 Cymru. Cymru. So, rydw i'n rhywbeth, Carl Scotland. Rydw i'n gweithio'r Tachyrs Gwlad yn ymddiolol. Mae'n credu yn Ydyn nhw, rydym yn Bryton, yn y Gwlad Llywgrifennu. Ac yna wneud eu rhagel â'r Ydyn nhw, ac yn ymddiolol ymddiol. Fe wnaeth i'n gweithio'r cyfrannu i'r cyfrannu i'r Rhaglen i'r Ydyn nhw i'n mynd i'r Rhaglen ..y'n fawr o'rżydd. Ond gwelwch gyda'r cofniad a cyfnodol yn y Cymru sy'n gwreidio, ond byddai'n braf yn rai rydych. Ond maen nhw'n gwzinaudible ar Bangelor. Dw i'w rhan o gyflwyno gyda'r coleg yn Bangelor i chi, ar EcoWall. Rydym yn gwneud o btwith o'r me transfers. Am gyfnod a bwyl u'r gwirioneddau sydd o bwysig y clwrm adreconiaeth. Rwy'n meddyniolaeth hynny'n ddwylo gyda'r cyffreddau. a dyna'r gweithio ar y cyfnod. Mae'n gweithio'n gweithio. Mae'n rhaid i'r adegau i yw'r gweithio. Mae'n gweithio'r test cyfnodol. Felly ydych chi'n gweithio'r ddysgu? Felly y mynd i'r ddysgu? Felly yma'r ddysgu? Felly yma yma. Rhaid i'n gweithio'r ddysgu? Felly, y dyma'r ddysgu yma. Mae'r ddysgu yma'r ddysgu. Yma'r Ddysgu Peter. Y Ddysgu Peter yw'r Brithys. Y TV programme. Dyma'r mommy o'r ystyried. Mae'rgynch yn y Cymru. Mae'r Brithys TV. Mae'r brithys TV inni'n ddysgu. Pursiwll plastid gyda'r ysgrifoedd. Mae'r hyn ymgyrchonus yma. Mae'r Yn ymgyrchonus yma. Mae'r hyn ymgyrchonu am bobl. Mae'r hyn yn wneud cymryd. Mae'r hyn yn cyfryd. Mae'r hyn yn cyfryd. Mae'r hyn yn cyfryd. Mae'r hyn yn cyfryd. is now a big music and concert venue and is very successful so kind of interesting story that in itself in the kind of something design to one thing is ended up being successful in another in another thing. But while they were building the Millennium Dome they buried this time capsule in 1998. So time capsule got a lot of things put in it that represent kind of the world today or in the world in 1998. I can't remember exactly what was in it but one of the things I think was a Spice Girls album on CD. And the idea is that in year 2050 it gets dug up again and everybody opens it and goes wow look at how the world was 50 years ago. That's amazing. What can we learn from that? The thing was in 2017 they were doing some work around the Millennium Dome. They'd forgotten that they buried the time capsule there and they accidentally dug it up. And they got dug up and everybody went from there. That's not really very interesting is it? And I think they've kept it in a museum somewhere but basically a bit of a failure. There's a block, a podcast that was about time capsules that kind of reminded me of this story and I think is a useful thing. You know why time capsules, why am I talking about time capsules and I don't think about it is an attempt to communicate with the future to tell the future what you think the future needs to know about based on what you know today. So we're putting things in the time capsule we think is important for the future to know about this. But what typically happens is a few things. One is they get lost. People forget about them they never get dug up they just point this. Or you get what happened to the Millennium Dome, they get dug up early because people forget about them and then when they come up they usually damaged. Or usually the ones that do get dug up and opened when they're supposed to be opened are just really disappointing. Because people open them and go oh wonder what's going to be in this time capsule wonder what amazing things we'll learn and they kind of go hmm is that it? What was the point of that? So rather than trying to communicate with the future and effectively what we're trying to do is influence and improve the future with the knowledge we know today the quote that came up in this podcast that really struck me and what I think is relevant is if we want to benefit the future the future benefits from what we do now. Rather than trying to predict the future and rather than trying to tell people what they should be doing in the future let's just focus on what we're doing now and if we get the world make the world better today then hopefully the world will end up being better in the future. And I think that concept applies to our job transformations. So that idea of trying to predict the future and improve the future is what we can call the ideal future state. So we're trying to introduce some terminology here. Our current state is where we are now and we want to define, predict an ideal future state and what we do is we close the gap. We're here, we should be there. Let's just do that and get there. The other way of thinking about it is what we can call present thinking. Rather than that gap thinking and closing the gap let's just work in the present. So we have our current state. Let's understand our current state and instead of trying to predict an ideal future state let's work on the ideal current state. What's a better version of the world today that we can actually do something about today because usually these future states make big changes, big gaps, a lot of work. You can't do it in one step. So let's take one step from where we are today, the current state to that ideal current state, that current state the ideal current state becomes the new current state and then we can go from there to the next ideal current state and so on. Once we've done it step by step hopefully the ideal current state that we end up at is the right place to be because we're learning on the way. We don't necessarily know what those future ideal current states are going to be until we get to the new current state and then we're going to go ah, now we're here and now we can decide what we should do next. So that's what we call present thinking and Jay Bloom kind of calling this the present thinking. This is why I call this talk unwrapping the agile present. So a bit of a play on words agile is a present that's been gifted to us. Let's unwrap it and enjoy it and make the most of it. But to do that we need to think about working in the present. Let's not try and define the future. So basically the core message is do your agile transformations in an agile way. I go into so many organizations where we're going to plan our agile transformation and we're going to define that future state and all we need to do is implement our new blueprint, our new big framework that we've paid for. Now let's just work on what can we do today. So approach your agile transformations in an agile way and there are three areas that I'm going to talk about to do this. One is situational awareness. So how can we have a better understanding of where we are now. So understanding our current state, situational awareness gives it that. Strategy deployment so strategy deployment gives some ideas of thinking about how can we start taking those steps and go through our agile transformation in this step by step way and then similarly deliberate discoveries about how can we focus on learning and experimenting while we're doing that so we can discover what the next state should be as we go through the journey. So let's start off with situational awareness. Anybody recognize this code here? Anybody kind of has to guess what should be a step four? Anybody even kind of recognize what it might even represent? Nobody? Sorry? Chess? Yeah yeah. Okay these are chess moves. Okay great. We know it's chess now so we should be able to figure out what step four is. Nobody? Okay what if I show you this? If you don't know chess you'll probably not be able to figure it out but anybody that knows chess is this a little bit more meaningful? Anybody guess what the next move should be? Are you pointing at this one? Okay so it's white moves next. So actually it's this here. So if you move the white queen and take that pawn it's checkmate. So this is scholar's mate. It's like the quickest checkmate you can get in chess. You only make this mistake once. And I have done that. My daughter started learning chess so I thought I'll get back into chess and start playing online and she beat me with this quite quickly. Quite a sobering experience. The kind of message here is you look at this, this kind of written form. You have to understand what's going on. If you know a thing or two about chess you're going to look at that. That visual form is a lot more meaningful. So this kind of gives us a lot more situational awareness by visualising the current state and where the pieces are and understanding the rules of what things might go. So how do we take that idea of visualising our current state to create situational awareness? So Simon Wardley created the concept of Wardley mapping. Basically he uses this metaphor. A map to him is where you've got two dimensions. Where you are within the map has meaning and therefore movement within the space has meaning. So the two axes are, here you've got the value chain. So the value chain, the things at the top of the value chain are the things that are most visible to our customers. And as we move down the value chain and it's kind of a chain of needs, the things at the top need the things at the bottom. And as you move down the chain you get further away and things are more invisible to your customers. So you can start looking at what are the capabilities or components of the elements within our system and how do they chain together in a chain of needs in order to meet customer needs. And then along the bottom you've got this evolutionary axis where at this end, Genesis, things are kind of brand new emerging. We're kind of building things for the very first time through to custom built, well we know what we're building now, but we're kind of rebuilding it from scratch every time when we're doing ourselves, through to the product and rental space. So now these things are so mature that other people can build them for us or buying them from other people or we're renting them. And then through to commodity where these things are so well understood that they're just readily available from anywhere and everywhere. So we can start mapping our system onto this worldly map. So this is a really simple cup of tea. British example actually plays all quite well in India I think with Indian tea. But you know we've got our public, our public wants a drink so they want a cup of tea. In order to make that cup of tea we need a cup, we need some tea and we need some hot water. Well to get some hot water we need water and we need a kettle and for the kettle to work we need power. You can see how that kind of chain of tea to works down and we can start decomposing our system. But then we can also say well most of this is certainly kind of cups, tea hot water, water itself is kind of in that commodity space and power. Generally you know you just go out and buy these things. Cheap, easily available. Our cup of tea is kind of less commodity kind of a product we're making the tea so it's a product that we're selling. We're making our own kettles. That's interesting isn't it? Why are we making our own kettles? So once you start mapping these things out you start having conversations. So on the conversation of figuring out what's in the value chain where does it live on the evolutionary axis allows us to start creating some shared understanding, that's that situational awareness and now we can kind of go well based on that what should we do next. You know what we don't need to custom build our own kettles. We should be able to just go down to the local supermarket or electronic shore and buy kettles and commodities. So that becomes a kind of a potentially a strategic plate. This is something we can do to improve our business is let's just stop custom building kettles. We don't need to. Maybe our value is around the tea and actually we want to be known for the unique and innovative flavours and styles of tea. We're just using commodity tea. We're just going down to the supermarket and in Brighton we call it a build of tea. Kind of just really basic tea stuff but hey actually we could start innovating in the tea that we make. So actually we want to move tea over here. Again that's a kind of a strategic plate that we can discover based on this situational awareness. Or maybe kind of we think we make some pretty cool kettles. Yeah we're custom building kettles. We should be selling our kettles so we could move the kettles up the valley chain so we're just selling kettles to the customer. So this idea of having this landscape and what are the pieces on the landscape, where are they and how do we want to move based on that. It's what wardley mapping gives us. We can apply that basic concept maybe to our processes and our ways of working. So there's an idea called maturity mapping which takes that basic concept. We have a valley chain still of the practices we use and how those practices relate to each other and how visible or invisible they are to the customers. And we've got our evolutionary landscape but we've kind of changed the language slightly because we've kind of got novel practice emerging practice, good practice and great practice. Not best practice, just great practice. Better than good. But you can imagine how as we start kind of doing things for the very first time and innovating around the things we do through to just we know exactly what we're doing and everybody knows how to do it. We can think about what are our customer needs? Our customer needs us to be responsive. Our customer needs us to deliver value. Our customer needs us to be delivering things of quality. Well what do we need to be responsive or continue to deliver it? That's a good thing to do. But you know what? We're still figuring out how to do continuous delivery so it's over this end. Our customer, to deliver value we probably need some product management, maybe a backlog and some stories, quality we need to test TBD. So we can kind of take that same premise and start understanding with maturity mapping what's our maturity? It's called a maturity map because it's one it's kind of deliberately trying to play on the idea of a maturity model and a maturity scale. But rather than us measuring our maturity based on somebody else's view of what our maturity should be and how they define maturity, because this is just a free two dimensional space, we're defining our own maturity about what we do and what we think we should do based on our context. Again this gives a situational awareness of our practices. And again we can say well hey we're still figuring out continuous delivery, but we want to try and move that and get better at it. We think that's a good thing for us to be working on. And we can see how that fits into the overall landscape and why we're doing it because we want to be more responsive. Product management, yeah we want to get better at that but hey maybe we should be moving our product management a little bit more visible to our customers. Maybe that's a good thing to do. I had another example that I didn't put a slide on here. I can't remember what it was now. Backlogs. Is a backlog a good thing? We have a backlog. Do we need a backlog? You know maybe backlog we could just move a bit further away from the customer because they're not really interested in the backlog, they just want the value. So we can have a discussion about that and we can agree with it or disagree with it but it creates a shared understanding and a common situational awareness. So that starts helping us understand what sort of things we should be working on. I get into Cinevin. I meant to say earlier if anybody's playing buzzword bingo you've probably tick all the boxes in this talk. If you want to know more about Cinevin go to Jules's talk so she's got one straight after this and one tomorrow. She'll know much more about Cinevin than I do. But Cinevin, the way I think about Cinevin very simply is if we know what to do Cinevin starts giving us some idea about how do we go about doing it. So Cinevin has kind of a joke. Five quadrants. Five domains. Clear, complicated, complex and chaotic. And then this AC in the middle which is aporetic and confused. Don't worry about the aporetic there. It's just when you're confused and you don't know. So clear is the simple way I think about it. Everybody knows how to do something. So we can just do it. You don't need to experiment. You don't need to get consultants and everybody just needs to do it. And if you're not doing it then the question is why aren't you doing it usually? And typically it's we don't have time. Complicated is then when we know to go to experts. So both these things on this side are kind of ordered. They're knowable in advance. Clear, everybody knows it. Complicated, well not everybody knows it but we can either figure it out or we can go and get some expert otherwise. But then it's typical of just planning and implementation. Complex is when you're now unordered. And the way I think about it is when experts disagree because there's actually multiple ways you might do this and we don't really know which one, which way is the right way and which one is going to work. So this is where we have to start running some experiments and we're really kind of getting into that learning cycle. Chaos, you know, actually nobody knows what to do. We just need to do something. Kind of like just get out of the fire. Let's not kind of run some experiments about how to get out of the fire. You just need to get out of the building. Then they're kind of confused but usually we're just everybody's disagree. We have no idea what we should be doing, why we should be doing it. Again, you just need to kind of do something which is going to take you out of there. You usually into complex. So there's a whole, you know, this is kind of one slide. I spent a couple of minutes on it. There's a whole richness of stuff there. But it's a sense making framework. It gives you some situational awareness about the work you're doing, what the type of work is and therefore how you might approach. You know, do you just need to get some experts in to fix this? Or do you want to start running some experiments? Or maybe you just need to do something really quickly. So the way we use this, and this is kind of screenshot, I've had to blur out a lot of the content. There's a Cinevin exercise called four points contextualisation where you take a bunch of problems or challenges or opportunities and you just, you get the exemplars. So you start off down here. Let's just pick an example where there's an approach we all know and agree on. Put it in this corner. Let's pick an example where an expert or researcher will determine a good approach. Put it in this corner. There's no right approach. Experts are going to disagree. Put it in the top corner there. Nobody knows the approach or there's no immediate apparent approach. Put it down. So you get four exemplars. So those are the four points. And then you start positioning the other ones relative to each other. And then you draw these lines at the end to kind of figure out what's in which domain. So this is why we call it sensor making. The definition I like about sensor making is the data precedes the framework. It's not a four by four matrix where you're kind of going which corner does it go in, which quadrant does it go in. You just map things out and then you're going to well roughly these are the things come together. And anything in the middle is usually the ones that we want to, these things we want to talk about and try and understand why are we confused. And then depending on where these things fall in the other domains we can start understanding well what do we do about these. So I like Cenevin doing this exercise on warding mapping alongside each other because you get some really good insights about what should we work on and how should we work on that. Often these are the same things that are on the warding map. There's another nice kind of Cenevin related exercise and this is the exercise that Jules is running in the next session. I highly recommend if you want to know more about this. It's future backwards and it's another way of getting situational awareness. This is an example I did a few years ago where we ran the future backwards on the agile community. But you're looking at here I kind of call it extreme heather here. What would we allow the absolute utopia be about in the future? So we're not extreme heather in utopia because you're not defining a future state. It's like impossibly good. We're not going to achieve this but let's think about what that might be like and then down here extreme hell. Again not a future state that's likely to happen because it's extreme but having got that and having in the middle this is the current state you can then work back. So this isn't actually a completed version because we should have steps back here. But what this tells us, so this is current state how did we get to the current state and then what might lead us to that extreme heaven? What might lead us to extreme hell? Based on those conversations that you generally kind of get some insights around what opportunities are there, what things might we want to avoid. Another way of creating situational awareness and kind of creating a common context it's really interesting if you do this with multiple groups then you start comparing and contrasting with different groups. Again you start reinforcing and pulling out different perspectives, different experiences and then you can start talking about those things as well. So future backers is another nice exercise for creating situational awareness and the last idea around situational awareness is what I call true north. So we know our current state that's situational awareness. We still need to have some idea of what direction we're going to go in. So when we're kind of going from the current state to the ideal present, how do we know whether that ideal, how do we know what's ideal and what's not ideal? So I think of true north as it's orientation, it's direction. So it informs what we should do but it doesn't tell us what we should actually do. And then the three elements are it should be challenging. So that's the idea it's extreme. I think I've got an example later but I've worked in the organisation and that true north was around instantaneous delivery and deployment of customer needs. Now they're very likely to get that instantaneous where a customer comes in and says can I have something in a bubble and goes I hang on, it's live. Very unlikely you're going to get that quickly but that was kind of gave them a sense of direction of what they were trying to get to. So it was challenging. It was concrete because we were talking about deploying code quickly and the continuous delivery pipeline and then it's compelling. It was something that they really wanted to work on. So that intersection there I think is what makes up a good true north. So if you've got your situation awareness and you've got your true north and you've kind of got a direction that you want to go in, now you can start on your journey. I like this phrase here and I can't remember where I picked it up on, I've not been on the final source but who you want to be not what you want to do. So who you want to be as an organisation, how you do that, what you do shouldn't really matter but if you know what you want to be that's going to give you a sense of direction. Okay strategy deployment, the next topic. So before we get into strategy deployment probably just you know strategy emerging strategy. So this is the way Henry Minceberg describes it and his book on strategy exploring and the way most people think about strategies we have an intended strategy all we want to do. We then deliberately implement that strategy and we realise our strategy nice and easy how many people see that strategy. It never works out like that so usually it's unrealised it just doesn't work out. Minceberg describes this idea of an emerging strategy. So all this other stuff that's going on if you can use situation awareness to start recognising all these things then that strategy can emerge and you can align around that and then you realise that strategy. So rather than most strategy is this intended strategy, most organisations it's the people at the top of the organisation making centralised decisions of the expert saying we should do this. Emergent strategy is about allowing it to emerge from the people. So I define strategy deployment where solutions emerge from the people closest to the problem because other people know what the problems are. So if you can learn from the people closest to the problem see what solutions they recommend and what solutions they're using and then as those things emerge that can lead us to an emerging strategy. So a couple of ideas around this one is David Marquay's leader-leader model from Turn the Ship around. What you're doing with strategy deployment is giving control rather than centralised decision making. Give control to people to allow them to decide what to do and get that feedback and get that learning in order to give control. He says you need two things one you need to give them clarity. It's the clarity of intent and that true nor is usually kind of a good clarity of intent what are we trying to achieve, what do we want to do and then you want people to be confident enough to do this. So he describes this in the context of the nuclear submarine. You want people confident in sailing a submarine if you're going to give them control to make those decisions. So within our organisations do people know the intent of what we're trying to do do the people who have the confidence if they do then we can start giving them control. This relates to this other model so Stephen Bungay writes about this in his book Art of Action. I've got book references at the end of the slides. This comes from Thomas Von Malt who was the Prussian army chief of the Prussian army back in the late 19th century I think. So alignment and autonomy. So the usual kind of mindset is these are two ends of an extreme. You can have alignment or you can have autonomy. You get alignment by taking away autonomy and just telling people what to do or you can give people autonomy in which case they're going to do whatever they like and you'll have no alignment. What Von Malt said was actually these are two different scales. You have alignment and autonomy so you'll give people alignment by being really clear on intent, clarity of intent so people are going to kind of align behind that intent and then you can give them autonomy in figuring out how they need that intent. So it's very similar. I think this model here, so this is basically the mission command model and that and David Marquet's leader leader model very similar and I think there's kind of a lot of overlap between them. Probably not surprising but it's very military based. So that's what we're trying to do with strategy deployment. Being really clear on what our intent is and get an alignment around that and give people autonomy in order to figure out how to do that. So related to that then is idealised design. Idealised design comes from Russell Ackoff and these two things at the top here is this really simple process. You imagine that current system has been destroyed so you want to improve the current system. You do that by actually, let's just imagine it's destroyed. We don't have it. He kind of famously used this and the story he uses was when he was working at Bell Laboratories and they kind of reinvented the telephone. So let's just imagine we don't have any telephones. So we're not constrained by the past anymore. We're not constrained by our perceived expertise in this. Anyone come up with any ideas. So then you redesign the system for the present time. So it's called idealised design because we're trying to create an idealised system but it's really important that you're not trying to create an ideal future. It's something that is possible now. So it talks about it has to be technologically feasible. So you have to be able to technically do it. It has to be operationally feasible. So in the context of our organisation it has to fit within our management structures and then capable of being improved. So again we're not trying to create a snapshot single solution. We're creating something that's technologically feasible, operationally feasible and capable of being improved at the same time. So product of our idealised design is neither perfect ideal nor utopian. So it's idealised, not ideal precisely because it can be improved. So it's the best ideal seeking system that designers can imagine now. So strategy deployment is about trying to come up with these idealised designs that we can improve and we're starting with a blank sheet of paper trying to get everybody's input, everybody's set of ideas not just saying, oh you're the experts, you designed the system for us. There's a nice canvas, so this is J. Bloom as well and it builds on that ack off with a little canvas here and I've used this really successfully with quite a few customers. Present mess, you usually have to explain present mess because people get a bit touchy if you start describing where their current context is a mess. But present mess is good, bad. I think I've not got the quote here but ack off has a very specific definition of what he means by a mess and it's just kind of the entanglement of the current system. It might be a mess but it might be a good mess, might be a bad mess it's just life is messy, our organisation is a mess. So there are good things, there are bad things and the idea is if we don't do anything our present mess will produce a future mess. So it's idea if we don't do anything things are probably going to get worse. So what is it about the future mess that's important for us to understand and then we can also talk about well what's this ideal or idealised future what would we like things to be in the future. So this is a bit similar to future backwards except maybe not quite so extreme that ideas that future backers uses the ideal present so this kind of gets into what can we do now today which is going to solve the present mess avoid the future mess and enable the ideal future. It's not going to implement the ideal future it's going to enable it so it's going to take just a few steps forward. Just mapping those things out on a families helps people understand what we're doing it why we're doing it, what we're trying to avoid and builds on that idea of situational awareness and start setting this up for strategy deployment. There's a technique I like to use this once we're getting into this which is back briefing. So back briefing is another military technique Stephen Bungay talked about it in Art of Action as well. I define a process by which people can check whether the intent of their work has been clearly described and understood and whether their plans to carry that work will move the intent. This is an A3 single piece of paper that we can articulate and condense our thinking down onto a single piece of paper collaboratively we've probably got a good understanding but context so that's what's our current state, what is it about the current state that's important that's leading to this piece of work, what's our intent, what's our goals and what are we hoping to achieve and also what's the higher intent. So if we're kind of our intent is to do some sort of agile transformation why is that important to the business and usually then the higher intent match back to the context so we're trying to fix something about the context. So you've got those three levels there context where we are now our intent about what we want to do and then the higher intent about why what we're going to do is important to the business who do we need to do that, what people, what skills who's going to be involved in this piece of work, what are our boundaries so freedoms and constraints, so what decisions can we make that might be budgetary, that might be technology, it might be organizationally and what can we do, what are the kind of rigid constraints and maybe they're also budgetary, technology, organization things that we can't do. Knowing what those boundaries are is important because then that's what gives people the freedom, what people know what their freedom are and know what they can't do, so that helps with that autonomy but without hopefully avoiding disaster. Quite often people are really good at knowing what their constraints are or we can't do that or we can't do that. Ask people what their freedoms are there's usually kind of silence but then once they start thinking about it you start coming up with ideas and then what's your plan and I think a plan in terms of hypotheses that we're going to test, what things are we going to try so the idea of back briefing is you've been given a mission as a team, you fill in this by yourself as a team and you brief it back to your management team, your leadership team. So there's two aspects here. It helps the management team, have they described the mission to you? So if you can describe it back to them it means that they've described it, not have they described it but have you understood it? So it's the idea of the curse of knowledge curse of knowledge is when we think because we know something that everybody else knows something or there's some great examples of where leaders have given a mission and given people some instructions on what they think they need to do and those people have gone off and done something completely different and it's because they didn't have a little bit of knowledge that the leaders had that the leaders thought oh well everybody knows that. So getting people to do that back briefing kind of is a safety check and a feedback cycle on do people have people understood what you're asking them to do. Okay last section of discovery, I need to speed up a little bit. How do we get learning? So people are going to start doing things, we've deployed our strategy, we're kind of giving people freedom on the autonomy to start trying things out, to implement that strategy, now we need to get some learning in place. This is really nice exercise, you can get this website down here and I'll share the slides and just do this online. I haven't got time to do it now but give people the sequence 2, 4, 8. So I've got a rule, there's a rule behind this sequence and what you want to do is ask people to guess what the sequence is and you do that by putting in some examples, other examples of things there for the sequence. So typically what happens is people go 2 times 2 is 4, 4 times 2 is 8 so I think it's a multiple of 2. So I'm going to go 3, 6, 12. I know of the rule I can look at that sequence 3, 6, 12 and kind of go that confirms the rule. We can do that multiple times and normally what happens is people think they know the rule and the sequences you give to test the rule are sequences which positively reinforce your rule. So you're always trying to pass the rule. Now actually the thing is, I'll let you in on the secret. The rule here is that numbers just are increasing orders of execution. So by saying 3, 6, 12 I'm not really getting any useful feedback. To figure out the rule I have to go 1, 1, 1. Oh 1, 1, 1 fails the rule and now I've got some information. So this idea of getting information we have to fail things otherwise we're just getting kind of positive reinforcement and we're kind of getting bias by it. So when we're trying things out or running experiments it's not just about being successful it's about failing as well because it's the failure is when we get the learning. So this is the idea of information theory. You have a probability of failure when you try something. If your probability of failure is 0 you're never going to learn anything. You're always right which means you know everything. Or if your probability of failure is 100% you're probably not learning anything because you're just constantly making the same mistakes so you're getting the information and not doing anything with it. The sweet spot in the middle is around failure 150% of the time. Now there's context to this as well because when I got in the plane to fly over here I didn't want only to have a 50% chance of that plane flight being successful and I wanted it to be 100%. So there's a point at which you don't want to be learning anymore and you want to kind of go, they know how to fly planes. It's not going to crash. But when we're doing product development and we're doing organisational development, usually we don't have that certainty. We're more in that complex domain. Therefore we actually want a probability of failure. Failure is not a bad thing. Failure is what we learn from. So another A3 canvas, you can then start defining your experiments in terms again what's our context, what problem we're trying to solve with this experiment, what is our hypothesis. I'll go into more of our hypothesis in my mini workshop tomorrow and why do we think this is true. There's some rationale and some basis. What are the actions we're going to take? How are we going to test for not just success, failure? So start thinking in advance what does success look like, what does failure look like, what things are we going to be looking for both sides of this and then similarly follow up what are we going to do if we are success if our hypothesis proof to be correct but also let's think about now what should we do if our hypothesis doesn't proof to be correct because we've just learned something. Now it might be as simple as just rolling something back or communication but thinking about acknowledging ahead of time that we might fail and thinking about how we're going to detect that. Again the A3 if you can condense this down, collaborate on it and you're going to get a good understanding about the experiments and being intentional about it and then running those experiments through a life cycle is the same way that we run our user stories, our features through a workflow on a Kanban board, visualize and have a life cycle around this. So this is a Jason, I've got this in there now, got it all Jason. Have a look at his blog. He kind of talked about agree urgency, negotiate, change of validator jobs and verify performance. So how urgent is your experiment? Negotiate that experiment with the people that are going to be impacted and run the experiment and validate that it works and it can be done and then verify the performance on it. I'm going to skip over this quite quickly. Just another framework that I found really useful in this in terms of running experiments is full disciplines of execution because they talk explicitly about a school board keeping a compelling school board. So when you're running your experiments and hopefully you've decided what are we things we're going to look for that tells us whether this is success or failure, keep a school board on that track. They use the word school board or dash board deliberately because they talk about the sports metaphor of if you know the score you know whether you're winning or losing and they kind of say if you go to a sports game and you don't know what the score is somehow it's not compelling. It's useful to know whether you're winning or losing. So have a compelling score board and then a condocadence of accountability that's getting together and reviewing your experiments and reviewing your can ban of experiments and looking at the results and deciding what have we learned and what should we do next. Okay so I think this relates I realise these kind of three things tie into this idea of good strategy bad strategy. So Richard Rommel talks about strategy in terms of diagnosis or good strategy of diagnosis. You know what the problem is you have some guiding policies that are going to create alignment for people to decide what they should and shouldn't be doing and then cohere in action are the things you're actually going to do and those should be experiments in terms of deliberate discovery. So that's kind of a really kind of lightning run through of a bunch of ideas hopefully you kind of get some of the something useful there. Move you from this idea of a treating on transformations of gap thinking moving towards about present thinking defining working on ideal current state and taking it step by step. There's one last thing I've got a few minutes left the X matrix is kind of a tool I really like using to try and some of this bring this all together. We have our true north aspirations results we hope to achieve strategies in this context become your guiding policies your tactics there for there are your cohere in actions the experiments you're going to run and then evidence the results of those experiments the leading metrics that you're going to track visualizing them on another A3 and showing how they relate to each other. So our true north informs our aspirations enabled by our strategies we implement our strategies with our tactics. Our tactics should generate that evidence and then hopefully the evidence is evidence that we are achieving our aspirations. So these things start fixing together and hopefully are coherent with each other so these little kind of matrices in the corner allow us to visualize the coherence the correlation and how these things contribute to each other because it's not kind of a mechanistic thing we can't just kind of break these things down easily. So this is an example so this is the true north in sustainability development deployment I described before the solid dots here indicate a kind of a really strong direct correlation so this is kind of saying if we can increase our productivity and this is kind of very abstract to realize but we can measure productivity as a leading metric we think that's going to enable us to our aspiration of having more releases. This one here if we increase our productivity the hollow dot means there's some sort of correlation there but it's not that strong it's maybe indirect. So I think productivity probably will help reduce defects not direct and then lastly productivity has no correlation with reducing waste waste was a very contextual terminology for this client so it just gives you a nice way of kind of one it's a form of situation awareness because we now have everything on a single page. We're getting into strategy deployment because we're talking about what our strategies are and deploying our tactics so allowing people to figure out what those tactics should be and trying this to emerge and then because we're running these tactics as experiments with our evidence we're getting into deliberate discovery and we can constantly review this and refine it. It's not a one-off thing it's just our best current understanding and typically our fund review in this on a quarterly basis gives us enough time to work on experiments and then we can kind of go okay are our strategies right maybe our strategies are wrong are our tactics working maybe we need to work on something different is our evidence telling us what we want to do we're getting information on that and ultimately do we think we're on track to meet our aspirations and this is kind of generally what we're trying to do with an agile transformation so I like to use these just to help bring everybody together on an agile transformation. Final quote I think a much time I'll give you just a minute second to read that. Anybody know who said this familiar anybody recognise? Okay this is Anna in Frozen 2 so this is a I don't think Dave Snowden came up with this but he kind of popularised it. If you watch Frozen 2 Anna is I don't know if she thinks her sister is dead. Olaf the Snowman she thinks she's dead as well she's stuck on her own in a cave she doesn't know what to do and the idea of what you do when you don't know what to do you just do the next right thing so when we're in an agile transformation we don't always know what to do so the next right thing take that step you make a step forward you learn from it and then you can figure out what's the next step up to that Okay those are the books I've referenced I'll make the slides available and we probably haven't got time for questions but I'll be around I'm around for the rest of the conference if you want to come and talk to me. I'd love to talk to you about some of these ideas in all detail Thank you very much. I feel free to leave. This is the book on the X matrix It's very X matrix is kind of very manufacturing so it's kind of quite a tough read very dry but there's nuggets of gold in there and it kind of just extras the X matrix Art of Action is that kind of the military and that briefing and that model Good strategy, bad strategies, strategy in general I think Richard Rommel's kind of take on strategy is my favourite one Turn the ship around is that kind of idea about leadership and leading with intent Getting the right things done I didn't talk about this explicitly because there's lots of A3s and it introduces the idea of using A3s for strategy deployment Idealised design has that model and you only need to read the first few chapters of that really to get full for it and then four disciplines of execution is probably one of my favourite books just on It doesn't talk about strategy deployment explicitly but just those four disciplines are really useful for any transformation I think Hi, great presentation The true north exercise that you showed Typically with whom do you do this? Do you do this with all the coaches or the senior leadership who's sponsoring the gel transformation or at what level do you do to get the most results? In the organisation I'm working so if you're just working with a team sometimes just a team having it's own true north What I'll tend to do though is whatever level of the organisation you're working with when you get that true north kind of go up a level or outer level and kind of go hey this is our true north Does this make sense to you so try and get some feedback on that If they kind of go yeah that sounds like a great true north to be working on then then you've now got a validation They might kind of go no actually I'm not quite sure that's right I thought your true north should be something else so that's the idea of back briefing just kind of trying to use that collaboration and communicate hey this is what we're doing this is what we think our intent is Is that right? Have we understood our mission correctly? Understood, thank you Thanks everyone