 So for the young people in the room, that was Bob Dylan. The times, they are a-changing, and that song has never been more relevant than today. I had planned to start with a confession, but now the fact is out, I'm a finest guy. So what am I doing here at the People Conference? I don't think I'm here because I've actually worked in HR. I'm here to talk about something that is too important to leave to finance. You guys have to be involved on board, and if you wonder what I mean with that, you will find out. When I joined what was called Statoil, and I'll come back to the company later, it was a smaller organization than what it is today. And most small organizations, they want to grow, they want to become big. And some succeed, but many of those who succeed, they discover that we have not only become big, we have also become slow, rigid, bureaucratic. We've lost a lot of that flexibility or agility or whatever that we had as a smaller organization. And I find an interesting parallel here to the aging process of man. Because, dear friends, as we get older, we do lose a bit of what we had as teenagers when it comes to that flexibility, agility, at least on the physical side, and maybe a little bit up here as well. And believe me, I know what I'm talking about. And when it comes to man, we have no choice. You know, in the end, age takes us all. Organizations, however, they have a choice. It is written nowhere that because we are big, we should be slow, rigid, and all the things that we don't want to be. So our big question is how can we, we've been trying to find our way back to that agility. So our big question is how can we be big and small at the same time? The big question for small organizations should be how can we grow without ending up in the same misery? And it is possible if you're conscious about it, and I'll have an example for you in a minute. Every time I'm talking about beyond budgeting with people, there's a word that keep coming up, and that is the word control. And it is the fear of losing control. But if I ask people what they mean with control, after they have said cost control, a lot of people go silent. They can't put words on what they are so afraid of losing. So what does this word mean? Let's go to Oxford Dictionary. It says the power to influence or direct people's behavior or the course of events. So what does that mean in organizational or in business terms? Well, that actually means controlling people and controlling the future. And this is very much the basis for everything that traditional management is built up around. It is the belief that people can and must be managed and that the future is predictable and manageable. And both are very much illusions of control. Of course, people can be managed, but if people are managed in stupid ways, they find their way around. And when it comes to the future, the only thing we know is that we don't know, right? A lot of wise people out there agree with this. When it comes to people, you might have heard these words from Peter Drucker. Most of what we call management is about making it difficult for people to do their job. And I would very much agree. Sometimes that is the problem. We are managing too much. When it comes to the future, another wise guy, Russell Eckhoff, he compared corporate planning to a ritual rain dance. It has no effect on the weather, but those who engage in it think it does. And I know what he was talking about. I have done a lot of dancing in my life. My first management job, 1984, head of the corporate budget department at Stathol, I have done an awful lot of stupid things in my life looking back. Okay, so much for wise people. Imagine an organization that 100 years ago invented a fantastic machine, which was the key to success for this organization. 50 years ago, this machine started to make some trouble, and today it's completely broken. It looked like this. You will all understand that this cannot be a true story because in real life, of course, we would have done something with this 50 years ago. Maybe try to fix it or even better, try to invent something new. Because innovation is something we all love, right? Innovation is great. We want to be unique, the forefront better than everybody else, wonderful. But that enthusiasm for innovation seems to be limited to technology, product, maybe services innovation. But there is also something called management innovation, exploring new ways of leading and managing, which is very much the topic for this conference. And management innovation, that is not great. That is scary, right? Kicking out the budget, are you crazy? No individual bonus, right? The consequence is that it is very crowded on the left-hand side. Everybody is into that kind of innovation. All our competitors are into that kind of innovation. When it comes to management innovation, that is not yet the crowded place because it is scary. And that is good news for brave companies who dare to explore and embrace also this kind of innovation, because you can get just as much competitive advantage, performance out of management innovation as you can from technology and product innovation. There are organizations out there who openly admit that we have no advantage when it comes to what we produce and sell. We find it in the way we lead and manage. So performance is the key word here. That was the only reason why we embarked on this journey in Stuttall slash Equinor back in 2005. We believed back then that it would be good for performance. Today we know it is good for performance. So that word is important, defined in the right way. And I'd like to talk, or some of you know, that I like to use a metaphor for talking about that important word. And that is a metaphor that is about traffic. Because in traffic, when we are out driving, we would also like to experience good performance. And what I want to experience is a safe and good flow. I simply hate traffic jams. And by the way, I never understood why they call it the rush hour. There was no rush at all. Those cars are standing dead still, but there's so much I don't understand. Traffic authorities, they actually want the same, right? And this is something we often meet to stop by traffic authorities to create the safe and good flow. Two questions here. Who is in control? Who make decisions about when you can drive and based on which information? And of course, the one in control here, the one who decides is the one who programmed this light. This is the good old fashioned light. There's no sensors, no high tech, okay? So the programmer is the manager here. And where would that person be as you sit there waiting for the green light? Somewhere else. Which information would this programming be based on? It would be based on some historical data, not entirely fresh information, right? But again, the best of intentions, trying to create a safe and good flow. Fortunately, the rational alternative, a very different solution, exactly the same purpose. We are talking about the roundabout. Same questions here, very different answers. Who makes decisions here? Well, we do, as drivers, and based on which information? Based on fresh, real time, here and now information. So very different answers. So it could be interesting to compare a bit these two ways of managing. And a few simple, leading questions for you here. Which is most efficient? Well, it's actually scientifically proven. The roundabout is more efficient, normally. Which is most difficult to drive in? Which takes most competence? Of course, it's the roundabout. And going back to our organizations, everything we need to leave behind of traditional management is much easier for everybody involved compared to what we need to move towards. It takes more competence. It is more challenging. And last but not least, is it relevant to talk about values in the setting of traffic? And of course, the answer is yes. At Equinor, we have something that we call the Equinor Book. It's our most important document. It talks about who we are, what we believe in. And this book talks a lot about values-based management. And the opposite, we can maybe call rules-based management, a bit simplified. The traffic light is a good example of rules-based management. Red means stop, and green means drive. The one in the middle, we can always discuss. But if there is a value set among people waiting for that green light, which is about me first, I don't care about the rest. That mindset is normally not a big problem in front of that light. But in the roundabout, me first don't care about the rest can actually be a big problem. Because here, we are much more dependent on people having a shared common purpose or wish of wanting this to flow well. We have to help each other. We have to interact with each other in a very different way than what you need to do in front of that light. Trust is also a key word here, right? Ahead of that light, we are not trusted to make decisions in the roundabout. We are. Transparency is another important word. You don't need much transparency in order to make a decision in front of that light. You only need to see the color of the light. In the roundabout, you need to be able to see much more, basically everything in order to make the right decision. And last but not least, ahead of that light, you can sit and dose off and listen to the radio. You don't need to be on. In the roundabout, you need to be on and present. Also a big difference. Some of you also know that I'm very sensitive when it comes to words. I think words are important. And there are some words in the corporate language that I don't like, including one that probably many of you use a lot. So I don't want to offend you, but that word is performance management. Two reasons why I don't like it. First of all, I find it a bit negative. If we don't manage your performance, there will be no performance. That's what we are saying. And secondly, I think there's quite a dose of illusion of control into it. I think our ability to manage performance, whether we work in HR or finance or as managers, I think that ability is actually more limited than what we like to think. But it is a label that fits very well when we are talking about the traffic light. That is exactly what traffic authorities are doing. They are managing performance very directly. The roundabout is actually about something else. That is more about creating conditions for great performance to take place. It is about enabling performance and not managing performance. And this is more than playing with words. These are two fundamentally different ways of addressing that important question. How do we get the best possible performance in our organizations? So it's not a coincidence that you don't find the words performance management in this book. We talk a lot about enabling performance, developing performance, not managing performance. Let's leave traffic. The roundabout is a more self-regulating way of managing. And self-regulation is another important word here. And we need more self-regulating management models in today's people and business realities for two reasons. The first reason has to do with our business environment and that massive amount of vuca out there, volatility, uncertainty, complexity, ambiguity, compared to when I started my budget and planning career in the early 80s. That level of vuca must have implications for how we design our management models. The other reality that we need to reflect on is not external, it's internal, has to do with people. And asking ourselves, what kind of people do we generally believe that we have in our organization? And from many of us that like to use Douglas McGregor and his Theory X and Y as a framework for that discussion. And of course, if we mainly believe in Theory X, that negative view on people, our management model should look very differently compared to if we mainly believe in Y as a people view. That should be quite obvious. So if we combine these two realities that we need to reflect on, it could look like this, you recognize the two dimensions. And I would argue that traditional management lies in that lower left-hand corner with a conscious or unconscious assumption that the world is still a quiet and planable, predictable place, and that most people is on the X side. If we disagree with that, that is not the place to be. We need to move up in the upper right-hand corner by addressing both leadership horizontally and our management processes vertically. And what we need to get out of traditional management is something that's very rigid, rules-based, a lot of central command and control, micro-management, a lot of secrecy, and a strong belief in sticks and carrots as ways to drive performance. Maybe there was a time, maybe when this was the right thing to do, maybe there still are some places where this is the right thing to do, maybe, maybe. But for us in Ecuador, that discussion is not very interesting. I mean, we know that our business environment is way up here with a lot of vodka, and we actually believe that most people is on the Y side. If that isn't the case, we have done an awful job on recruitment, but we haven't. So what do we need to do then? On the leadership side, we need to be more values-based than rules-based. This doesn't mean that we shouldn't have no rules. It simply means that the stronger we are on the value side, the less rules we often need. We need more autonomy. In this vodka world, there isn't always time to run upstairs for a decision, and with these people on board, very often they could make good decisions for themselves. Transparency is another important word, which comes back again here, and this is good news for scared managers and finest people and HR people that are afraid of leaving, that are rather comfortable corner, because they are afraid of losing control. But the good news here is that transparency can actually be a very effective control mechanism. And you might have heard this story from Roche, the Swiss pharmaceutical company, where they in a pilot kick out a travel budget, and all travel rules and regulations replaced it with full transparency. So with a few exceptions, everybody could see everything. If you travel to where? Did you fly, sleep, eat? Cheaper or expensive? Open for your colleagues to see and vice versa. What do you think happened with travel costs in that pilot? Came down through a self-regulating control mechanism. Why they were tearing our pages in the rules book instead of doing the opposite? We don't have travel budgets in our company. We have full transparency, but we stop on team level. We don't go down to individual level. Last but not least, internal or intrinsic motivation compared to external or extrinsic motivation, sticks and carrots. And for this audience, it should not be necessary to... Or you will know that when it comes to individual bonus as a way of motivating, there's no area where there's a bigger gap between what research is telling us and what business is practicing. Because individual bonus in a knowledge organization with theory-wide people on board is simply, yeah. Not only ineffective, it's simply stupid. At Techfenore, we've always tried to be a people-oriented, values-based organization, but as I mentioned, as we were growing, we were adding on more and more management processes that had a different message. And it doesn't help to have these wonderful theory-wide leadership visions if we have theory-x management processes, which is the case in a lot of organizations. So what we have tried to do is to change our management processes to better reflect what we say about people in this book, while at the same time, trying to make these management processes more robust against all the volatility, uncertainty, complexity, and ambiguity out there. So what does that mean in practice? Well, this is where the budget is coming in. You need to do something with the traditional detail, annual budget, because that represents so much of what is described here as traditional management. And more specifically, when it comes to setting goals and ambitions, we need to think more like in football. I mean, no football team would say that our biggest ambition for next season is 49 goals and 35 points, right? Those are budget goals. They don't think like that. They think in terms of league tables, and sometimes we can think like that in organizations as well. We need more dynamics into these processes. Why on earth shall everything we do here circulate around the fiscal year of January to December, right? I can understand that some finance processes, like accounting, has to do it. And I can understand that some finance people then struggle with or they apply that also for other processes, but I've never understood why HR of all are running all their processes on a fiscal cycle. Doesn't make sense. We need more business-driven, more event-driven rhythms. And last but not least, when we shall evaluate performance that cannot be reduced to an exercise of comparing two numbers and then conclude. We need a richer, broader, more intelligent language for that important question. And this, my friends, was a crash course in Beyond Budgeting. This is what it is about. Trying to change both leadership and management processes in a coherent, consistent way in order to become more adaptive and more human. Not necessarily as a goal in itself, but this is what it takes to survive and thrive in today's and tomorrow's business and people realities. A lot of organizations are today on this journey. In some form or shape, here are some of them. And I normally talk about miles up to the left who has no budgets, no targets, and hundreds of budget, no budgets, no targets, no individual bonus. Some of you might have heard that story before, so maybe I should pick a few other examples. I was speaking in Estonia not that long ago and I talked about miles. There were some people coming over and say, we work for Helmis, the biggest IT company in Estonia, and they had a management model that was just as mind-blowing as miles. No budgets, no targets, no individual bonus, very, yeah, just as taking out the Beyond Budgeting book, very, very interesting. You might have heard about Haiya just under Volvo here. Chinese company, 80,000 employees, the world's largest white goods producer. They have bought GE's white goods business in the US and they have a CEO who do not speak English, but he reads a lot, 150 books a year, and if the book doesn't exist in English, it is translated for him. And somehow he came across my book, it was translated and I was invited over a year ago. I hadn't heard about Haiya, so I got hold of a book on Amazon and read it on the flight over. The meeting started, I asked a few questions based on what I read, and then the CEO, he just smiled and he said, Björta, that was two years ago. They have such a speed on their management innovation that it's simply mind-blowing, and where they are today or a year ago, is that they are trying to kind of replicate the internet in how they organize themselves. So they are breaking this company into as small, local micro enterprises as possible with, you know, as in the internet, there's no central power, and these micro enterprises can interact with the market, with each other, employees can have ownership and so on. It's, I had an ambition about writing a case story about Haiya, I have still not got my mind completely around this company, but now the job is done. Harvard Business Review, six months ago, front page, Haiya, The End of Bureaucracy, written by Gary Hamill. Check it out. But a hundred spanking should still be mentioned because they and some other companies here inspired what became known as Beyond Budgeting in the late 90s, and they inspired the Beyond Budgeting principles that were actually formulated a few years before the agile manifesto. There are many similarities, even if we hadn't heard about each other. Today, there's a lot of contact between these communities, and the principles look like this, and I will not go through this in detail, but a few key messages. First of all, as you can see, we address both leadership and management processes. You have to look at both. We are not unique in what we are saying about leadership. There's a lot of other communities out there. I mean, having similar positive view on people and what is needed, but what is unique is that we are recommending management processes that can make these positive thinking around people come alive. This is about creating coherence, consistency between what we preach on the left-hand side and what we practice on the right-hand side. Two examples of the opposite that we find in a lot of organizations. It doesn't help that we, on the left-hand side, talk loud and warm about how fantastic people we have on board, that we would be nothing without you, and we trust you so much, but not that much. Of course, we need detailed travel budgets. Hypocrisy is what I call it. Or if we talk equally loud and warm on the left-hand side about we and us and together and everybody in the same boat and collaboration and hip-array, but when it comes to rewards, it's all about individual bonus. That is not criticizing individual bonus, it's criticizing the hypocrisy between what we say and what we do. So creating that coherence is key here. Another thing that is key is that, oh, let's skip that one, let's skip that one. A classical misunderstanding, by the way, around beyond budgeting is that it's just about another way of managing costs. You know this beyond budgeting name. Well, that is correct. It is a better and more intelligent way of managing costs than what a 100-year-old management technology can offer because that is who old budgeting is. But it is about much more. As you can see, there are 11 other principles. And some people also think that that this is, that cost is not important, right? No budget, I can spend whatever I want, wonderful. Sorry, guys, that's not what we're saying. What we are saying is that cost is still important together with other things to create value. And again, for that reason, we need more intelligent and better ways of managing. So, this is what inspired us when we did some quite radical changes to the management model in Equinor in 2005. This is us in a nutshell. And our name change from Statl to Equinor has to do with a change in strategy because we know that the future will be low carbon and we want to be part of it. We are good at building big stuff at sea, offshore oil platforms. We are using that competence now to build offshore windmill farms. We have built the first floating windmill farm in the world outside of Scotland. And while these can be floating, you have much bigger areas available. And two weeks ago, we made the decision to build the world's largest offshore windmill farm. This one is all floating, but still the world's largest outside of the UK. It will supply four and a half million homes in the UK with green electricity. Okay, our management process is called ambition to action. And it has three purposes. It is about translating strategy and managing risk, but it's also about securing this agility I've been talking about. A bigger room to move in. And last but not least, it's about activating important words in this book. There are some steps here which some people tell us that, well, we have something similar. But I think the way we do this is somewhat different from what many others are doing. It starts with translating strategy into what we call strategic objectives. So what does success look like on a medium-term time horizon? More on words than on numbers here. Then it's time for what kind of risks are there for not achieving these objectives? Are there risks in our business? Then it's time for actions. What do we need to do to move towards those objectives, to mitigate that risk? And very often it's one and the same thing. So it's the same process, same system. Then it's time for measurement, measuring that we are moving towards our strategic objectives. But nothing happens just because we measure, right? As I often say, you don't lose weight simply by weighing yourself, right? And I know because I've tried. Nothing happens before we do something, right? That's why it's called ambition to action. And then, last but not least, what does this mean for you and me and the teams we are in? And here we are straight into the HR process. And here is an important activation of important words in this book. The very first words in the Equinoa book, the way we deliver is as important as what we deliver and with the way we deliver, we are talking about the values in this book and the weighting between the two and all consequences for your career, for your pay is 50, 50. This is an integrated process, running all the way from strategy via risk, finance into HR. We have worked very closely together to make this hang together and it must because if it doesn't, people notice out there. And a problem here in not integrated performance processes is very often about finance and HR. In too many organizations, finance and HR is like cats and dogs. They're talking about each other, not that much with each other. And I know because I've been both places. And believe me, it isn't very nice what is said in any of the two camps. And this is a problem because, I mean, if the messages here coming out is not consistent and coherent, then people often notice and the messages from the two teams are kind of killing each other. So if you find this interesting and if you're on the HR side, you can go back home and talk with your finest colleagues about this. And again, this is to be important to leave the finance, by the way, as I said. Here's an example of an ambition to action. It's a screenshot from the system where we find this. All ambition to action start with an ambition statement and then you recognize the four first steps from the previous slide and then the HR process is following after. And there are five, what you call, perspectives. We want to create value, but no company will create value unless you do well towards customers and markets that will never happen unless you do well on internal operations that will never happen unless you do well on people and organization and in all case, on safety, security, sustainability. So this is about addressing all the things that in the end results in good or bad value creation. We have around 600 of these in the organization and here are two other areas where we try to be different. The first has to do with alignment. How do we create the red thread here? We haven't strategy that we want to execute, right? So it can't be an anarchy. The easy but wrong way is top down cascading. Corporate, instructing all the way down. This is your content, especially when it comes to the numbers, right? And you know, we finance people, we tend to like that kind of top down cascading because afterwards we can add up all the local numbers and it matches the corporate number down to the decimal and we can sleep well at night, right? We are going to deliver because it all hangs together. I wish it was that simple and you know that it isn't. Because that top down cascading very often destroys everything related to motivation, commitment, ownership. If your own ambition to action only is a landing ground for instruction from above, that ownership walks out the door and people use their creativity to find their way around so that they can get their job done. That is not how we want people to use their creativity. Rhythm, we don't have annual versions here. This is a continuous business event-driven process where people can change in principle whatever they want on their own ambition to action when there's a need for it. They can change everything, including targets. If these targets are lost they're meaning. Impossible to achieve, a piece of cake. But we have, again, it's not an anarchy. We have a simple control mechanism. If you want to change something that's big, you still need to talk with someone a level above. There's no stamps, no signatures, but you need to talk to someone. If it's a small change, just inform at a suitable time. When this was introduced, people said, great, I love it. But by the way, what is big and what is small? And some had expectations about us defining that on behalf of everybody, it's impossible. So we have delegated it. So it could be that somebody up here have a different definition of big and small that's somebody here, but that's okay as long as it works both places, right? So back to the self-regulation and the roundabout. We would like this to run as much as possible as a roundabout. So as I'm standing here, somebody is updating something on their own ambition to action. They are not doing it because corporate said so. They are doing it for themselves in order to manage their own business. Ownership here is extremely important. Some of you might, or some of you will be familiar with OKRs, objectives and key results. And you might find that there are some similarities here. And there are. And I have nothing against OKRs, but I actually think ambition to action is better. And I have a few concerns around OKRs. One is this the focus on measurement. That key results should be measurable. We are actually trying to move away from that. Massive measurement focus. It's not the coincidence that if you looked at ambition to action, we called it was called indicators, right? We used to call them KPIs, key performance indicators. The problem with when we say KPIs is that we forget what the I stands for. It stands for indicator, right? They are indicating something that, but they are not necessarily telling the full truth. They are not called KPTs, right? Key performance truth. They are called key performance indicators. So I think that is maybe we have a little bit different philosophy here, but by all means, some in OKRs can be great, but if that measurement focus becomes too massive, that is an issue. And also the quarterly cadence updated every quarter for everybody is something we struggle with because we think that why is the quarter the right frequency? For some that can be way too short, for some it can be way too long. So we recommend something that is more organic and business driven. Okay, let me finish off with an important part of the model. Very important part of the model, holistic performance evaluation. And why do we need a holistic performance evaluation? Well, at least four reasons. First of all, fixed target struggle in a dynamic world. How do we know that 35.4 is the right number? We have to create comfort around ambitious targets. You know, this is a classical example of inconsistency in management models. At the beginning of the process, finance, HR are pushing managers to set themselves, you have to set yourself ambitious targets, right? That's what we're saying. When you're coming further out in the management process, when we are getting closer to evaluation and rewards, what is the management model telling us? To set ambitious targets is the most stupid thing you can do. That just reduces the chance of hitting your targets and getting the goodies that follows. So there has to be consistency and we need to create comfort and fairness around stretching. KPIs are not KPTs and we are always wiser in hindsight. Why should we ignore everything we know afterwards that we didn't know upfront? And last but not least, Albert Einstein, not everything that counts can be counted and not everything that can be counted counts. Here's another reason why we need a holistic evaluation. This guy, and the reason is that results is not necessarily the same as performance. This guy is obviously winning, so there are two measured results, there's a measured time and spot number one. If you ask this guy or other sports people, how, what would you say about the performance in this race, in this jump or whatever? They would talk much more about how they executed the run or the jump or whatever. And they have specific tasks that they have been training on and they know that if I execute each of these tasks well, the likelihood that measured results will be good is high, but there's no guarantee, right? So some of that thinking can be relevant in business as well, so for us that means that, or a holistic evaluation for us means that, first of all, it's about 50-50 between what we deliver and how we deliver as we talked about, but it's also about when we shall evaluate what we have delivered, then that is about looking back at your ambition to action and what you have delivered against that, but it's not an exercise of only adding up the number of red and green indicators. That is too simple. We can start with doing that, but then we need to take off the measurement classes and look at what measurement did not pick up, right? By asking some simple question, pressure-testing measurement, I see that your indicator is green, but have we really moved towards those objectives? How ambitious targets did you have? Should we punish somebody that stressed themselves and they'd make it and reward somebody that low-boldened, gamed and sandbagged and made it? That was a leading question, by the way. What if there has been significant changes in assumption, headwind, tailwind, if there was a earthquake in Japan making that logistics operation a bit difficult, if there was a competitor going bankrupt, making that sales target a piece of cake, all these things we know afterwards. Of course we should take it into account. How was risks handled and what's the sustainability of what you have delivered? It's only when we have been through these questions and some of these questions can also be relevant on the behavior side. It's only after that we can have a view on what kind of performance are we looking at and some years ago this used to end up in a rating on a scale from one to five in both dimensions. Nobody liked it, including myself. We kicked it out. So today there's a much more assessment-based link to what has always been the main purposes or development has always been the main purpose and there's still a little link to reward but we are trying to weaken that link between performance and pay much more than what was the case before. So, and instead of that one to five rating, the way we think now is that if you work for Equinor, you are a solid performer, right? We wouldn't recruit you if you're not a solid performer. Of course we have some people who have some performance issues. We deal with that. Of course we have some stars that we will kind of take care of but we are not obsessed with this kind of enormous waste we spent in ranking people on this one to five scale. So this is something that everybody is very happy with. Holistic performance evaluation. All right, folks, that was my story. These are my coordinates. If you want to contact me later on, if you want to follow me on Twitter, I only tweet about this stuff. There's no, nothing else. And I'm also on LinkedIn and if you're interested, check up the Beyond Budgeting Roundtable. This is our website. We have our next European conference in London, November five and six. So if you're around, you're more than welcome as a guest. And we also run similar conferences in Sweden. We have a Swedish partner called Ekan, headquarters in Gothenburg, but they also have a Stockholm office. So check out those guys as well, very wise people. And then to the commercial. This is the long version of what you just heard, what I was squeezing into 45 minutes. I've also, he'd been writing about the first time I was involved in this in a company called Borealis back in 1995. So a long time ago, when we actually got the chance to kick out the budgets before there was anything called Beyond Budgeting. So it's the time for a few questions or? Yeah, we can take some questions if you want. Definitely. Who wants to ask you a question? Down there, Pimi. We have one here. There we go. Thanks, Björn. When you were talking about Beyond Budgeting, how do you actually start in an existing organization? How do you kick it off? Because there is something there when you start. I think, I mean, in any change, there has to be a sufficient level of dissatisfaction with the current situation, right? And that is what you need to build on. And you have to get people to understand that what everybody is complaining about, for instance, around budgets. Because nobody's happy. Nobody's happy. That is more than kind of irritating itches. Those are symptoms of a very systemic problem that is also a paradox. Because here you have a process invented 100 years ago with the best of intentions to help organizations perform better. And today, this process is doing the opposite. It has become a barrier for getting the best possible performance. And the bigger case for change you can build, the easier the rest is, and we have some ways to get started, which I didn't have time to talk about. It's something, the key words is separating the budget purposes. The budget has three different purposes. Target setting, forecasting, resource allocation can't be done in one process and one set of numbers. You separate and then you can improve each one and then you are on the road. So if you wanna learn more about that, we have actually a workshop in Malmö on the seventh, enabling business agility with Finals and HR and you're most welcome to enroll to that workshop. It's part of the Öredev conference down there in Malmö. There's a question. Hi, thank you for a great talk. A colleague asked about the 10th principle, coordinate interactions dynamically, not through annual budgets and planning cycles. What kind of interactions are you thinking about here? Well, there's, I think dynamically is the keyboard here. We've always had a lot of interactions and communication and so on in the company, but the process has kind of forced this into annual stunts, right? And now we want this to happen much more continuously. So one example is that we have what I call a dynamic resource allocation. So for projects, the bank is always open. You can always forward the project for approval. Yes or no depends on two things. How good is your project can be afforded. Our version of agile's continuous delivery, right? So there's always been a lot of interactions, but we want them to flow on a kind of natural time cycles. One more question. Anybody? No, in that case, I think we, oh, James has a question. Hi, James. Good to see you. Yeah, just following up on that last question. How do you decide which projects are good enough? How and who? Yeah. The criteria hasn't changed very much. There are some financial criteria, a lot of non-financial, strategic fit, and sustainability, and a lot of other things. So those haven't really changed. When it comes to who, then we have a mandate structure that regulates how high up you need to go and we are trying to have that generous enough so that not everything is ending up on the table of the executive committee. So again, we would like, this is about we want to take good decisions and you make good decisions if you can make them at the right time, which is as late as possible, given the lead time, and at the right level, which means not everything at the top. Can I say one more thing before we close? Okay, yeah. This stuff is gonna happen. You know it's gonna happen. I don't care if it's called business, agility, beyond budgeting or whatever, it will happen. And in 15, 20 years time, when we look back at what was mainstream management in 2019, we will smile, maybe laugh, just like we today smile or laugh about the time before the internet, which isn't that long ago. And my message to all the organizations I've been working with is that you can choose to be an early mover here and get competitive advantage, or you can choose to be dragged into this as one of the last ones. And I know what I would have done. Thank you. Please stay. Yeah, please stay. So important message and a really interesting area. We would like to thank you with a small Swedish designed candle holder. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you very much. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you.