Okay, I'm going to stop going down that road. However, what consistency I see is the complementary role that those four and McKinsey played with each other. When you're trying to do benchmarking and trying to develop a road map for a transformation of an organization such as the Government of Canada, you really need industry best. I come from a consulting background. McKinsey is one of the best on developing strategy, specifically around IT and culture. The other four organizations that were highlighted here are the ones that can provide a complementary set of data and benchmarking to the work that McKinsey is doing. I think the approach that the Government of Canada has done by making sure that we get one of the best...and also making sure that we have other advisory...at that level to validate what McKinsey is telling us—actually having four other pairs of eyes—is a wise decision.
However, having said all of that, we see inconsistency. We see that inconsistency around different stages of the process—we've switched back and forth between following the procurement process and not following the procurement process. That's what I suggest we should probably focus on.
With 30 seconds to go, is there anything that you've seen among those activities that we have...that we have stepped out of the procurement process...that would shed some light on why something like that would happen?