From Access to Engagement: Democratization Without Dilution

Research interest and demand continues to grow...albeit sometimes not in lockstep with budget or bandwidth. Democratization—empowering colleagues to join in—is one way to respond. But how can practitioners ensure high quality insights? This panel brings together folks who have each "done" democratization at their org and share perspectives for starting.

Specifically, this panel explores:

• Different forms of democratization based on team need/shape
• What democratization can—and cannot—"do" for a team or org
• How each panelist's research practices have changed since'
• Learnings for anyone interested in democratizing at their org

Transcript

Tim Rairdon:
Welcome everyone, and a big thank you to our three panelists for taking time to share their experiences with us today. We're so excited to drill into what is a very hot topic that is on the minds of many in the user research space. Of course, we're talking about Democratizing Research. Katya, Claudia and Taylor are each involved in democratizing research at their organizations at some level. And through this conversation we're really hoping to share perspectives and experiences, specifically as it relates to how democratization can be done in a way that doesn't really dilute the value or rigor of the research. So with that said, what do you say we kick things off with some introductions. Panel members, after sharing your name, company and title, it'd be great if you could sort of please summarize what democratizing research looks like or means for you and your organization at this moment? And Katya, it'd be great if you could kick us off.

Katya Hott:
Sure. Hello everyone. My name is Katya Hott, and I'm the Senior Manager of User Research at SeatGeek, which is a live event ticketing company. And for us, democratization looks like meeting PMs and designers mostly where they are at with what skills that they want to learn and what information they need to be able to make decisions more quickly in a collaborative way. As opposed to teaching them research skills or handing something off, democratization for us is more of a collaboration so that we can all gain the skills we need and move faster together.

Tim Rairdon:
That's great. Thank you so much. And Claudia, maybe you could tell us a bit about what democratization means and looks like at your organization.

Claudia Flores:
Sure. Hey everybody. My name is Claudia and I'm a Senior Researcher at Meta. And democratization looks a little bit different in my org. We're a little bit bigger, but we don't really necessarily have a set process, nothing like a checklist or anything on a forum where people have to fill it out. It's more about building relationships, really meeting the team where they are, understanding the maturity of the team, the project, the product that they're working on, and really helping them understand what's the role of research, how can we build more of a consultative method to help them get the information and insights that they need. So it might be me running research, it might be them running research, but really educating them along the way about what is research, what can they do and how they can get to where they need to go? So all about building those relationships for us.

Tim Rairdon:
Great. Thanks, Claudia. And Taylor, do you want to run this out?

Taylor Klassman:
Absolutely. Hello everyone. My name is Taylor Klassman. I lead UX Research at dscout. Welcome to People Nerds. Thanks for tuning in today. So I've been leading the UX Research practice on our product team for three years now, and since basically day one, we have been talking about democratization of research at dscout. We have a very unique vantage point as a research leader, why you all are here today, as well as a vendor. So my experience with democratization has sort of been almost an experiment or a learning opportunity for how we can serve you as the research community as you engage in the journey of democratization. So we have taken sort of a two-pronged approach. One is that we have democratized sort of in the past tense, research at dscout on the product team. So we have folks who are not researchers by title or trade involved in the research process, but we've also taken the academic approach. So we've learned about democratizing research from you all and from many, many months and, at this point, years of learning about democratization sort of at the theoretical level as well.

Tim Rairdon:
Great, thank you so much Taylor. So I feel like this is a good segue to talking about the sort of primary benefits of democratizing research. Claudia, when we initially had conversations, you had some ideas that you wanted to share on the primary benefits that you're noticing at Meta. I'd love it if you could sort of kick us off here and talk about the primary benefits that you're seeing, why do you guys do it? What are the sort of big payoffs and wins that you're noticing?

Claudia Flores:
Yeah, I think, two things. One is building influence, credibility. Like I mentioned earlier, building those relationships. So you are partnering with your stakeholders, your XFN really early on. So not necessarily saying I'm the researcher, I'm doing the research. It's more how do we get you where you need to be? So building those relationships really early on, which really helps down the line to get that buy-in, so as actual decisions start being made you're in the door, you're part of those conversations. So that buy-in isn't as hard to get at the end because people that you work with, you've been kind of in lockstep this whole way, you've helped upskill them, they understand why some of the topics you bring up, why those are coming up, things like that. The second piece, more selfishly, my scope has grown. Talking about upskilling, I've learned so much myself.

So things like in teams where we didn't have a data scientist or a product manager stepping into those roles a bit where I could to kind of help the teams move forward. I've definitely grown myself just in the types of skills, the types of opportunities that I've been able to take, especially a company this big. We hear that a lot of changing those hats or being able to shift those roles in smaller startups, but I've definitely gotten a chance to do that here with this approach as well. So definitely a benefit for me.

Tim Rairdon:
Great. Thank you so much for sharing. So it sounds like increased influence but also opportunities to just sort of grow yourself throughout the process. Taylor, I'd love it if you could sort of chime in and sort of let us know what sort of primary benefit you've noticed through democratizing research at dscout, if any of the things that Claudia shared that sort of resonated with you as well.

Taylor Klassman:
Yeah, absolutely. Relationship building and buy-in for research is absolutely at the top of my list. So in total agreement there Claudia. And what I talked about in the intro is also a unique benefit of being able to learn firsthand and kind of on the inside what are the pitfalls and the power-ups that democratization allows for, so that we can provide that information to our clients and to the broader research community? So there's sort of that Meta layer of one of the major benefits of democratization. And I would also just say there's such a change in the culture around holding people accountable to do more research and to act on research findings. I'm sure that we'll talk about research findings and stakeholder engagement later in the panel, but that is such an important piece of democratization because it levels the playing field in a way where people are using the same vernacular and vocabulary, and sort of on the same page about what we're even talking about when discussing research data and research studies.

Tim Rairdon:
Great. Thanks so much Taylor. Katya, I would love to hear you talk a little bit about what the primary benefits that you've noticed are as you've sort of worked to democratize research at your organization.

Katya Hott:
Yeah, I think, I mean, the primary benefits I would say kind of echo what both Taylor and Claudia said. But there's maybe a secondary or a more hidden benefit of democratization that was surprising to me the more that I collaborated and my team collaborated with people who do research on research projects, and that was the joint skill building that I mentioned earlier. We talk a lot in our industry about how UX Research needs to be a discipline that includes little bits and pieces of many other disciplines, right? A little bit of data, a little bit of product sense, maybe a lot of design sense, and put it all together plus qualitative research you get UX Research. But these days design, especially now that our industry have shifted from interaction or UI design, UX design to holistic product design and product management are roles that also include that little bit of research on their side.

And so one of the things that my team did recently a few months ago was surveyed all of our designers and asked them which of these granular parts of the research process do you want to be more involved in? And where do you want to grow your own research skills? With the assumption that they all did. And we are right, they all did want to grow research skills in some very specific ways. They didn't really want to be interviewing users, but they wanted to get better at qualitative data analysis. Or they wanted to get better at translating qualitative data into design concepts.

And so leveraging that, we were able to say, okay, we're going to set up a democratization program in a pretty personal way so that we can meet people where they're at with the skills that they want to gain. And the result of that has not only been that research has more influence and that people have shared vocabulary around research, but that ourselves and our colleagues are building skills together, and so people are feeling more fulfilled at work. And that has been a secondary benefit that I didn't really anticipate at the get go.

Tim Rairdon:
Okay, that's fantastic. It's really interesting to hear you talking about sort of applying a research problem-solving process to the sort of problem of trying to figure out how to approach democratization at your organization. Claudia and Taylor, I'm sort of curious to know if any of that sort of resonates with you. Either of you have sort of applied your sort of research practice to sort of tackling the problem of how to do democratization?

Taylor Klassman:
Yeah, totally. That really resonated with me because I think when we first started on the journey to democratization, and it is very much a journey, I feel like it changes project to project even day to day. When we first started, we sort of jumped in wholesale and said designers will run all of their own evaluative research sort of period. It was a pretty stark line in the sand, and I think since then we've played with that sentence in a few ways, partially because of feedback, like you mentioned Katya from designers where they were like, this is actually a little bit too much. This isn't what we signed up for. This isn't serving us as practitioners as well as it could be. And so we've had moments like that along the way where we've scaled back, we've changed our approach and have learned from it in the iterative way that we should as UX practitioners. So that absolutely resonates.

Tim Rairdon:
Thanks, Taylor.

Claudia Flores:
Yeah, I would say that for me, slightly different. I think what resonated with me was we took in a slightly different approach. Designers are, it's not that we are doing all the research, they can do research, it's more of this consultative, not as structured program for us where there's so much demand for research, and not enough researchers to allow people to move fast but in a more informative way to help them understand and educate them. It's be that partner, it's having those conversations again all around building relationships. So that's our approach. But in parts for how we've researched this for me was to be able to successfully build those relationships, understanding where those teams are, where in the maturity, the spectrum of a norming, storming, performing, where is this team? But also where are the products they support? So in a way researching that and understanding how do I meet them where they are.

So catering that approach of how do I consult to help them, educate them, provide them the skills that they need? But every team because of those, when you look at maturity of the team, maturity of the product, where they are in their norming, storming, performing all of these things together, there's no one size fits all of education. And so really catering that based on that research of where they are. That's really the piece that I've researched and I do every time I join a new team, because I support a couple different teams. And so really understanding that piece is key for this to be successful.

Tim Rairdon:
Yeah, Claudia, that's great. I'd actually love to hear a little bit more about how you're sort of identifying where these teams are. I love the sort of way of categorizing them as norming, storming or performing. What does that look like? Are you sending surveys through conversations? Could you help us understand that a little bit more?

Claudia Flores:
Yeah, so there's a couple actually. So I talked about the product aspects. So looking at the suite of products, do they need foundation or research? Which is something that we definitely need to own as researchers that really base foundational understanding if they just haven't even thought of that, assessing that suite of products, like I said, are they completely new? Are they a little further down the line? There is some concepts, is this UI testing? Things like that from the product perspective, some teams own multiple products for the team specific is through conversations really. Understanding things like, hey, is this team collaborating with each other? Do they have projects together? Do they successfully understand what an end-to-end workflow looks like? Are they thinking through all the other aspects that aren't just the central concept of a product?

So things like entry points, emails, notifications, all these other things that may not be top of mind when you build a product, especially if your team is a little newer to working in the space. So again, there's multiple questions that I think through as I have those conversations with those teams to assess just their knowledge and their understanding of the user experience, building products, especially in an agile way, which I think when you move really fast, understanding those is really helpful.

Tim Rairdon:
Great, thank you so much. So it's sort of interesting to me that one of the things that isn't necessarily sort of coming up as a primary benefit is one of the primary benefits that I think people talk about a lot when they talk about democratization, which is its ability to sort of unlock opportunities for all of y'all as user researchers to sort of do more of the research that you want to do, do more of the sort of front end strategic research. So it seems like that might be a sort of misconception. I'd love to sort of use that as a segue and hear from each of you on maybe one misconception about democratizing research that you've run into or that you're sort of dealing with currently. Something that folks might not sort of see. Is there someone who wants to field that one first?

Katya Hott:
Yeah, I can speak to that. I certainly had a misconception about democratizing research when it became a buzzword fairly in recent years around the idea that democratizing research was researchers creating tools and playbooks and kind of research ops to allow people who do research to do end-to-end research, and that that would allow more research to happen more quickly, more people to make decisions based off of data more quickly, and everyone would move forward more quickly. And that was kind of what democratization was. And what I've learned, so I've been at SeatGeek for two years and I feel like I've done a lot and my team has done a lot of what counts as democratization, and we have never written a playbook. We in fact just created a research plan template for someone to use recently without having ever done that before. We started very much on the ground with people who would be the people who do research, figuring out what is the best way to collaborate so that we can get what we need.

We can unblock folks from making decisions and not so that we can say, okay, we're going to offload evaluative research to some other teams while we do more foundational or more generative research. And that was a big aha moment for me when I realized that what we were doing actually was democratizing. We were bringing people into our process and they were continuing after they learned how to do it, to do it on their own. And that meant evaluating whether findings from research made sense in their work. That meant analyzing qualitative data without a researcher in a room because they had access to user interviews that they wanted to go reflect on. And it didn't mean there's us and them. We do one type of research and we've offloaded all of it to other people who do research who are not user researchers. That was a big misconception that I kind of had to break down to move forward with democratization in a way that made more sense for my organization.

Tim Rairdon:
You said something really interesting in there that I'd love to jump into a little bit more, and it sounds like the people who you're working with and you've sort of democratized research with doing their own sort of synthesis of their own sort of analysis of findings. So it seems like the democratization is sort of happening at that part of the research process. I'd love to hear just a little bit about how you approached sort of introducing people to analysis, and sort of getting to the point where you could feel comfortable handing it off to those stakeholders?

Katya Hott:
Yeah. So we started with this concept of jam sessions, which is just like, I feel like all of us researchers have our own fun vernacular for different activities that we do to try to get people involved. So a jam session was basically taking raw interview data, whether it's video clips that we would kind of put together, or quotes that we would put on a mural board or something, and getting our colleagues in the room to do some sort of analysis with it. This is not super foreign. Maybe it wouldn't even count as democratization of research in many of our minds, but the idea of this kind of co-analysis or maybe co-synthesis depending on how distilled the qualitative data is was something that we started with. And what we learned through these jam sessions the more we participated mostly with our product and design partners on things like this, but also our engineering partners and other cross-functional teams, is that people were just getting better and better at it.

Cluster analysis became something that everyone was like, oh yeah, I absolutely have done that before. They were already starting to hunt for patterns before we were explaining what the activity was. And because these jam sessions included the raw data and links out to where you could watch all the video sessions or where you could read through all of the quotes, we had people who were saying, "Hey, I went back to this one 'cause I remembered this quote. And I watched the rest of the interview and I found this thing that I added to this document that I'm creating around this idea that I have for improving our design." And so that's the analysis that I'm talking about as opposed to saying, okay, we've collected data and now we are handing it over to someone who's interested in analysis to analyze and synthesize the entire thing.

What we've done is we've brought our partners into the analysis and synthesis processes and taught them where to find the raw data, so that when they do remember something juicy from a quote that's stuck in their head and they want to go back to it and they find something else, they're allowed to do that and they're allowed to pull it out and they're allowed to find more meaning and connect it to a pattern that we had discovered earlier and enrich that pattern and say, Hey, I've just made this finding stronger or I've come up with a different angle on it. And so that freedom to kind of be comfortable in the data without us being gatekeepers of it, but without also us saying, oh sure, yeah, you lead the entire analysis, has been really beneficial for our working groups.

Tim Rairdon:
That's great. Taylor, I'd love to return to a word that you used earlier in the conversation, which is about research findings. Sort of curious to hear your take and your experience on how research findings have changed or sort of evolved as a result of your democratization methods.

Taylor Klassman:
Yeah. One thing that's sort of running through my head a lot while Katya was speaking is the title of this panel, which is Democratization Without Dilution. This is sort of cheating because it's your previous question, but it's related to findings in that I think a misconception that I had and that I hear in the community, a lot is that having non-researchers do research or be involved in research at some point in the process leads to the diluting of research data or research practices and processes. That was a misconception that I held myself. I will say that in front of 4,000 people of our community, and I've had the chance over the past few years to realize just how wrong that was and how really the examples Katya gave are so real. And I've experienced those moments too where I'm like, wow, you have looked at this problem and this data in a totally different way than I would, maybe because you aren't a classically trained researcher, have that in your title.

So long-winded way of saying I think a misconception and how findings have changed for me are very related, in that I think our findings have gotten more unique and diverse as we've brought in more unique and diverse thought partners as we come up with those findings and as we synthesize this data. Another aspect of that is what happens with the findings? I think that has changed with the process of democratization that we have gone through where I have engineers who are talking about things that were found in research data. There are teammates across the board who are more engaged as Claudia has talked about and more interested and invested in research. And so the root of the findings has shifted and how those findings have been applied to our product has shifted pretty tremendously as well.

Tim Rairdon:
Great. Thank you, Taylor. Claudia, any misconceptions that you've sort of run into or that stand out as we focus on this topic?

Claudia Flores:
Yeah, I guess I'll piggyback into something that Taylor said and also something Katya mentioned earlier about this idea of gatekeeping research, and also tied to your question of how has this changed research findings. I'm leaning towards more of what Taylor said where the core of the findings for things like UI testing or certain surveys hasn't really changed, but the distribution, the engagement, the reach, I think at times of certain research because of that buy-in the reluctancy to be like these gatekeepers, more relationship builders has really increased that engagement, that reach for people where there's no barrier between what is research and what engineering does or what other fields do. So they feel closer, they trust it more so that engagement is higher. I think that because everyone at Meta is encouraged to access data in a way and be data-driven and make data-driven decisions, we're constantly looking at different types of data and trying to make decisions with whatever data we can get.

And so the more we are able to show them, here's where this type of data lives, this is where research lives, this is how you could do it too, the more we can feed into that pipeline of data that they're looking at and be able to move fast. I think that, yeah, in terms of the actual quality of the results that we see, because again, it's more of a conversation when there is that partnership.

Many times people that I work with will say, "Hey, I drew this draft up, can you take a look at the questions?" If you have time will you come to my sessions? So we also have this culture of feedback. So not only am I seeing the questions that are going into moderated sessions or surveys, there's also a openness to get feedback on the quality of how those questions are asked. And so people are getting better, they're getting sharper. And so in terms of the quality of the results, I'm not too worried about that. It hasn't necessarily changed drastically where I think that's also a misconception that we've touched on that I've seen, that I am more for moving fast with these different perspectives as Taylor mentioned, than trying to gatekeep the research.

Tim Rairdon:
Okay. Thanks, Claudia. Yeah. If there's one word that's sort of sticking out through these questions and through your answers that might be used just very often is this word relationships. And Claudia, I'm sort of curious to hear a little bit more about how you've sort of arrived at the sort of relationship style that you have with your stakeholders? Has it always sort of been the way it is right now? Did it sort of evolve to this point? Would love to hear a little bit about how maybe your relationships with stakeholders and partners have adapted and evolved over time?

Claudia Flores:
Yeah, I think it's a combination of stakeholders evolving over time. I've evolved over time. I didn't always have this style. My style has definitely changed over time. I think when I started in research years ago, I did take a firmer stance on this is mine and that's yours. And when I think about how much of my job is getting buy-in, it wasn't helpful. To take such a firm stance on the role in what's mine and what's yours made it really difficult down the line because of the lack of transparency, the conversations. That was just that innate wall that existed. And so over time I learned that it needed to be more of a conversation and more of a give and take. And I think that my stakeholders really appreciated and you could see the difference. And again, every team is different, every stakeholder's different.

But I think that if you look at a team or a stakeholder who has never worked with research, I think that is the perception like, Hey, what can you do, or what should I do? And building that relationship, or if it's a give and take, it's a what do you need? Can I help you? This is what I can do, this is how we can do it together, really changes the narrative into you being more of a partner, more at the table when decisions are made, as I mentioned earlier. And I think that's what's changed over time for me is understanding the value of that relationship building into that end piece of my role, which is, I don't know, I personally can do all the research in the world, but if no one looks at it, if no one uses it, if no one talks about it later, that's a miss for me.

So that relationship building is key. So over time, I think, like I said, I've learned to value it more. And making sure that my stakeholders understand that that's also a key part of what we do has also helped change their minds. And I think seeing that as a team, it's kind of a snowball effect. You do it with one person, they can do it with another, then the team kind of talks about it as a group. So it does change, it changes that culture for the teams as well as they've never worked with research. But yeah, I think for the team, it's the same idea. If they've never worked with us, it's going to take a little bit of time and they're going to evolve.

Tim Rairdon:
Okay. Katya, I'd love to hear a little bit about maybe how your relationships with stakeholders and partners have adapted and evolved over time. Are you seeing similar sorts of trends happening within your style, within your organization? Do you see something different? Love to hear a little bit about that.

Katya Hott:
Yeah. For us, it's been interesting, especially on the enterprise side of our business where I'm working with a lot of colleagues who talked to end users all the time. And so this may not happen so much in consumer business where maybe the data you're getting from end users is often in the form of survey responses or NPS or usage data. But on an enterprise business, you have product folks and of course you have sales and account managers, folks who are talking to the people who are using the products a lot. And so one of the things that I had to work on when reframing my relationship with my colleagues in terms of democratization of research, was recognizing that these people had relationships with the participants that I would be doing user research with. And how could we all come to an understanding of instead of what's mine and what's yours, like Claudia was saying, how do we learn together in a way that is rigorous enough so that what we're learning can turn into research findings as opposed to just notes from a conversation?

And so that has been one of the major reframings that we've had with some of our colleagues on that enterprise side that I was talking about, where they're already having conversations and they actually already are doing a lot of best practices as researchers. They're leaving awkward silences, they're letting the people that they're talking to do most of the talking, they're doing active listening, they're asking probing, non-leading questions. We didn't have to teach that stuff. So what did we have to teach was you come out of a conversation like that and you have a page of notes in your notebook. What do you do with those? For a while, nothing. You would just write a slack message, be like, I had a really awesome talk with blah, and that was the end of it. And so part of the relationship building was saying, "Hey, we can help you with all of those pages of notes you take when you talk to our enterprise end users, that's actually data, let's leverage that."

Lots of us are taking these notes. Let's put it all together in a place and let's do an analysis exercise together. And that has not only shifted our relationship with these partners by kind of recognizing the expertise and the relationships they already have with end users, but it's also made them feel more comfortable bringing researchers to those end users who, if anyone works in the B2B space, you may know the end users feel very like untouchables. Sometimes you get one on the phone and you're like, yes, I got this administrator for this organization finally. Right? And so the people who are bringing, or are calling the research team into those conversations now are doing so because we've built up that relationship of understanding the value that each of us is bringing to the table based on the skills that we already have and the relationships we've already set up both within and outside of the company.

Tim Rairdon:
Great. Thanks so much. Taylor, any different thoughts on relationship building or how relationships have sort of adapted or evolved in your practice?

Taylor Klassman:
Yeah. I mean, Katya, so much of what you said resonates with me as a B2B researcher. My participants aren't other researchers, so getting folks on the phone is a challenge. And tapping into those relationships that already exist with our clients has been hugely impactful and has become almost its own set of research data that we pull on as a product team.

So that absolutely resonates. I would say another thing, because of the sort of unique context of dscout where we are a bunch of people nerds. There's people knocking on my door every day wanting to be more involved in research, interested in what we're doing on our team because there's already sort of that baseline interest and knowledge about the field. So we've also expanded our definition of democratization to other teams beyond the product team. So Tim's team, for instance, the CXR team, we engage with our research advisors as research partners as well in a program called Feature Leads. So we're experimenting with so many ways to bring folks closer to research across the organization, because it only serves to benefit us as a product vendor and as a client services provider. And just bringing everybody closer to the research world and gaining more of an understanding to better serve our clients.

Tim Rairdon:
Okay. Cool. So looking at the clock, we've got about a few minutes left. I'd love to squeeze in one more question. We've sort of been focusing on adaptation of relationships. I'd love to think about adaptation a bit in terms of how the concept of democratization should adapt to better support user researchers like yourselves. So in other words, we hear so much about it and it's sort of clearly nuanced. The conversation often centers around what the organization or stakeholders need, but really sort of curious, how could democratization adapt to better support user researchers like yourselves and your needs? And Taylor, maybe you could lead us off.

Taylor Klassman:
Yeah, the first thing that's coming to mind is actually something Claudia said at the beginning, which is the growth that you can experience as a practitioner who is democratizing research and focusing on that. And for organizations to have more ways for individual researchers to grow in their skills as they democratize. So I think there's a huge mentorship component to this work that can be made more scalable and more part of the effort of democratizing research that will really benefit the researchers individually.

Tim Rairdon:
Okay. Thank you. Katya, any thoughts?

Katya Hott:
Yeah. I would say that adapting an organization so that people have opportunities to collaborate around research as part of job descriptions is incredibly important if we're going to make this work. This means people's managers in disciplines that are not research disciplines need to recognize that their designers or their PMs or their engineers are participating in research activities and not having that be an extra thing they do on top of all of their work, but that be a regular part of their work. So we don't have to be asking extra time on top of someone who's already swamped or someone who's already over a capacity to make this work. And I feel like if everyone adapts in that way, makes time for this, then it'll be good.

Tim Rairdon:
Claudia, we've got one minute. Do you have any additional thoughts to close us out with?

Claudia Flores:
I would say my 30-second pitch is, yeah, I think that something Taylor said aligns with that. The growth opportunity, the mentorship, I kind of coined it as being a consultant, which in itself is just such a growth opportunity to be able to be nimble enough in your practice, but then also that that's not just researchers, that's the person that comes to you to be open to grow, to learn. I think taking that spin rather than, again, what I said earlier with mine versus yours, if we take that shift and we look at it that way, I think there's such a huge opportunity for us to grow, not just as a researchers, but in every type of organization.

Tim Rairdon:
Great. Thank you so much. We're at time. So Katya, Claudia, Taylor, thank you so much for your time and for your input. Attendees, everyone who've listened in, thank you so much. Please stay well and stick around for what's up next.