“We keep iterating on an old construct—let’s stop and start over. How do we want to do things differently? Let’s get back to first principles.”

1. KP Reddy

Episode Summary:

In this special ElevateAEC 2025 edition of The Zweig Letter Podcast, we're sharing KP Reddy's keynote from the main stage—a straight-talk session about where innovation in AEC is actually heading. Drawing from real conversations with major owners, hands-on research, and his own experience as an engineer and investor, KP breaks down why the industry's current approach to innovation isn't cutting it—and what needs to change.

He tackles the questions that matter: What do owners actually want? How can AI and agentic systems make a real difference? And what would a new master builder mindset look like today? This keynote delivers practical insights and honest challenges for AEC leaders ready to rethink how they approach business, technology, and client value.

Key Takeaways:

1. Owners Want Real Innovation, Not Lip Service: True innovation means solving problems in significantly better ways—not just adopting new technology for technology’s sake. Owners are craving AEC partners who listen and deliver true value.
2. Communication Gaps Hurt Everyone: Clients frequently feel like outsiders in the process, with their feedback often ignored. Successful firms will prioritize transparency, owner-centric approaches, and collaborative requirement gathering.
3. Tech Is a Tool—Not the Solution: Despite years of BIM and other advancements, core challenges with cost, schedule, and quality persist. The next leap forward will come from integrating AI, agentic design, and robotics as part of service delivery—and from business models, not software alone.
4. Business Model Reinvention Is Essential: Shifting away from headcount-driven metrics, AEC firms should explore skin-in-the-game approaches—like bonuses for outcomes, equity stakes, and public-private partnerships.
5. Client and Product Manufacturers Must Both Change: Building-product innovators report frustration as AEC professionals and owners often resist new solutions. KP encourages the industry to break the cycle of “the way we’ve always done it” and fully explore prefabrication, modularity, and automation.

All this and more on this episode of the Zweig Letter podcast.

KP Reddy is the founder and CEO of Shadow Ventures and a recognized voice on innovation in architecture, engineering, and construction. With expertise spanning AI, robotics, and automation—plus his role as a lecturer at Georgia Tech—KP brings practical strategies that push the AEC industry forward.

Links referenced in this episode:

1. Shadow Ventures
2. KP Reddy on LinkedIn
3. "Creating the Intangible Enterprise" by KP Reddy
4. Zweig Group & ElevateAEC Conference
5. Learn about the Zweig Letter and subscribe: https://thezweigletter.com/
6. Connect with Randy Wilburn on LinkedIn

Get your FREE Subscription to the Zweig Letter Newsletter.

Stay tuned for more enlightening content from the Zweig Letter podcast, and make sure to subscribe for regular updates!

Other episodes you'll enjoy:

Architecture with Heart - Carley Chastain

From Specs to Stories with Cherise Lakeside

Bridging Design and Construction with Dan Crist

AI Transforming AEC with KP Reddy

Connect with Zweig Group:

Instagram: Zweig Group

Facebook: Zweig Group

Twitter: Zweig Group

LinkedIn: Zweig Group

Website: Zweig Group

Welcome to the Zweig Letter Podcast. I'm Randy Wilburn.

Today's episode comes from a special series we recorded

at Zweig Group's Elevate AEC conference in San

Antonio, Texas. For those who aren't familiar with

Elevate AEC, it's Zweig Group's annual

gathering of AEC industry leaders.

3 days of keynotes, breakout sessions,

awards, and candid conversations about the future

of architecture, engineering, and

construction. The content we captured was exceptional,

and we wanted to share it with a wider audience.

So whether you're listening to a keynote address or a breakout

session, you're getting insights from the people shaping the

industry. And if you want to learn more about attending a

future Elevate AEC conference, visit

zwieggroup.com. Now

let's dive in.

Welcome to the Zweigletter Podcast, putting

architectural engineering planning and environmental

consulting advice and guidance in your ear. Zweig

Group's team of experts have spent more than 3 decades

Elevating the industry by helping AEP and

environmental consulting firms thrive. And these

podcasts deliver invaluable management, industry,

client, marketing, and HR advice

directly to you free of charge.

The Zweig Letter Podcasts, elevating the design

industry one episode at a time.

Okay, welcome to our speed business luncheon

where we are going to focus on innovation, and I mean real

innovation, not the LinkedIn version that so many talking heads

are carrying on about, not the core values version where so

many firms call themselves innovative yet have very little

proof of any real innovative practice. Real innovation

is the creation and implementation of new ideas,

products, services, or processes that deliver

meaningful value by solving problems or meeting needs

in ways that are significantly better than existing

alternatives. It is really the antithesis of "this is

the way we've always done it." Our lunch program is brought to you by

the person and organization I consider the foremost

authority on real innovation, KP Reddy. Now

KP is the founder and CEO of Shadow Ventures, a seed-stage

technology investment firm, and KP Reddy Company, which was formerly

Shadow Partners. He is a globally recognized

authority in AEC environments, AI, robotics, automation,

mobile applications, and cloud computing. KP is a civil

engineer by background, is a frequent lecturer at the Georgia

Institute of Technology, and is a sought-after subject matter

expert. Most recently, KP's experience with AI led him

to publish his latest book, Creating the Intangible

Enterprise. His keynote on the future of innovation

in AEC should help us envision a future where the speed of

business accelerates and AEC becomes an even better

investment. So please help me welcome KP Reddy to the Elevate

stage. You tell Chad you love Metallica and you get to listen to Metallica a

bunch. So

I'm going to tell you a little bit about like what we've been working on,

and I think this this narrative keeps coming up, right? I heard it in the

last panel with my colleague Frank, which is what about our

clients? What about the market? And it's interesting

that because our primary form of communication with our clients is

RFPs and responding to RFPs, we never get to ask

a lot of great questions outside of a procurement

cycle. So what we really looked at

was Let's go spend time with owners. So I

went and spent time with a bunch of your customers, lots of large

owners, municipalities, DOTs, etc., and we spent a bunch of

time talking to them about what's working and what's not

working. The resounding feedback from them

is, we hate working with the AEC industry.

They are a pain in the butt. They tell us what to do.

We are not the customer. We feel— they make us feel like we're the vendor.

They don't add a lot of value. They're a necessary evil. You guys

believe you're a necessary evil? That's what they

think. So we talked to a bunch of owners, and what they said was

all this technology— and I always joke around, I wrote a book on BIM about

13 years ago. Nobody should be buying it, yet I still have

sales because BIM is dead. No one cares about BIM.

That's an old construct. But what they said resoundingly is

nothing has changed. All this technology, all this

innovation, at the end of the day, our projects are not on

time, they are not on budget, and the quality actually is a question

mark. So why are we doing all this? And one

of my colleagues did a deep study on the design and building of the

Empire State Building, and his conclusion was

in today's age we could not meet the metrics, we could not meet

cost, we could not meet delivery schedules, that they did

it better back in the '50s than we're actually doing it now.

So that's the premise. So we did about 101

interviews. We created a thing called the Integrated Owners Forum. We got all the top

owners in the world to start showing up and just ask very

free-form questions, everything about How do you feel about hiring

architects? How does that process work for you?

How do you hire contractors? What do you think about bid? What do you think

about CM at risk and design-build? Asked them all the questions

and said, you are the customer. We need to

serve you the way you want to be served. And that was like, it was

weird because they said, no one's ever asked us that.

No one's ever asked us what we want. We've been told

draft an RFP, put a bid document together, do your plans

and specs. And so I just kind of said, let's get back

to first principles. How do we want to do things different? Let's

stop iterating on an old construct and let's just start

over. So we started to really explore their thinking, and my team

spent a lot of time on this stuff. I wish they

would have used AI, but they'd spent way too much time.

One of the categories in here that we spent the most time with was actually

some of the building product manufacturers that said there's a massive

disconnect between how they think about innovating the next HVAC system,

the next electrical distribution system, and their connectivity to the

people that design and specify with their products, that there's

a massive disconnect. In fact, they said that it's hard for them to

innovate because they have to convince you to specify it. They have

to convince you to design with it, and it's not worth it. Like, why

innovate something new if the industry's not gonna adopt something

new? And the owners don't know better, right? Some owners do. When I'm dealing

with Intel or Genentech or Meta and all that, they're a little bit more

savvy, but the local K-12 system doesn't

understand what the latest system is from Schneider Electric.

So this was kind of our nutshell, and anyone that wants this report,

you just email me, kp@kpready.co, I'll have someone send it to you.

But this is what we found out. Turns out owners admitted

to us, they don't know what they're doing. They're like, we, just

like you guys can't hire the right people, can't find the right people, guess what?

Neither can we. We go build a, a

manufacturing facility for 3 years, we burn out our people,

then they quit. We rarely have people on our side stay for

one more— more than one capital program because it's

brutal. It's a hard business. And so they end up quitting and they

go somewhere else. So they admitted we don't have the

capability. They're like, you know, budgets and schedules are

just kind of novelty. We don't really

understand what's going on. The other thing is they said, look, as much as we

spend time on design and thinking, we have this problem where

there's two silos. There's the CapEx buyer and there's the OpEx buyer,

that the industry designs and builds buildings and they

can't tell us what the operating costs will be. That's

like going out and buying a car, not knowing what the maintenance costs

will be, not knowing what your insurance costs will be, not knowing what your miles

per gallon are. And they're like, we do this with billion-dollar purchases,

we are going in blind. Practically criminal if you ask

me. So the data aspect, they're like, all this

data is in silos, nobody seems to care our

opinion on the data, it's our data. By the way, every one of

our owners believes what you guys think is your data, they believe

is their data. I'm not gonna argue, that's up to the lawyers.

But that is their belief system. So you can either say, hey, we're not gonna

share data and argue about it, or you

can say in this transparent world, you say, actually it is your data.

In fact, we're happy to help you monetize that data.

We'll help you use it better. We'll make it usable for you. Tell us what

you wanna do with the data. And I thought that was pretty fascinating.

This whole idea of BIM, all we're doing is rehashing 2D into 3D.

There is no data and nobody cares. There's so much

contractual misalignment. In other words,

we get paid a percentage of the project. If the project

gets increases in scope and price, we actually get paid

more. So there is no benefit to delivering cheaper, better,

faster to the AC industry. There's no bonus involved.

And so we saw like massive, massive misalignment and there's

misalignment and there's actually, um, really

opposite alignment, right? In other words, the benefit of

a bad project actually might benefit the AEC industry

more, uh, if it goes poorly financially.

Once again, this is what they said. We asked for specific

instances, they shared them with us. So I'm not saying it's 100%,

but we have to remember there's facts and there's feelings. These are

feelings that are rooted in facts, right? They've had these

experiences. The lack of information,

can't get as-builts, nobody seems to be working for us.

One of them said, I love working with architects that talk about the building being

their building. There's like, it's not our building. You didn't write a billion-dollar

check. It's not your building, sir. I paid. And then

how to communicate. Which is even becoming harder. Oh, let's set up

Procore, let's do this, let's do email. You know, it's gotten

worse and worse. In fact, all this technology that we have—

how many of you feel like we're communicating better

right now? We have all these Zoom notes flooding our

inbox that we don't have time to read, and

everybody's dropping it into AI to hopefully make some sense of it. So

this is kind of what they came up with which we found extremely

fascinating. So, this was kind of

the conclusion, right? So, we said, okay, great, let's put our analytical

hat on and said, we know it's broken, where are some of the choke

points? And a lot of it came down to

scope. It turns out your customer doesn't know what they

want. And it turns out we tend to ask

them a series of questions and iterations along the way, to help them define what

they want. And it was funny, as they admitted it, they're like, yeah, we're, we're

a big part of the problem. We think we know what we want, but we

don't actually. And so that iteration that we go through with the

AE firms costs us time and money. And, you know,

when our boss comes and yells at us about why things are taking too long,

well, we blame the AE firm. It's easy enough, right? But they did

admit that they don't actually know what they want. So the idea of

developing better requirements, deeper requirements,

in a detailed way and understanding scheduling. And, you know, we

used to joke around. I used to do

manufacturing facilities, so we'd have a job trailer full of

P6 printouts of the schedule, right? And we always used to

joke around, the minute we print it, it's wrong, right? And

so a lot of what they're asking for on the scheduling is not so much,

you know, what's the schedule, but what are the variables? What's going to hurt us?

On the schedule. And guess what? There's 3 different AI

weather sources now. We have so much data that we can work with

to actually start extrapolating risk and schedule, risk and

budgets, and things like that. The firm

selection— how many of you, how many of you like responding to RFPs,

right? It's a lot of fun. Now we have AI doing it for us. That's

going to make it better. Um, how many of us actually believe

that They're hiring and selecting based on QBS,

on qualifications, right? So the clients, the owners started

to understand like, hey, we're actually part of the problem, which I thought was great.

It was very big of them to admit that they were part of the problem.

So that's the thing that we think is an opportunity with AI. And

I'll get into like why AI even matters with any of this

stuff.

A lot of the overall iteration of design and them not

understanding what decisions are being made. They don't know what they're

signing up for. We say, hey, we think we should go this direction. They say,

okay, well if that's what you think, you're the expert. What they didn't tell you

is like, oh, that's probably gonna cost us more in energy costs, that's gonna cost

us more in maintenance, right? They don't necessarily understand the

downstream implications of any decision they make. Then

of course, everybody loves to blame the contractor. Some of my best

friends are contractors. Once again, it's back to

lack of information, lack of information.

Everybody know this thing? Why does this

exist? Why does the iteration of design

exist? Why don't we design on day 1 to

shop drawing level? Right? We do this

because we started off sketching on vellum and

drawing, and the cost of change to make any change

was so expensive that we decided like we need to

iterate, which made a lot of sense, right? Let's iteratively go through the process with

the customer, make iterative changes, make iterative

decisions, avoid a lot of rework. I was working on a big project

and my client was a big structural engineering firm. And I went to a meeting

with them, and the architect said, so where are we

on the design, on the structural design? Structural engineer said, yeah, we're on track. Didn't

show him anything. And I said, like, do you have anything? Like, oh, we

haven't even started. And I'm like, why haven't you started?

If we made design changes every time the architect and owner

changed their mind, we would be out of business. So we just kind

of sit in meetings and wait till they iterate whatever it is they want to

iterate. And we just wait till they get done with their noise, and

then we start designing. Because if we design on the first meeting, man,

we'll lose all our money on these projects. And I found that pretty

fascinating, right? So if you think about it, we've gone

through this cycle because the rate of change,

because we lacked a lot of technology, was so slow.

Making a change meant let's print out another set of drawings.

Go, uh, you know, sketch out and

erase on paper, on vellum. Then we went to CAD, and of course that's— for

some reason we thought the rate of change was also very difficult. But a lot

of this is we don't have enough information,

right? We're also feeding real-time information from the customer, from

codes and everything else. And as we get further along, we get

more and more information. And so you think about it, we, we draw a

box and then we start coloring in little pieces of it and drawing in the

pieces of it, and that takes time and energy. So

this is kind of where we've been, right?

So I did a small stint, 18 months, with Frank Gehry to run his

technology group. Frank had a belief system that you did

drawings to a shop-level drawing,

and his point was the dumb contractor won't know what to

do with my designs. So if we don't tell them exactly what to do,

the project will go over budget. And so in his

team, we had material scientists, we had structural engineers, we had lots of people, but

we delivered a full set of shop drawing level

drawings to the contractor. A lot of people told him like, hey, that's a

lot of liability, which we can talk about a little bit. There is

definitely a narrative whenever someone a customer asks you for something,

if your first response is, "Nope, can't do it, it's

too much liability," versus the answer being, "Yes,

but let me take a look at it and let's see how we can capture

that liability. Maybe we can do a joint capture on the liability,

but let's understand what the implications of it is." That was one of the biggest

feedback that the owners gave us, was that our industry says

no a lot. They tell us they can't do stuff, and it's not that they

can't do stuff, it's that they don't want to do stuff. We also asked them

questions like, would you be willing to pay more? They said absolutely. If they can

start demonstrating their methodology, how they create value,

how it'll impact the project, happy to talk to them about a

different fee structure. The funny thing is they're like, you know, we have to— we're

the customer and we have to go buy AIA contract

docs. It's like, isn't that fascinating? We sign

our vendor's contract. We're the

customer. They should be signing our contract. They should work the way

we wanna work. And you're starting to see that with some of the superscalers

that have realized that I don't wanna operate under the

existing construct. I'm gonna develop my own way, right? When Elon Musk, whatever you

think about him, decides to build a data center in Memphis and just

breaks all the rules and does whatever he wants and delivers a data center in

9 weeks, One part of the narrative is like, wow, he got

something done in 9 weeks that the industry would've never done in 9 weeks.

Other people say, well, he broke all the rules. We have to live by the

rules. He got to break all the rules and he's paying a million dollar a

day fine for breaking all the rules. Funny thing is

he doesn't care about the million dollar a day fine. It's built into the business

model. So where are we going from this and how do we start to think

about it? So Frank asked a question

about agentic AI. I'm not gonna get too deep into agentic AI.

I'm, I'm around all day today. If anyone wants to talk about agentic

AI, we can talk about it. But this is how we see the

future of what we're doing, that everything is kind of tech-enabled,

a lot more integration. Um, I talked yesterday about some of the

things that I've built. One of the things that I wrote up was kind of

a 10-page academic paper that I gave to all these

VCs. Which was the death and

reemergence of the master builder. And like, why did the master builder go

away? What was the construct of that? And how do we bring

it back? Because the net result of that

was positive. So as we think about how do we

reemerge as the new master builder as an industry and get

rid of the silos, these are some of the key points that we

really believe. I you say, know, it's funny Chad's talking about LinkedIn.

I'm very active on LinkedIn.

Um, on my profile it says AI design buildings,

robots build buildings. My timeline is

5 years. My timeline is 5 years.

I might be wrong on my timeline. I will not be wrong on the end

state. The end state is the right state. And a lot of it's because of

what we're talking talking to our owners about. We have owners, we have

some companies that do fully automated drywall and painting and

finishing. When I tell the owners about that, they're like, nobody told us that,

nobody told us that. So as

owners continue to get educated and exposed to these technologies,

they're going to start asking a lot of questions.

So how do we start looking at that? The entire model, the software

model— I know there's a lot of software vendors out there. We kind

of believe software is kind of dead as a way to go

buy software. It's really more software is

just embedded in how we do things. We think that a

lot of this is shifting just how people think about executing work.

I work with some very large subcontractors that invest heavily in R&D

to deliver a different way. And so we think this is how

The shift away from headcount as a growth metric to more like, how do we

think about project delivery? How do we think about

project profitability? I'm working with a large NFL team. I mean, they're

all large, but on a new stadium. And I said like,

hey, as a consultant, can we help you do better? Can we guarantee the outcomes,

the budget, the schedule? And if we guarantee it, I want a cut.

I'm like, oh, you want a bonus? I'm like, no, I want to own part

of the team, man. Like, that's what I want. He's like, well, I can't let

you in part of the team. However, I could give you a bonus if you

can help us do it faster. So the thinking around even the financial

models and the business models is even starting to change

to more of a developer mindset, to more of a skin-in-the-game

mindset. I think, you know, someone's asked me a couple of questions about

DOTs and how do I see that going. There's a reason why

we're seeing a lot of public-private partnerships. There's a reason

for that, and those are massive, massive economic opportunities for the industry.

Unfortunately, the asset allocator is probably getting

paid on equity and upside, and they're going to pay you hourly

rate, and they're going to try to negotiate your rate down and

not give you a piece of the action. Because I'll tell you what, long term,

in terms of how you think about growth and economic growth, owning

part of the asset is probably a better move, and these

developers are not going to let you in on the action.

So how do we think about this? If you imagine, which

you don't have to imagine, we're actually building a lot of these. How do you

think about getting information out of the owner, out of the

customer, right? We ask a series of questions, we maybe

have some process, they give us some feedback, we go away, We

analyze that, then we have more questions and we go back to them.

What if instead the requirements process was much

more conversational with an AI bot based on all your information?

So you could have a 1-day meeting with a customer and

actually understand exactly what they need.

Customer says, hey, I wanna build a 350-bed hospital.

Fantastic. What are you thinking about surgical centers? Oh, I hadn't thought

about that. Well, I think we need 5. Okay, great. What's your typical

footprint for a surgical center? What type of equipment? Oh, we're

going to put an X-ray machine in there. We're going to put a robotic surgery

thing. Great. Which model? Right? Because the AI has access to all

this information on the front end and can continue to prompt

the customer real time with— to answer all the

questions. At the end of this, now you actually know the requirements.

You've actually learned a lot about what the customer needs, which

means you can push all of those requirement gathering instead of being iterative,

iterative, and along this entire long process, we're

getting as much information upfront as possible. This is something we've already

done, right? So we've already looked at this.

How do these requirements fit into design, right?

Design is about taking a lot of set of variables from the customer

And the business case, this is another interesting thing. We ran a model where

we looked at a new hospital and we looked at staffing and the revenue model

and the big business plan for the new hospital, and we fed it into

our system to understand how that would inform design.

What would be the ROI of that new surgical center? Do you actually need more

surgical centers based on the demographic data you're giving us, based on the

certificate of need data? So we're pulling all this data and the owner's

saying, Wow, it turns out you're right, we do need an extra surgical

center. Our fancy consultants at McKinsey missed that,

right? So this is the type of iteration you're having up front. So if you

think about, if you have all the requirements up front,

you now all have all the data to push into the

agentic design. So now you're designing very quickly on

the fly. And guess what? If the customer changes their mind, That's

fine, it's quick, but we're also designing the shop drawing

level. We're also designing with an idea that is the product available?

We typically specify this HVAC system, we're pinging

the manufacturer to say, does that exist still? Are the performance

specs still the same? Is it gonna be available based on the

predicted schedule of my project? Will it be available? 'Cause if it's

not available, which if you're dealing with the superscalers, that's one of the biggest

problems is Product availability, right? Systems availability.

We're actually designing and getting real-time data to inform the design and

make those changes. Why do we have RFIs,

requests for information? Because we didn't provide enough information.

We didn't give enough prescriptive information. So that's what we're

starting to see there. Tech-enabled construction services. Is it gonna be

robots on the job site? Not one of them. But

we're already thinking about how do we do orchestration? What does the superintendent of the

future look like? And is it a set of cameras that are

actually sending data to all the different robots on our job site? I

think I talked about it yesterday. We have an automated grading system,

right? Grading equipment. We now have automated painters and drywallers.

We also have prefab that's coming. So not everything's gonna be on the

job site. And you have a lot of other interesting things that are being built

every day. The cost of robotics are getting cut like

5% a month, and it's just getting cheaper and

cheaper. So we're going to have access to the type of robotics that only

very large industries have had in the past, like automotive.

Autonomous construction, big part of that, whether

it's prefab offsite or whether it's— the offsite

stuff was super interesting. We talked to a large healthcare provider, and they said, we

tried, we found a company that does prefab patient rooms,

a company called Bloxx, I think, out of Birmingham. But the

problem is we didn't talk to them until after

we realized we may not meet the budget and the schedule.

And they said, we still need lead times. Why didn't your architect design

with us in mind? Well, because the

architect wanted to design the rooms they wanted to design the rooms instead of thinking

kit of parts. So now that owner now realizes like, why am I—

when I start a project day one, I'm going to look at who builds prefab

patient rooms and I'm going to force my architect to design with

modularity in mind. And you're seeing this across the board. It's not just

healthcare, it's a lot of different markets. Actually just yesterday, Schneider Electric

and Compass Data Centers announced their

pre-manufactured data center in a box. So between Schneider and

Compass, they're just gonna ship you a data center, right?

You're also seeing it with other, in other markets where they're realizing that prefab

and offsite is really important. The last piece that I think

is really important to customers is facilities management.

Great, you guys built the house, you designed it, you built it, you left. Now

I have to live with it for the next 20 to 50 years.

We're working with a large hospital project They called us in and they

said, we met— we hired one of the top architecture firms. They

seem to fail to realize that within 5 years we'll probably have robots in

our hospital. And they didn't design with the idea of

coexistence of robots, humanoids or otherwise,

in the space living with humans.

Seems like a big miss since we probably won't tear down this hospital for 50

years. It's not going anywhere. Can we all agree that within 50 years we'll have

robots working with us? So you have to design a building that has robots

working with us, that has that optionality.

So why, why build these types of service platforms? So as you think about

AI, once again, not a feature, not a tool

necessarily, part of an equation. How do you think about

building your AI service platform and rethink your

business model? Because guess what? If you have the right conversations with your

your customers, they want a different business model.

I'm gonna skip through on time. So a lot of what we're looking

at is we've built decision to support systems, we're

building requirements gathering systems, prefab,

agentic design and systems to do the entire lifecycle.

It's early innings, but we're still, we're on

path. So, I think I'm out of time.

One of the things we do for the industry

and one of the things we really start to think about is

how do you assess where you are and where you're going? I posted something a

couple weeks ago on change management. The change management is made up,

it doesn't apply. Change management implies that you know what the end state is.

We do not know what the end state is.. And if you

constantly focus on managing to an end state that is probably fictional,

you will probably lose. So a lot of like even what Frank was talking about

up here earlier is really about how you think about

assessing where you are and where you're going. Thank you very much. Hopefully

I didn't ruin your lunch. Apparently I did that for a

couple people yesterday. But with that, we're going to move

on to our AAC Innovator Awards.

I think they're going to cue something up. Thank you, everybody.

Thanks for tuning in to the Zweig Letter podcast.

We hope that you can be part of elevating the industry and that

you can apply our advice and information to your

daily professional life. For a free digital

subscription to the Zweig Letter, Please visit

theZweigLetter.com/subscribe to

gain more wisdom and inspiration in addition to information about

leadership, finance, HR, and marketing your

firm. Subscribe today.