Why diversity and diverse thinking is critical to success. In this episode we talk with Nemo D’Qrill, founder of a platform aiming to reduce bias in the hiring process. We discuss the value that diverse thinking can bring to a company of any size and how to manage positive conflict in an organisation.
Episode Links
Episode Transcript
Matthew Todd
Hi. My name is Matthew Todd, and welcome to Inside the ScaleUp. This is the podcast for founders, and executives in tech, looking to make an impact and learn from their peers in the tech business, we lift the lid on tech businesses, interview leaders and following their journey from startup to scale up and beyond covering everything from developing product market fit, funding and fundraising models to value proposition structure and growth marketing. We learn from their journey so that you can understand how they really work, the failures, the successes, the lessons along the way, so that you can take their learnings and apply them within your own startup or scale up and join the ever growing list of high growth UK SaaS businesses.
Hey, and welcome back to the podcast. I’m very pleased to be joined today by Nemo D’Qrill. Good afternoon, as we record this day, great to have you here.
Nemo D’Qrill
Good afternoon, Matthew, thank you so much for having me.
Matthew Todd
No problem at all, looking forward to this conversation and where this goes. But as always, I’d like to start with the guests introducing themselves, their company, a little bit of background. So over to you. Tell us about yourself and your company.
Nemo D’Qrill
So I’m Nemo D’Qrill. Danish originally an academic in the first part of my life doing mathematics and these, these things. And one day, I decided to found the company, well, more correctly, I build a small piece of tack that turned out to do surprisingly well in testing. And I determined to put a bit of my life towards that. And that piece of tank was what’s the foundation of Sigma Polaris, the business I’m currently running.
And it combined some of the things I looked at, during my early PhD days, which had to do with mathematical representations of the human minds and errors of reasoning.
And it went in to profile people based on their performances and tests and online assessment and use that to inform profiling and hiring decisions about them instead of CV’s. And the main idea was just that. I’ve known a lot of people that got opportunities, not because of their credit, or because they looked a certain way or lost opportunities.
The first job I called I oligarch because they lost my CV and called me to interview all my colleagues who are masters students or graduates. And I came out straight off the army.
Matthew Todd
Yeah.
Nemo D’Qrill
Three months later, I was presenting the installation, I was working to the royalty because I was one of the best at the job. Now, I’ve met so many amazing people that didn’t get treated right through the system. And so many people have had unjust advantages as well. And I thought, hey, maybe we could do something about that if we use a little bit of science and stat, objective meritocratic approaches.
Matthew Todd
Interesting.
Nemo D’Qrill
So that’s a little bit about me and Sigma Polaris. There’s a lot more to say about both, of course
Matthew Todd
Yeah, no, that’s fantastic. I think no, it’s really good to kind of hear, hear that background and a little bit more about Sigma Polaris and kind of what led you to that, I guess I’d be kind of interested to know a little bit more about, just to start with at least, you know, what was it that then what was that early testing like that, that kind of led you to think you’ve got something that could be, you know, widely applicable, valuable in your have commercial worth?
Nemo D’Qrill
Sure. This could be considered an automation technology so much more. But basically, you take a piece of a very human led process, and you put in a piece of tech in one piece of it now not all effects that will be impossible. That’s a future thing, Black Mirror, maybe 100 years, we will see.
But in that one bit, which is a pre screening before you have interviews, I thought, Okay, let’s try and build something small for that. And my initial goal was to remove human like sub human biases to increase diversity while doing as well as a recruiter what in average.
And the shocking thing was that when people use this data to waitwait better and that’s when I was talking to interested late getting really interested because I thought okay, like not only can we have a social impact, but we also have a quality impact those around a very famous study from from the states that looked at judges, and when they would give paroles to various candidates. They were trying to find correlations between the severity of the crimes, which universities that people came from that had gone, gone to prison or if any education, their demographics, etc. And this massive, really amazing study showed that the main correlations between getting parole and not getting parole. What was the proximity of when the judge had had food last? Wow. So right in the morning and right in the early afternoon, way more people about 65% would get parole. And then they would tail down to what zero at the end of the day of right before lunch.
Matthew Todd
Yeah, thats really interesting.
Nemo D’Qrill
The judges wouldn’t even know this, right, this was a natural error. And it’s not their fault, as such as definitely worth paying attention to after it came out. But human beings make mistakes like that all the time. And the idea of being able to aid humans make fewer such mistakes was appealing to a mathematician, and also, obviously a social impact I could align with, for the sake of the audience.
I don’t know if you can see my video, but it says down at the bottom of the day that I am a non-binary person myself. One of the reasons I’m passionate about this topic.
Matthew Todd
Yeah, no, I think that’s really interesting from both of those perspectives, the quality perspective, but also that social impacts perspective, you know, removing or attempting to remove bias from that part of the process. Obviously, a, you know, massively interesting, important area, you know, you could argue, is certainly in the public eye, now, more than ever, but always, you know, should have been important and should continue to be important. And one thing I’m kind of curious about is how do you measure how effective that technology, you know, was and is?
Nemo D’Qrill
That’s a very good question. So I think there’s, there’s three different ways you can, you can measure this kind of thing. But most of the time, what you need to do is you need to do basically a bit of a baselining. how impactful is an electric car, or the electric car is still bad for the environment. But it’s better than fossil fuel based car.
So you need to compare yourself with various standards approaches, and then look at what are the levels and errors that occur in those approaches. What you then do, for instance, to say, say, if you remove the issue of naming bias, well, then in that case, you have removed that entire portion of the error. And then you start calculating, then of course, you also look at the outcomes to see you know, do people actually also look behave different and diversely. But at the end of the day, all of these things added together, both the direct and the indirect measurements, from early studies indicate that represent 29 cases of bias and average for each hire. Now, companies don’t necessarily need to care about this because of social reasons, even though of course, that is very much in the public eye. But this is 29 cases where you made in like, sub optimal decisions on people’s skills.
Because of that mistake, the fact that the mistake or something we socially care about is secondary, you miss the value the people, that means you might have done the wrong hire. And that’s just a business loss of opportunity. Yeah, I see. So certainly, excluding a lot of people, a significant number of people that were probably better suited for the job, which could lead to wrong hiring, delayed hiring and, and obviously, impact on the business. Yeah. And on top of that, you know, the, the numbers are just so clear, like, difference is not just something you shouldn’t remove, based on like, all of the numbers like that look like McKinsey’s Deloitte Report or Harvard Business School, a massive reports or like all of them just proves that the time like teams with more diverse diverse teams outperform? Yeah, that’s sort of like you should aim at getting more not like, which is just so humorous that then some poor company is not progressive enough us still removing pace on an asset. It’s a little bit like, Oh, you’re too good at mathematics, we cannot possibly hire you. It’s a silly kind of reasoning.
Matthew Todd
Yes. Yeah, absolutely. So in terms of, of kind of launching Sigma Polaris and getting, getting that off the ground, how, how have you found that that journey? how receptive have companies been easy? Was it an easy launch process? I’m sure. Most launch processes are not easy. But yeah, great to hear a little bit about how that was received and how you’ve kind of proceeded to grow this so far.
Nemo D’Qrill
Well, I think I think many entrepreneurs have struggled with this question, because a launch is not a one stage thing. First of all, we need to build and test the product that we need to build the product and test the product and refine the product and then start pushing to market.
Each of these launches comes with their own excitement and her own frustrations. A whole I found it very difficult. I think that doesn’t mean we haven’t had success. But as an academic entering the industry. I have been quite surprised about how much perceptions matter and how much the ability to communicate internally at Alton departments about maths and politics, how these things can be really quite important.
Which most of this audience will find Orpheus, but hey, that’s why I came in the event one of my many learning journeys. I think one thing that I found shocking is how people are surprisingly dismissive of science.
They don’t care about necessarily the McKinsey, Deloitte or Harvard Business School Reports, they will say they trust all of them as sources. But then if the sources don’t align with what they believe entirely, then they dismiss them. I find that an interesting kind of confirmation bias that, you know, certainly this is not a general issue. But it definitely explains why progressive companies just do better because they’d like there wasn’t willing to listen to new voices new research.
Nemo D’Qrill
The biggest learning that I have gotten has been that the same product, and the same impact, and the same values are going to be received very differently at different stages of your launching process and by different people.
I’ve found that the tone that you deliver something with it with something with matters an awful lot, if you go in and say this will prevent an error, or this will help you get better. It’s a subtle difference. Yeah, it changes the reception quite a bit. Some people strongly prefer one. Some people strongly prefer another. As a mathematician, you will say the analysis cases it has the same impact. But the same impact does not mean that the story is going to be equally receptive. And I think the biggest error or error of the biggest learning that I have gotten has been that the same product, and the same impact, and the same values are going to be received very differently at different stages of your launching process and by different people. And possibly more important than the product, or more important by the plan, the impact is the way you tell that story.
Matthew Todd
Yes, absolutely. I think that story matters, how it is positioned, how it is received, more importantly, is, is everything really, because it’s that perception that causes people to engage and buy the products in the first place without which you obviously have no customers. But then further down the line. It also I think, impacts the success they they do or do not receive and the value they do not do not receive based for when they do actually use the products based on their perceptions and expectations coming in as well.
Nemo D’Qrill
No, absolutely like we have some competitors in the space that have beautifully designed products that on a very scientific level couldn’t possibly at work. And they still have greater success. And that’s because of the communication being done in such a like amazing way. And that doesn’t mean they don’t necessarily have some impact or that it’s completely useless.
But but it’s been quite interesting as a scientist to look at some of these products being pushed amazingly well. Yeah. And how the market reception has been to some of our narratives.
Matthew Todd
Yeah, no, I can imagine. Yeah, I’ve certainly seen many products in many sectors. You know, have, you’re not very much in terms of products, per se, but have achieved a large number of customers because of that, their expertise in communicating that message and getting it across.
Now, one thing we did talk about last time that I’d certainly be interested in, in talking about a couple of things. But just just to start off you. You mentioned kind of issues with, or not issues, per se. But you mentioned it’s important to be cautious when receiving advice from others be their mentors be the other people and one thing you know, I want to promote on this podcast is diversity of many things, but certainly approaches and methods and models of of launching and growing SaaS businesses. So I’d certainly be interested to hear kind of how you found interactions with with those kind of advice give us.
Nemo D’Qrill
Yeah, no, I think the further you get into anything, the more you realize that no one really knows what they’re talking about. And that’s completely fine. You know, we debated would discuss it and we try different things, and the ones that work we move forward with.
There was a study from Edinburgh University that’s coming out showing that neurodivergent teams that was people with ADHD, does dyslexia like higher functioning autists, etc. They outperformed neurotypical teams in almost every metric, but there was more conflict. Yeah, that conflict can be managed and it’s not a bad thing. It’s disagreement. It’s good. But that’s an expected matter when you have different people in the room even if they’re brilliant. Now one thing when you are a start-up this you don’t have that many people around you either inside for your business or advising you and one thing you sometimes forget, is that if you took five brilliant people and put in a room to help you with a matter, they would all disagree.
That’s fine. But what you sometimes do is when you have one of those brilliant people in the room, you just believe everything they say is true, it’s not, that’s fine as well. But that thing was learning that just because someone has five years marketing experience doesn’t mean that they know anything about marketing.
And even if they do know about marketing, that doesn’t mean it’s right for you in your current circumstances. And we all come from different background beliefs. And from that perspective, it might seem like an obvious thing for you to do. But that doesn’t mean it’s right. And that things just think and challenge people and their backgrounds in a very constructive way.
I found quite useful, because I came in sort of treating it much more like science, for example, it’s like, let’s learn all of the different bits. And let’s listen to the people that know an awful lot about it. And you absolutely should and take the advice and there’s so many people that I want to give advice to start up and it’s a massive boon to be critical, because in maths, there might be a straight easy answer. But in sales, marketing, market positioning, product development, time management, HR, they are not that straight answers. Absolutely. So how do you then evaluates those differences of opinion or in some cases, the only opinion you may be getting about a particular topic, have you found any kind of effective strategies for for testing different ideas that you hear whether they conflict or don’t? Well, there’s several different approaches you can take.
I think the one thing is quite important for startup is to say the best idea doesn’t need to be the one you should go with. Because in a startup, you cannot do everything. And that means the best marketing approach is probably not accessible to you, because of all the resources. And because of all the timelines. That means that the person that gives you marketing advice might give you the very best advice. But that might not be an option. Yeah, and maybe the most optimal thing you can do is take idea number three, but the marketing person will obviously an advice giver, or mentor or similar, will not have the whole overview of everything. And they will also only be an expert in marketing.
So thinking the best marketing idea may not be the best business idea is really quite useful. The other one, if you really have if you know nothing about it, you really just have to make a decision, you have four different advice givers, you can take a bit of a weighted average, if you have three different priorities from each one of them. You can list them out, you can like as options, you can basically do a point system, you say like Option A or Option B, Option C, and you put the order that the different people put them in. And then you contain that by how qualified you think the person is. Yeah, so between zero and one, this is not ideal. And it’s still a finger in the air. But it’s the way where you can sort of be like, Okay, well, based on this, it seems that all of the advice for option one was give us this much option B this module to see that much. Therefore, we should go with option C. But I think the most important thing is really always to remember that the best idea for one part of your business might not be the best idea for the entire business moving forward. And it needs to be part of that same storyline, that same strategy. Like it’s the reason the business model canvas is so faster successful, is that trying to tie it all together? Yeah, absolutely. Considering the context, as a whole and your context, as a company founder and the stage of the business is likely to be vastly different from the context of any mentor or advisor. And I’m sure they come with their own biases generally in terms of how their experience has been shaped, but also biases to their interaction with you and your company as well and what they might seek to do get out of that relationship and future. But also a designer will always tell you to spend more time on your design. Yes, at some point, you need to just push it and market SEER will always tell you that you can sharpen up a narrative but at some point you need to knock on doors and go over to sales and say it will always say we should just focus on selling we don’t need a better product. But sometimes you need a bit of product. Yeah. These are these Yeah, so as it’s, that’s that’s a bit of as being a founder you need to have match it all up.
Matthew Todd
Yes, I’m there probably is no right answer, but it’s just important to make a decision and move forward rather than, you know, stay still and not make a decision at all. So I think for the audience that we’ve got, I think one thing that would be really good with your background, and with the, you know, background of Sigma Polaris as well as a, a platform, I think we interesting to talk about, you know, the first hires early hires kind of forming that initial team as a startup that’s, you know, started to gain some traction. Yeah. How it what’s your perspective? And what have you seen in terms of the importance of diversity? You know, how confounders approach that and manage that as they get their first hires on board?
Nemo D’Qrill
Well, I think one of the first thing is to say, if you want to be successful, you need people to disagree with you. And not just advisors and mentors, and then you follow in line, like you need that healthy debate and discussion. And that’s where diversity is just amazing.
Like, getting someone in there has a different age, getting someone that has a different gender, getting someone in with a different cultural background, educational background, socioeconomic background, all of these things will give you that minor challenge that will help you refine and sharpen up even if your rights, they might knock some edges off your argument. You might like? Well, I think so many founders are looking for someone to tell them that everything they’re doing is great.
Matthew Todd
Yeah.
Nemo D’Qrill
So many founders are sitting there and be like, like, please tell me my product is lovely. And that what I’m doing is amazing.
And I think it’s fine to have some of those people around you. But I actually think that it should team, you want people that are passionate about what you’re doing, that are passionate about your mission and your vision, but also that are more than happy to be critical about the way you’re gonna get there.
And the moment someone is comfortable with that idea, I think diversity comes very naturally. Where I think diversity partly is hampered by the fact that people are like, Oh, no, they might disagree. Although they might think differently about the way we should approach this. And even if they think differently, it doesn’t mean you have to go down that way. But it’s still really useful if someone says, I think we should cater to a different demographic. Yeah, and then have a brainstorm on why pros and cons. And even if you never change a single thing from what they’re saying, you might still get insights.
So I don’t think you should have diversity just for the sake of diversity, I think you should do it. Because that’s your only way of sharpening up things. When you cannot convince commission marketing agencies to do report for you. When you cannot go out and your dual massive research projects, what you do is you use your team. And if your team has the same backgrounds or thought patterns as yourself, then you might as well just think about it harder yourself. But, you know, that has never been a solution to anything, except for like, really complicated mathematics and possibly chess?
Matthew Todd
Yeah, no, absolutely. I think there’s, there’s a lot of interesting points in what you just said. And one thing that kind of comes to mind when you talk about, you know, passion for the mission, and combined with, you know, differences in background, it seems to me that people, I’ve seen a lot of people mistake, trying to find people with shared values, I shared vision and shared mission, which is, you know, critical to success, you need, you know, a founding team that really believe and are passionate about the problem that you’re trying to solve. I think a lot of people kind of conflate that with thinking that they then have to have very similar backgrounds and thought processes and everything else that goes alongside that. But of course, those two things don’t have to go hand in hand, you can, you know, be passionate about the same problem, but think there’s a different way to solve it. And that’s, that’s something that you should seek out, I think.
Nemo D’Qrill
Absolutely. This is where the cultural elements also come in, as a founder, you set the culture you want, to some extent in this way you communicate with others and treat others. And there’s also where if if you are embracive of constructive debates and brainstorming and all of these things, and then it’s your choice. And if you’re not, then that’s also fine. But what you then do is lose out on this opportunity to sharpen up everything.
Matthew Todd
Yeah, and I think that the way that you describe this, I think your mathematical background is very evident in the way that you describe, evaluating, you know, different arguments, pros, and cons. And, you know, different weightings of these things, but I think too often, people will jump to an emotional response of ‘Oh, no, someone has done something different. They have challenged my idea of the perfect product’. You know, as you say they seek out people that say, Oh, I love that you’re doing the right thing. But sometimes I think the most important feedback is a new most important way you can often find out whether you are doing the right thing is by deliberately seeking out that criticism?
Nemo D’Qrill
No, absolutely.
Matthew Todd
Yeah, we’ve had some other people on the podcast as well. And they’ve talked about deliberately, yes, seeking out customers that love the products love what you’re talking about, and when, of course, sign up. But combining that with a very deliberate approach of seeking out customers that won’t buy it right now, and are very critical, even buyers in the same company, and then say, well, why is that? What would we have to change for it to solve your problem? And then go back to them once you’ve thought about that, and decided whether you want to address it, and then address it and go back to it? Okay, this is what we’ve got now. Is this right now? And keep repeating that process until they either tell you to go away? Or say yes, that’s, that’s now meeting my needs. And I think that, that sounds quite similar to your, your approach, really, in terms of what you’re describing about the flow of that healthy criticism?
Nemo D’Qrill
Yeah, to some extent, though, of course, you can also do it with companies and really like you. And you know, you can say brainstorm, should be constructive. And then afterwards, you sharpen up the ideas where like, I don’t think having a team that has disagreements necessarily means that, like, because with the client example, as soon as though they are less likely client, but let’s take the client example. In that case, if you take the difficult client, you might get the next 10 years of your product roadmap out of working with them.
But that doesn’t mean you’re going to do like half of the things they suggest immediately, maybe you only do two.
But you got all of that feedback, and much of it was really useful. And some of us completely discount and be like, well, they end up the target anyways, similar to how if you hire someone from a culturally different background from either yourself or your demographic, maybe you don’t want to ever cater to them. But that challenges might still help sharpen you up for your main demographic, because they will challenge you differently. And that’s the really useful thing. You know, that’s when you start to become unique and innovative. You don’t become innovative by doing exactly what has always been done, which is very dull, become innovative by thinking exactly like your customers, of course, you need to reflect it. But you also need to have more than that.
Matthew Todd
Yeah. No, absolutely. I completely agree. So in terms of, you know, Sigma Polaris, then how have you kind of navigated that, that internally with a team? How, you know, how are there any kind of useful tactics that you found for kind of getting the appropriate level and, or not even appropriate level, but the rights perception of that kind of healthy debate and difference of opinion.
Nemo D’Qrill
I think could be quite useful. And this might also reveal a bit about myself, but I think it’d be quite useful to go to the streams, which is to say you do a brainstorm where you really try to do everything with a yes, and attitudes. That’s a term from improvisational comedy, but also used in various business context where you go in and you take someone idea, and you say yes to it. And, and with that, following that answer you build upon it. So someone might say, I think we need a new logo. And instead of saying, I think that’s a stupid idea, you say, Yes. And I actually think that our color palette could be in this general direction, someone else’s saying yes, and the near the future might determine actually going for this general idea was not great. But having that construct of trying to build upon is really quite useful. But then you can also have the destructive approach, which you need to say in advance and be dealing with, which is like, I’m not going to challenge that idea. I think, I think with this idea, what about these three concerns? What about these two objections? Is this even feasible.
But if you mix those two things together too much you can get in a situation where people are nervous about sharing new ideas. Yeah, which you really don’t want. You want people to be able to share new ideas. But if you only share new ideas, and you don’t get critical that you’re just wasting time having people share, you know, crazy ideas all the time. So that’s, I think, can be useful to communicate. This is not the type of exercise we’re doing. This is not the type of exercise we’re doing. I know some people lead this very differently, and they try to always have more of a balanced approach in the middle. And that’s probably possible. But I think the easiest approach is just to split up into two different cases and say most of the time will operate in the middle. But now let’s do a positive session. And now, let’s do a constructively confrontational session.
Matthew Todd
Yeah, I think that’s really interesting. And I think, thinking about too many exercises I’ve been involved with, I think it can be very easy to come out of a meeting where there are differences of opinion, with a very average outcome, where you, you end up implementing something that is almost the least polarizing by default, and I think it will certainly be interesting to try your approach and set up in the appropriate way, as you say, you know, seek to follow a, you know, an idea to its logical conclusion, but then also try and play the opposite stance to that and say, well, what if we didn’t do this? You know, what are the things that could be wrong with this? What is the impact of this? And I think that that does lead to more critical thinking.
Nemo D’Qrill
And the devil’s advocate, you know, take the person that liked the idea the most and ask them to present the reasons why it’s bad, it’s a really good exercise. And it creates a very healthy environment where people can share ideas much more freely.
The devil’s advocate is a term used for you know, the selection of new Pope’s, whereas someone that has to go in and try to find good reasons why not. And it’s a really important thing. And it’s not always the most comfortable, but it’s really useful. And especially if you take the person that’s a big, like big fan, or big proponent, and you ask them to switch, it gives you perspective from the other side, which will hopefully enrich in your general view.
Matthew Todd
Yeah, absolutely. I certainly have seen that a few times, the rare occasions, people have run that kind of exercise that, as you say, regardless of whether the outcome is the same or not. I think everyone does, you know, at least then buy into that outcome a little bit more, with a little bit more understanding, and more accepting of the compromises that may be made, and the reasons for them as well.
Nemo D’Qrill
Yeah, like, I’m from Denmark, as I mentioned in the beginning, and sometimes we’ll have ministers that will be commissioned to do our oath, not permission, but asked to present a case for something that they don’t want.
And they will do it, they will write all of the positive reasons and all of it and because that’s our job, is to say, give us the best reasons for why we should invest more into wind turbine technology for the next 10 years.
And, you know, that ability to put your own preference as a scientist, it’s just like, first of all, as you say, if you do these types of exercises, you get a wider company buying in, but also you get a small team. So there’s a little bit of growth involved in it as well. Absolutely. And I think it comes back to what we started off talking about, which is trying to break down those unconscious biases, as well, by forcing you to challenge your own beliefs, whether you are, you know, then become consciously aware of whatever bias led you to, you know, overly reinforce a particular part of that argument or not, I think it does promote that more critical thinking and therefore less bias in that decision making process.
Yeah, absolutely. You might find some good arguments, you might also find out the arguments are even worse than you thought there were regardless, you learn something. Yeah. Where if you speak to your mirror, you don’t learn that much. No, very, very, very true. So just conscious of time, and I think there’s also you know, we’ve covered a quite a lot in the last 30 minutes. And I think something that regardless of stage of company, I think our audience should take a lot away from this conversation, I hope well then go back to their own company and do a bit of that critical thinking themselves. And in terms of Sigma Polaris, you know, what’s, what’s next, for the company journey? How do you see the platform evolving? How do you see the impact that you’re trying to make, you’re evolving over the coming months and years. So we’re looking at growth at the moment.
It’s like we’ve done, like, the research, we’re happy to do, we’ve proven our various things, our messaging is obviously not perfect, but it’s getting sharpened up and all of this, this will always be the case with a startup at any stage. And right now, we’re gonna look at that stage where we have to start growing, we have some ambitions with an investment round in the end of the year.
I will not go into details at the moment because details will depend on traction. But we are going for as aggressive traction as we can in the next four to six months.
So that we can start having a more international impact following this investment round. Hopefully, I see. And what is the vision overall for the platform for the company. Division isn’t for the platform of the company, the vision is for the world and impact business and what I mean by that is, I think the way people are doing recruitment is silly. Not always, some of the times is really quite brilliant. But the status quo which is you know, get tons of CVS and look at them, use all of your biases to your best of your abilities and try to find some people like, it’s just, it’s shown to be really bad. And firstly, I hope to show the Sigma Polaris how you can do way better. But whether it’s Sigma Polaris, or the world catch sub, I really hope that in 50 years, no one are using the IK processors were using anymore. And I hope that in five or 10 years, Sigma Polaris will have become big enough that we will have been part of accelerating this process, because this is going to happen no matter what the question is, when the question is how quickly and the question is, well, how scientifically? Yeah. So my vision is to accelerate that change as quickly as possible. And show you know, X is a unicorn, it’s part of the process.
Matthew Todd
Why not? Why not In indeed, but I think that that’s a, you know, obviously a fantastic vision to have. And I think, you know, my, my first thought when you kind of said, you know, challenging that whole CV approach is that it’s, it is an archaic approach it is, and all we’ve really done to date or not all but you know, for the most part, what I’ve seen, implement is really a digitization and literal translation of that old analog process. But they’re not applying global working models. And I think one thing that has happened over the last couple of years with remote working and now more hybrid working, I’m certainly interested to see how that whole world of work changes once some of those geographical barriers at least are broken down.
Nemo D’Qrill
It’s definitely going to have an impact. Definitely pushing things in the right direction quickly.
Matthew Todd
Yes, I think it’s an accelerant. So I think, yeah, with that, I think thank you again, for taking the time today. You know, if anyone has any questions or wants to find out more, obviously, we’ll put links to for Sigma Polaris in your profile in the notes as well. So people can go and find you online if they want to have a look at themselves. So yeah, thank you again, for a very interesting conversation and thought-provoking conversation. Are there any kind of last last words of advice before we we wrap up?
Nemo D’Qrill
I would say like, don’t do diversity, for diversity sake, do it because it works. And if you don’t believe it does, then try to challenge yourself at that PowerPad a little bit just for 15 minutes by googling the topic.And if you still don’t think it does, then reach out to me.
Because like it’s Yeah, so don’t do it because some regulator is breathing down your neck, do it because your company will do better because of it.
Matthew Todd
Fantastic. I think that’s a perfect place to end it. So thank you very much. And I look forward to to speaking again soon. I’m sure there’ll be many more future interesting conversations to come.
Nemo D’Qrill
I look forward to Matthew, thank you so much for having me.
Matthew Todd
Thank you for joining me on this episode of Inside the ScaleUp. Remember for the show notes and in-depth resources from today’s guest. You can find these on the website insidethescaleup.com. You can also leave feedback on today’s episode, as well as suggest guests and companies you’d like to hear from.
Thank you for listening