is the better you are at understanding what you're good and not good at as a company upfront and understanding what you are set up to integrate with, right? Like where something would be aligned for success on a product and technical side and the complexity that you're taking on, you can turn integrations into a superpower, right? We see this with rollups all the time. You can, if you're good at this, you are awesome at this, but if you're okay at this, you shouldn't do this, right? It's one of those things that you either have to be great or just not freaking do it. That's my opinion.

Shiv: Yeah, Merrill, how important are the teams are getting the people side of it right in order to make these integrations work? And I say this like a different size as it matters differently, right? Like we work with some companies that are 500 million and they have like 30 business units inside and the scale and complexity increases at that level. But even at a lower end, like if you're a 20 to $30 million business acquiring a company, it's a pretty big distraction. So how do you kind of manage those objectives and how big of a piece are the people involved?

Meryl: Yeah, I don't think you'll ever hear anyone say that the people are not the biggest piece. So that's kind of a layup question there, Shiv. But yeah, I think, you know, for me, when we think about all of these components, like, I think there's a few things that come to mind. I was taking notes as Krista and Kory were talking, this is why we make awesome partners as a platform team at Inovia. But talent is the most important one, right? It's assessing roles and responsibilities, it's all the work Krista does with these companies to set them up, not just because of an acquisition, but how do you grow, scale, iterate as time goes on, changes. That is put under hyperlens when you're doing a transaction or if you're doing partnership or if you're building a completely net new product, right? So all of those things kind of get put under the magnifying glass and the kinks kind of come out and Krista like, feel free to jump in here, but I'd say talent is the most important thing. The other components of what Krista and Kory touched on a little bit is time, capital, complexity, and proximity. So all of those components are super important in understanding these gives and takes between your decision-making. And we can go into them in a bit of depth, but did that answer your question, Shiv?

Shiv: Yeah, no, it does. And maybe Krista can jump in and just talk about that a little bit more as this proximity piece and then the people side, like Krista, what is your take on it?

Krista: I was just going to jump ship on something that Meryl said, because it did have me think of my opening comment about the difference in private equity and venture capital. Potentially that is where the private equity lens of process or design, right? A bit more structured actually comes in to help because regardless of your size in that acquisition mode, if some of those foundation pieces haven't been laid by yourself internally first, makes the acquisition even harder, right? You I don't know what my foundation really is and my foundation's not that steady and now I'm going to try to bolt something else onto people, process technology, right? Into an unstable foundation in some ways. So I think part of the work in getting that mindset happening doesn't have to be perfect, but at least it's part of an awareness that these things do matter, and they matter even more during acquisition. I think the proximity, you know, we've got some examples where decisions made where the, an acquisition couldn't be further away geographically than one could imagine. And it is hard, right? I mean, we're coming out of a period where we couldn't travel. So yeah, that made it hard. I think there was an assumption that living in a remote world might make M&A easier, easier to integrate people, process technology, because all of a sudden we were all more used to working remote. I think in those moments, Meryl touched on it, that people are the biggest part of this in any integration, right? It's at least gonna be your loudest, right? Like either pain point or source of joy, you're gonna hear about it. And you want those touch points, those frequent touch points, right? When we talk about in a remote hybrid world, when we talk about the need for people to be together, it's not to do the mundane things that we all do every day, like answer emails and work in documents. It's really for those moments of connection, for brainstorming, for problem solving. And, you know, being remote, trying to do that in the middle of an acquisition is difficult. And I don't know how much people plan for that. You'll do the initial, sure, I'll go over there to say hi to the team and meet and greet, do my rounds, but what is the cadence that I might need to put in place or that a team needs to put in place while you go through that acquisition period?

Shiv: Yeah. And on the proximity side, I'm glad you brought up the geography of companies and if they're far apart, but proximity can also be in terms of the markets that you're serving or the customers you're going after and, and what types of offerings you have in that space. So maybe Krista, you can add some more color on that as well, because we've seen companies get heavily distracted by acquiring something that is serving an entirely different set of customers because they had a thesis that they could cross sell and upsell this to the, to the base, but it looks great on a financial model, then when you try to make it a reality, it doesn't actually come to fruition.

Krista: And this, Shiv, I think, you know, Kory said the acquisition part is the easy part. And I had a little thought in my head. We - part of our unique value proposition at Inovia is we make it easier because we've got the team in place that can look at these things. Right. So a large part of the work that Meryl, the team do is looking at those elements of business models, customers, right. And then Kory coming in and the CTO office team on the technology, because I'd argue proximity could also be, I'm going to put it in my simple technology terms, but we use Google, we use Microsoft, nightmare waiting to happen in terms of integration. And then add to the people component, right? And that's different cadences of performance reviews and compensation and whatnot and all of it. But I think to your original question around marketing and Meryl, please step in, that's where that upfront planning, the things that maybe hadn't been thought of is where Meryl and the team can provide that value and flag some of what those risks might be, right? Where I see different, go-to-market strategies could be completely different as well. And all of those things come with added complexity and potential cost.

Shiv: Totally, maybe we can add some color there. What are some of the different types of analysis that you're doing when you're looking at those revenue opportunities as you're doing acquisitions to validate whether or not something is worth acquiring in the first place?

Krista: It's like MerylGPT, what analysis is she not doing?

Meryl: No, thanks, Krista. I mean, Shiv, it's all the things that, you know, taking out all the jargon aside, it's like understanding, to Kory and Krista's point is like, who are you? Like, can you define on a page what is important to your organization? And then can you match how much of that overlaps with your target acquisition or even someone who's thinking of buying you? Like, and that has so many layers to it. So what is the real diligence? And I think that's what you're asking me. It's like, what is the diligence that you're doing to understand those components? There's relationship diligence, understanding who reporting structures look, what reporting structures look like, understanding financials. Are you depicting the right and accurate financials go forward? Something that you can live with post acquisition. You can grow into that you have not set yourself up for failure. So there's lots of things there You know, have you looked at clauses? We can go through the legal side of it Like is there a change of control clause? Is there what else gets triggered with your customers? What are the requirements of notification that they have? You know operationally, what does this look like we you talked about proximity and you know similarity of either product process and other things it's like, let's talk about those things up front and I find the conversations that are the most transparent lead to the most beneficial outcomes and that's because you're problem solving together right from the beginning and not necessarily waiting for integration periods post-close. So you know we can dissect that in many many ways but those are some of the examples I would say at a very high level.

Shiv: Yeah. And Kory, you had touched on something earlier where you said that the integration piece is the other, the acquisition piece is the easiest part. The integration is the hardest. And what we've seen is the companies that acquire more companies eventually end up having standard operating procedures to almost digest and integrate these companies into the fold. Right. So talk about that. Like how, how are you on the technical side or the product side, setting up these companies to take on these additional companies as part of their umbrella and integrating them together. And what does a world-class process look like to integrate companies?

Kory: Yeah, I mean, that's a good question. I would honestly tell you that probably most of my advice for our companies is not to do it because they're not ready. And that's not because it's not because they're not capable. It's because it's not the right thing to do at that moment in time, given like all the priorities that they could have. And so I think that when we do decide, it's not their decision, when they decide to do it, there's a bunch of things that go into it. But on that side, it's like back to your proximity point. Has somebody done a review of technically what does this mean? Actually, the first question, is there a product or technical person involved in the discussion day to day on the leadership team deciding to buy something? Because if you are making a decision to buy something without the person who's responsible for the integration and holding that bag after, that's, it's not only a mistake, it's a recipe for disaster because you don't know what that entails after, right? Even like the natural conversations around Slack and an organization. Who is going to work on this? Whose problem? Who's going to run the standups every day, every week, every whatever? Who's thinking about this, right? And so you have to have that like executive leader, N minus one or two, depending on the org, that's like the integration person, right? And then once you have that, then it's the planning, right? It's technically, are we coming up with new, are they similar or different architecture? Is it new languages? Is it like all of the technical, what do the front end look like? What does the backend look like? What does the cloud provider look like? And that's simply just diagrams of like, are we using pieces of this or are we going to try to integrate them right away or are we going to let it sit outside over two years and like slowly integrate microservices? Like there's just a whole planning aspect. And then I'll give you a real specific example. I won't use names obviously, but for culture, right? And a lot of, I guess, okay. So one of the things that happens is you're a single product company, things are going well, you've raised money, you're growing, you've decided to buy a company. And so you have a bit of a monolithic culture, right? And a lot of the best startups are a little culty, right, in that they're all a little bought into one direction, pull the rope. As soon as you inject another piece of culture into that, that's just turbulence, right? And that's not a bad thing. It could be a good thing, but that's something to think through. So one of the examples of how this sort of reared its head in a conversation early on in my time at Inovia that I sort of was part of and helped mitigate was this company who had grown really quickly and had like 10X-ed its employees really over like 12 months. They had historically always made architecture decisions in a room together because they had the senior engineering people would get together. They'd all sit down, kumbaya, and they'd make a technical decision architecturally of what the next stage of their product would be. And now you inject, they bought a dev agency somewhere else. They bought another competitor. Now you're injecting, OK, well, actually nobody owns that decision today. And the non-technical CEO comes to us and says, well, how should I do this? Because my team is telling me that we have always done this as nobody owns the decision. We all have to agree. But that now doesn't work because you have people in different locations and different proximities and different cultures who have opinions, right? And you can't get to agreement. And he's like, should I change the role so that somebody owns the decision? And my opinion at the time was, yes, of course, that's madness. You can't have, like it's a disagree and commit, somebody should own the decision, people can have their input, but at the end of the day, the one throat to choke, somebody has to make the call, right? But that is a very big cultural step that they had to take as a result of an integration, right? That they weren't necessarily prepared to take. So it's that sort of thing that make this successful or not.

Shiv: Yeah, I think culture is such a great point to bring up is that you have multiple entities with their own culture that are coming together and you almost have to create a net new culture. Even just in my experience, when we had our last company acquired, when we first got acquired, there was like this need to like protect the old culture. But now you're part of this bigger entity and you have to actually build a culture that's unique to the new entity, more than like separate cultures that now you're being, you have to force, you're forced to become like the other company that's acquiring you. And I think people struggle with that, which is like a really, really great point on, that actually, Meryl, I want to come back to something to you right after that, Kory, but, Meryl, how much time do you spend on the people side with culture and, getting that right in terms of org design and, some of the fundamental things that are in place inside of companies like core values and stuff like that.

Meryl: Yeah, mean, Shiv, I can speak to, you know, when our portfolio companies have done acquisitions and where we advised, but I'd say the most important thing is remembering that that culture assessment happens over the span of you discussing an acquisition with the other party, right? So it starts right from the first phone call to understand how do you build that trust? Are we sharing transparently, et cetera, to yes, roles and responsibilities. Like it's not always right that the company getting acquired is the one that loses employees. Like if you find that the acquirer is being honest with themselves saying like, you know, let's truly assess both teams and see what looks best and who we need to hire and what are the gaps and you know, what are the redundancies. And so it's important to be self-reflective. And so some of that is not really coachable. Like you can tell them to be mindful of it, but intrinsically it is part of that team's culture, whether they do that organically or not. And Krista works with a lot of teams to assess, you know, what does that org design look like? There's so many ways to cut it. So there's no real one answer fits all here. So there's no one way, hey, this is the right design or you know, and this is the right organizational structure and reporting structure to Kory’s point. It is somewhat fluid and it depends on you asking the question of like, what is it that I really need? Like, so if you don't understand the gaps yourself, whether you're the company being acquired or you're the acquirer, you can't have that intellectual curiosity to then fill the right roles. And so, Krista, what would you say to that? Like that's a curious to hear your answers.

Krista: I think the culture one's always a funny one for me because we jump to what's easy, right? So we'll make sure mission, vision, values have been integrated and there's a new version of that or a slightly tweaked. So we'll integrate that and maybe we do a couple of, maybe there's a big offsite, maybe there's a couple of, know, rejig the town hall so that these things happen. And we think, okay, that's where culture and that to me is almost like that's the lipstick layer, right? What Kory had referred to in that, how does stuff get done around here is where culture manifests itself, right? How work gets done, how decisions get made. And those are your sources of tension, not what our mission, vision, value say, or whether we're, our town hall is structured. It's really in the how shit gets done. Right? Where that kind of, one of the things that I'm, taking from kind of the management consulting world and sometimes applying it in a startup can be difficult. I've had people look at me like I have three heads, but I'm a big believer in get the right people in the room, the right people need to be there. Cue Kory point from earlier, and looking at options, right? Forcing the discussion that is what are the pros and cons? Let's look at three options, put a box it in. What are the three options? You don't have to do the management consulting. I'm going to give you 20 different options. Let's just look at three, right? And then talk through the, what are the pros and cons of each? Cause there's pros and cons of each. Right. And I think without putting it visually out there, there is something that right now we could go through that exercise and any money we've got different visuals, but we think we're aligned. And we're going to go back to our respective departments, functions, countries, and think we've done a good, you know, integration meeting on whatever we're trying to integrate. And we've all got it a little bit wrong, right? Not wrong. Nothing's wrong. We've all seen it a little bit differently, right? So I think that exercise of, Meryl used the word reflective. That is a reflection, right? It is a way of reflecting by thinking everything has pros and cons. And agreeing to what those are serves up a lot of good discussion in the folks that are making some of those decisions. And it allows to see what some of the vulnerabilities might be, right? Meryl thinks it's a pro, I think it's a con. Well, great to get that out now, rather than after we've decided to implement it that way.

Shiv: How often have you had a deal fall apart that maybe made financial sense, but culturally during the transaction cycle, you uncovered that it wasn't a great culture fit.

Krista: When you say deal, do you mean we want to invest or one of our portfolio companies wants to do something? want to

Shiv: Invest. And either, either.

Kory: So maybe I'll tell, as the investor in the room, how about that? I'll tell a story. So when I was doing my first ever investment with Inovia, you kind of go through the gauntlet, you do the diligence, you meet the founders, you get comfortable with making the bet. You then go to a partner meeting and you, the partners sort of have that conversation. My very last meeting with Chris Arsenault, who's one of the co-founders of Inovia and our resident leader. And I thought there was going to be more diligence questions, you know, as that final stage, like, well, what about this TAM or what about this industry trend? And Chris just looked at me and he said, Kory, you know, for the next seven years, do you want to pick up the phone on Christmas day and walk away from your family to have a conversation with this founder because that is the expectation. That's what it means to be a company builder. That's what it means to be an active board member, to be there for this company. And if the answer is no, don't do this deal. So I tell you that story because we walk away from deals constantly based on culture fit because where the company is, where it's going, how it's doing, all these things will go up and down over time like a roller coaster. And if you don't have aligned values or vision or even just personality at that level, it's not going to work. You're not going to do a good job and you're not going to be there for the company in the way that I know it tries to be. So my short answer on the investing side is all the time.

Shiv: Yeah, I love that answer. I think a lot of companies would be well-served to follow that advice because culture at the end of the day is like, have to work with these people. You're to build this thing at whatever level, investor, portfolio company, or even just a platform company. You have to work with these people day to day. So I think that's great. We're coming up on time here. So before we do end, what is someplace that the listeners can go to, to learn more about each of you and Inovia?

Krista: Yes. So our website is always a great place. Our VP of marketing, Isabelle, put a document on our platform team, kind of a public facing, right? How we work a little more detailed because it's not found in detail on our website, but we can get that to you afterwards.

Shiv: That's awesome. And we'll also link to the website and all your LinkedIn profiles as well. And with that said guys, thanks for coming on and sharing your insights. I thought it was a super insightful episode. went a little bit different direction than we thought, but I think there were a lot of great takeaways in terms of people and culture and acquisitions. So thanks a lot for coming on sharing that.

Krista: Thank you, Shiv, for having us.

Kory: Thanks for having us.

Meryl: Thanks, Shiv.

Shiv: Cheers guys.