What is certain is that the networked model is formidably efficient in a very constraint environment. Of course, there are issues with the networked model. It requires a huge amount of training, it requires a lot of efforts to, I would say, empower people, it is a model which is more efficient, but also more fragile. Therefore, on the long run, it requires a lot of efforts from the management. On the other side, the hierarchical model, we just launch, and here it goes. If we are not happy with someone in charge, we change the person in charge, then we think that everything is resolved. So, whether it is an universal model, I don’t know, for now I have not made my mind about it, I believe yes, in models where a lot of interactions take place, it is more efficient. I mean that we saw it well in the open source world. Finally, the open source is exactly this model, excepted that there is no company to support it, but the open source model has proven its worth in front of the traditional model of the large software vendors.
With the same state of mind, I would say, this is the kind of reflection that some actors in the pharma industry are beginning to make. The pharma model, it is the Microsoft Windows model. It is about spending billions of dollars to manufacture a product which will be put on the market ten years after without even knowing if it will sell. Ok, I am exaggerating a bit, but we are not far from it. So, in some sectors, open source has already proven its efficiency. If it could be replicated anywhere, could Boeing or Airbus… Airbus is also more or less an example of a networked company. There are still hierarchies, but Airbus is a typical example of a networked company. Which has already proven its efficiency. Even if it isn’t 100% networked, but we aren’t far from that.