 So, I'm going to talk to you about the journey that we've been on for about the last 11 months, setting up and operationalising the Centre for Expertise in Australia, and so in Melbourne and Sydney, Bangalore, Chengdu, Singapore and Manila. So, we've been responsible for enabling 5,000 people across 500 squads in six regions to start their journey towards agile maturity as part of one of the biggest corporate experiments in transforming to agile. So, I'm going to start with what the Centre for Expertise is. So it's really represented by this box here, which I hope most of you can see. So, really what we've been doing is an art and a science. So, we're open and transparent, that's why I use this box, and we're multi-layered. So, we open and we work at several layers. So, within our box contains many things. So, we always work to time, that's why we have a time scale in here. We have a range of tools and techniques that I'm going to talk to you about today, but all of our coaches receive a similar kind of box, and we're really, really completely pragmatic, which is why I've talked about moving from dogma to pragma. So, what I'm going to do over the course of today is talk to you about the journey that we've undertaken. So, I'll come back to my box, but I just wanted to sort of frame the work that we're doing. So, what I wanted to understand in terms of who we've got in the audience is, I wanted to talk to you about, oh, here's a clicky. So I wanted to sort of talk to you first about, wrong way, use the power of my fingers. I wanted to say first, we've had a good innings. So, what we've done is we've got a great team in place. We have enabled people to start the journey to maturity. We've set up a coaching accelerator. We've set up a coaching radar. We've established some feedback channels. We have started some measurement. We've got some metrics in place. We've started enabling the organization to understand flow of work. We've started to break down work and actually translate that into value. So we've started our journey, which is great, and we've started the setup of the center of expertise, and we've started to operationalize all of those things, which is really good. And we've done that in quite a compressed timeframe. So as with any organizational transformation, there's a sense of urgency and there's a time scale to which we have to work. So one of the reasons why I've titled this talk from Dogma to Pragma is that our overarching urgency has been led in terms of our pragmatic approach. So one of the things that we haven't done is we haven't taken an agile approach and we haven't enforced that on the organization. So I'm just getting lots of different sounds over there. So what I wanted to understand here is who likes Cricut? Who likes Cricut? Great. Okay. So what kind of Cricut do people like? So just give me some different types of Cricut. What kind of Cricut do people play or like? And just Cricut? What else? 2020? One day? What else? Yep. Okay. Okay. So lots and lots of great types of Cricut. So we've got someone here asking us... Sorry, I don't know. Maybe this is... Okay. So who likes Cricut? So there's lots and lots of different types of Cricut that are available to us. And I'm a Cricut fan. So over the Australian summer, I've been reflecting on Cricut. So I really am a Test Cricut fan. I love Test Cricut. I love the strategy around Test Cricut. I love the five-day notion of it. I love that, you know, it can come out that as a family, we can go to the Cricut and we can get settled in and we can know that we can sort of go to the bathroom. We can go and get our drinks and maybe nothing much is going to happen. But we know that there's a lot of thought that's going into every play. But really, if we think about the kind of transformation that ANZ has been going on, I've really been analogising the approach that we've been taking and really we've had to move to more of a one-day or even a 2020 Cricut approach. So what we've had to bring out is we've had to bring out all the bells and whistles. So anyone who goes and watches 2020 knows that at every break something has to happen. So we have to keep people entertained. We have to bring out different approaches. We have to experiment. So the way that I think 2020 was designed, I think that the Cricuting Boards around the world thought about every single marketing idea that they've ever had. They put it on a Kanban board. They said we're going to experiment with everything and actually they have. They've divided amongst all the teams. And I think that the approach that we've been taking at ANZ is a little bit similar. So what we've said is we've asked people to turn up and to play Cricut. And that's what people have done. But as we've just heard, there's lots of different ways to play Cricut. And so some people have come and they've said, yep, I'm really here. I know how to play Cricut and I'm up for the game. And so they've arrived and they're really excited about it. Some people have said, I've never heard of Cricut. I actually, I really don't want to play. And actually I'm just not going to do it. Some people have said, I'm here to play, but I love Beach Cricut. So if we're playing Beach Cricut, I'm your person. And then we've got everyone in between. So we have been on a journey to try to get everybody aligned. So that's what we've been doing a little bit. So I think Cricut's a beautiful game. And we've been trying to enable a beautiful transformation. Sorry, I'm going to do this again. Again, I'm not loading here. OK, so what's been really important then is for us to decide to get aligned. So where we've got to in the transformation is we've said, OK, are we aligned? So we had all these people who came to the transformation. And we said, OK, at an organization level, someone like AMZ has been through lots and lots of transformations, lots and lots of restructures. But this one was really, has been really different. It's been different for a couple of reasons. One is because we've got it, it's top down. So we've got a really fantastic CEO who really believes in the change that's being undertaken. And one of the things that we also did from a transformation perspective is we took a long time to talk to everybody about what the journey was we were undertaking. And we also gave people to opt out of the journey. So there was a lot of voluntary redundancy that was offered. And so the premise, the hypothesis there was that people who were staying for the long haul were there because they wanted to be there. So that was very different from some of the other restructures I've certainly been a part of, or restructures that have happened to me. And so the hypothesis going in was that people who were there were really on for the ride. So that was great. We also did a lot of work around growth mindset. And so people coming in, the premise was, and still is, that people are there with the right mindset. And we also enabled people to go for roles that were able to go for roles where they may not actually have all of the skills, but they were able to go for roles where potential was something that was really important. So that was also a really different restructure, a really different opportunity. So the elements of success were really there. So what we had to do though is we had to make sure that the people who were there were aligned and also from the centre of expertise and setting up that centre of expertise, what was really important for the area that I was running is that from a coaching and a reskilling and a value acceleration area, we were really the people who were going to help change the mindset, so grow people and also enable the technical and delivery capability uplift that the organisation needed. So from a recruitment point of view, a values alignment point of view and a capability uplift point of view, we needed to be right on point. So that was a big job that was enabled us, that was set up for us. So my hypothesis was that if we were able to get the CEO people to start thinking differently, we would then be able to get the rest of the organisation to start working differently. And so that was where we started. So it was really important to go in from right from the beginning with a very experimental and creative approach because we knew that we didn't have any of the answers at all. And so we're gonna have to be trying lots and lots of things and that's what we've been doing. So one of the starting positions given the size and the scope of the challenge was right from the beginning, I realised that we were going to have to start thinking quite differently. And so I coined the phrase around thinking systemically to optimise locally. So I did that because I knew that we were gonna have to look broadly, but we're also gonna have to be able to focus really effectively at an individual and a squad level. And you all know this, we've talked about this, especially in the last couple of days, that as coaches especially, you wanna go where you're loved and you wanna start where you're loved and hopefully stay where you're loved and continue to influence that position. But we really knew that we were gonna have to think quite differently and try to work through a systemic approach to enable that success to be able to permeate through the organisation and that for people working within the COE, they're gonna have to think and work at these two different levels. So think at a systemic level, but also think how they can optimise locally. So that's where we got to. So we all know that there are many, many approaches to Agile, Scrum, Kanban, XP, Scaled Agile, et cetera, et cetera. And one of the ways that we could have undertaken this transformation from a holistic point of view is we could have just said, okay, we're going to adopt an approach. And that would have been one way to do it. But that's what we didn't do at ANZ. We decided we were going to do something different. What we did start to do though is there was a decision made to try to get the top leadership aligned from a sort of base level understanding of Agile through introducing them to SAFE. And so there was a training programme that started with SAFE for the leadership level. And so we started that and then we stopped it. And so both of those things were actually really confusing. So that was really quite confronting for a lot of people and it actually raised a lot of questions. So there were still areas that were using SAFE. There were areas that wanted to use SAFE. There were areas that thought SAFE was Agile. There were areas that were just quite perplexed as to why this journey had continued. But ANZ was quite deliberate in saying, we're not going to tell you how to work. We're going to offer you opportunities to work in a range of Agile frameworks that actually suit you. And so that was quite a different way than some other people have undertaken their transformations. So the hypothesis there was that we were going to provide basic information to get people on the same page but it didn't quite work in that it actually raised a lot of questions that are still there. So we haven't quite resolved that one. So we then moved to getting the right people, getting the right players on the ground. And so this was really one of the most important things that we did. So when I came in, we did have a couple of coaches who were in play but they were coaching quite differently to what I perceived we needed for the levels of maturity or the vastness of the differences of levels of maturity that we had in play. So we needed to be really very deliberate about the kinds of people and the diversity of people that we needed to recruit. And so I took quite a bit of time and a design thinking approach to deciding on the kinds of people that we're going to recruit. So we also needed to recruit across six regions and so that also had a range of challenges. And as you can see here, so we inherited an organizational design, I inherited an organizational design that said, based on what the domains had wanted, so we sort of had a Spotify model in place based on what the domains wanted. They sort of felt they needed 75 coaches. And from a ratio perspective, that meant that it was going to be one coach to nine squads, which is pretty high. But on the right is, and they also thought they suggested from an org design point of view that those coaches would operate as a guild and all the 75 people would then report into me. And so that obviously doesn't take too long to think that that's not going to work. So immediately we had to experiment around that model. So I immediately tried to put in place a chapter model and that meant I had to then look for chapter leads, which wasn't in the original design. And that was again, trying to look for domain coaches who were chapter leads who could then coach and lead and do a range of things. So that was interesting. So on the right are the three levels of coaches that we have or the three types of coaches. So we have squad coaches, tech area coaches, and domain coaches. And that's the organizational design that we have. And there's some common attributes there. But on the left is the Venn diagram that I designed, which in my second day in the role. So I did design this and then I took a design thinking approach to what I was shopping around. And then I talked to a range of stakeholders. I talked to internal and external consultants about what they felt was working well in the marketplace, et cetera. And really the key thing to this is that in the, we had another region, another area in our organization that was already in our end well, a new ways of working approach. And they'd brought in a range of coaches and a range of people to start the journey. And theirs was a strong cultural transformation. And they brought in some coaches that didn't necessarily have strong agile or lean system thinking skills, which could be fine, except they actually also weren't really training them in that. So they were really working from a cultural change point of view and a mindset change point of view, which is absolutely okay, as long as you're looking at the behavioral and the practice change as well. So one of the things that I felt was really important is given we were actually transforming to a new way of working that was based on an agile transformation, we really needed to try to attract as many people who had that core understanding as possible. So we looked for people who had a combination of the skills in this Venn diagram. The center is really important though. So we wanted people who had empathy, adaptive leadership, customer focus and growth mindset. And that was really important because I also needed to attract some people internally. So we also needed to enable a growth, an internal pipeline of people. We didn't really have many coaches internally, but we also, we needed to start growing them. And we need to start growing scrum masters and for them to see that there was a career path as well. So if you look at this Venn diagram, you can see that if you've got adaptive leadership and those kinds of skills and knowledge and expertise and delivery expertise, you're going to be able to help from a transformative delivery uplift perspective. You're going to be able to help from a capability uplift. Adaptive leadership, deliver expertise and domain expertise. You're going to be able to help from a technical capability uplift. Adaptive leadership, domain expertise and knowledge and experience. You're going to be able to help from a spot performance uplift perspective. So I think they're someone in security, for example, who's very much an expert, who doesn't have any agile experience. It's quite a different leadership challenge than somebody who's a delivery person and from a software perspective. So we're quite deliberate in terms of what we were doing there. So the recruitment challenge was quite interesting. So we had quite a unique approach in terms of what we were doing. We had a fast approach because we're in a race for talent like everybody. But one of the key things that we did quite differently was the role play component of that. And that was really where we separated the wheat from the chaff. So I still remember some of the really, really brilliant role plays that we did that left me as the recipient of the role play feelings amazingly brilliant within a couple of minutes. And that was a quite an incredible experience. And that really showed whether or not somebody actually had the chops or not. And then I equally remember still, and I still pass some of the people in the corridor and think they just left me feeling, I remember being prostrate on the desk saying, please just help me. And they were still using the coaching model of saying, please just tell me how I can help you. I was like, just do anything, do anything. And I'm lying on the desk saying, just do anything. And they just still couldn't change their mental model or use any other coaching techniques to enable me to help me in that role play. Even though they looked amazing on paper and if I just reviewed their CVs and just done a behavioral event interview, I would have taken them, but the role play was actually the way that we separated those. So we've done 670 interviews in a couple of months. So if anyone wants to talk about the approach that we've taken and how we've done that, I'm happy to discuss that because it's, we've got a lot of data, I suppose. It's been good. Oh God, still going backwards. Okay, so our construct, I'm not gonna spend too long on this, but we basically have set up in terms of chapters. So I referred before that we didn't have chapters initially. So we now have chapters, we've got chapter leads which are not aligned, they're not hierarchically aligned to the domain, how people work in the domain. So it's sort of a, more of a matrix model. We also, one of the key things that we have is feature squad. So within the COE, there's a lot of work that we do to deliver value in terms of the tools and techniques et cetera that we create for the organization. And that's now our feature squads. And we also have a rescaling accelerator, which is where we've, we're creating the opportunity for people to retrain as software engineers. A value of accelerations accelerates. So helping people learn about value streams and metrics and also coaching accelerator. So I made reference before to recruiting internally. So one of the things that we did in terms of internal recruitment is we took on people who had great potential but they didn't have a lot of, the people that we took on may have had a little bit of agile experience or may have had a little bit of coaching experience but generally didn't have a lot of either or sometimes none of either. But what they had is great potential. But that meant that there was a huge gap that we had to close and had to close quickly. So we created a coaching accelerator where we retrained people to become coaches. And that's been really successful. So we then extended that coaching accelerator to be a scrum master accelerator because we also need scrum masters which is a hat role at A&Z which means that people can choose to be that role or they're volunteer to be that role. And we need as coaches, because it's only 75 across a population of 5,000 for them to be as effectively as possible skilled in, and we use the coaching accelerator to do that. So we also then said, okay, do we understand how to play the game? And we realized that we had some great people coming in and they had lots of great ideas. And if we're in a really small organization and we had a small challenge, it would have been great to just say, okay, go ahead and coach and see what you can do. But because that challenge was so large and our scope was so large and we also were really time bound because people were gonna come into our tranches from October. We really needed to be quite rather deliberate about the approach that we're going to take initially, not prescriptive in terms of how people were going to work but just in terms of the kinds of approach that we wanted to take. So we created a service catalog which we designed with a range of the coaches. And you can see here, and I can talk to anyone who's here the next few days in more detail about this. So basically the approach is based on Shuhari. We created an approach here also that enables people to flex across the model. So when you're dealing with large populations, it can't be one approach. So it's really around consult, educate, facilitate, mentor and then coach. And then the approach is really activate, accelerate, amplify and then to basically work ourselves out of a job to get to sustain. So we really want to be able to enable self-organising teams. There's so many teams that we're never gonna work ourselves out of a job. There's always gonna be another squad that needs help but that's the objective that we're working to. And you can see on the right, we're working in terms of maturity levels from beginning to sustainable. And that also means the level of support that's needed from a coaching perspective. Our principles, which I won't go over because I'm almost out of time, I think. Our principles are really important to us. We're driven by our principles and these were created right in the beginning by the team and they've been revisited and they're the basis of the social contract. And they've been resubmitted a couple of times. But the really important thing for us is also the equipment that we've created. So when we came in, I was given three role descriptions and then said, okay, go ahead and transform all these people. And I was like, ah, where's the material? Where's the collateral? And I was told there wasn't any. So that was a bit of a surprise but luckily I like creating things. So that was actually okay. So basically what we did is we created, and this is where we come back to the box. So we created all of these coaching toolkits and we created these little kits for everybody which outline our approach. And then on each of the cards that we've created, we have, and yeah, we can have a look at these later, but we have something that says, something aligned to the service catalog. So it's something like service the big issues and on the back we've got what is it, how do you do it? You know when you're done, when, watch out for. And then we've set up on Confluence, a whole lot of additional information and resources and workshops with facilitator guides, a whole lot of additional links, external resources, et cetera, so that people can use these cards with their squads and do a whole lot of additional workshops, et cetera, and then add to them. So when new people join the team, they're invited to continue to contribute to this material, which is great. And then obviously we use collaborative tools to continue that piece of work. One of the really important things that we had to agree was how do we start? So we had a couple of decisions around how do we start? Again, we could have just said off you go, but one of the things we wanted to do was be a little bit more deliberate about that because some of the teams that we're going to, we're just not ready to receive any kind of support and we wanted to make sure that the people we were, the scarce coaches that we had, were going where they were loved. So that was one of our overarching principles. And so we wanted to set up this quick start to sort of say, okay, let's give ourselves the best chance for success. So coaching ready is the start of that than the coaching canvas. And again, I can go through this in more detail, but I wanted to talk, I wanted to move on to the coaching canvas and the assessment because they're the two core skills, core tools that we have. So the quick start starts that, but our coaching canvas is really our core tool. So the coaching canvas is where we basically start our engagement with our domains, tech areas and our squads. So we use this to say, hi, how may we help you? What are your, what's at the opportunity? What are the opportunities you see? What problems, what issues do you have? What ideas do you have? And we work through this in a sequence and then we use that to start a conversation and then the result of this coaching canvas is then an agreement where we say, okay, this is what we're going to, this is what we agree to do together. And it's way for us to sort of say, okay, this is the value we can add and this is also what we see from you because it's really important for us to understand how we can help, but it's also really important for people to take a moment and articulate what they're doing. So one of the things that we're all confronted with when we're trying to help people is don't have any time. And so using something like this which is quite structured actually helps to resolve some of that. So then what we do, and this is one of the things that I think is quite unique about what we're doing. So then bringing it back to thinking systemically and optimizing locally. What we do then is between the coach and the customer, they agree then on the clear goals and then we lodge this in our compliance area. And then coaches bring the canvases to our touch point meeting. So from a cadence point of view on a weekly basis, we have a touch point meeting with all of the coaches and the COE. And that's where all the coaches bring back any canvas that they have completed for that in that week period and they talk about that canvas. And what they're talking about there is the opportunity to what they've found, which is an opportunity to minimize waste and also an opportunity to highlight any opportunities that they see for any systemic issues. So that's where we're looking at ideas that we can then run experiments on. So we're looking there to try to save time but also looking for the best way that we can solve big problems that we've got across the organization. So far we've done, and I know I've only got four of the one results in here, 58 coaching canvases. And the key systemic issues we're seeing are quite sort of low level and seemingly basic issues for where we thought the organization was going to be. And they'd be really familiar with to all of you but it's quite illuminating to see that these are still the issues being felt by 80% of our population. So you can see what they are here. And so, if we think about improving visibility of work, so we're doing quite a few experiments on those. Roles and responsibilities is a really important thing. So that's people feeling really confused about what they're supposed to be doing. And actually, that's a key issue that the whole of the organization is feeling. Our CEO said he expects that everyone's gonna feel very uncomfortable for the first three to six months of their jobs, which everybody has been feeling that, but this is beyond that time period now. But what we've been able to find is that there's really some simple, there's some simple solutions on that because when we started our experiments, we found that there's just some really confusing things about role descriptions that just didn't get tied it up because from a transformation perspective, people were working really fast and then roles are actually talked about in three different places and they're actually, they're actually, they had now they sorted out but they had actually been talked about quite differently in three different places. So no wonder people were confused. So we've done a whole lot of other work on roles and responsibilities. How ends and objectives contribute to features, epics and stories. We've done a huge amount of work on helping people break down work and work out how to prioritize work and prioritize value. So that alignment between work and value is one of the, we all know is one of the biggest challenges that everybody has and we've been running a whole range of experiments around that, including how do we make things like our quarterly business reviews to join Norma's meetings much more aligned down to how do we kind of help people come to work with a sense of purpose and leave with a sense of accomplishment. So there's a whole lot of experiments that are being run each day on those kind of things. And then our maturity assessment. So the other thing that from, if you remember from the quick start that is really important in terms of what we do is we conduct maturity assessments with each of the domains, tech areas and squads and we do those in terms of these items or engineering practices, team health, innovation, customer satisfaction, speed to value, purpose alignment, leadership and agility. And this is where the organization is sitting on those attributes for 51 areas at the end of Q1. So quite low, which actually we would expect given the population, the level of maturity. And we do those quarterly. So these have been really interesting from a coaching perspective. So they've caused lots of discussion, which is always good. Lots of people have said they would prefer to do an assessment once they've really gotten to know the team. And there's pros and cons of that. You could say that's great except that we actually wanna get a baseline before we get to know the teams very well because we want to get the baseline to understand where their maturity is. So we can see what impact you're having. We also want the baseline right at the beginning to see where everybody is at the beginning. Because if we wait until people actually are mature, then how do we know what they were? So we're still working through a range of those things. This is one area where, so if we look here, one of the squads, we did a before and after in terms of three months and you can see just, you don't have to see the detail but just from the picture in the middle, you can see that there's quite a change that can be exhibited in quite a short amount of time. And so again, we do share these across squads. Some squads are happy to be identified, some squads don't want to be identified, so we do identify. But it's really interesting to look at the difference in terms of what the assessments are spinning up. So we're looking at that across the whole organization. So we talked about experimentation. This is our experimentation wall. So we basically use design thinking. We use Lean Startup. So we were inspired by Ash Murray's Go Lean process and then Agile for delivery. So I love talking about this. If anyone wants to talk to me about it over the next couple of days, happy to do so. This has been really interesting because a lot of the coaches don't have, especially in experimentation or a Lean Startup background. So it's been a great thing for people to learn. And this is in detail, the way that we've interpreted and we've created our goalie approach for a continuous innovation. So we've really personalized it to what we need in terms of the kind of goals that we're creating and how it's working for us. And so then how do we score? So the other really important thing that we've been challenging ourselves to do as quickly as possible is enable the organization to understand how it measures itself and also come to terms with being custodians of its own measures. So we're in a bit of a struggle here in that we've got a lot of people who think that putting things into JIRA or a similar tool means that they are measuring themselves. And obviously, depending on what kind of data you input, that is going to determine what kind of data you output. And so one of the things that we're doing some work on is helping people understand that you have to have an understanding of what does your, what do the inputs mean? So get yourselves sorted in terms of what your metrics and measures mean and then put anything into any tool but actually understand how you're working and make sure that you're really cognizant of what's meaningful for you as a squad so that you can understand that the measures that you're creating are insightful and enable you to make the best next decision. So our key metrics are lead time, cycle time, throughput and squad mood or engagement levels and then they translate into value delivered. And then the other thing that we're really focused on in the CLE is number of experiments. We also use OKRs in the CLE and they're being flirted with across the organization so some squads aren't using them. And then we're also focused on measures of value in terms of our features. And how do we keep ourselves on track? So we're also really interested in understanding all the time how we're going. So we ask for feedback all the time in terms of an NPS score on our signatures. We've created a coaching radar so we use that to ask for individual feedback on our cells as coaches and also with the coaching accelerator. So we use that as a pop-up to augment our coaching. So we have pop-up coaches, coaching opportunities. We've got a Slack channel and we're about to start an email channel as well for coaching support. And I guess that brings us to the end in terms of the coaching. Coaching at ANZ really is about growing mindsets, enhancing capabilities and we're trying to enable overall organizational agility and a great place to work in terms of all of those ways. So yeah, we're making reasonably good progress but it's sort of a long way to go as anyone who's doing this kind of role knows. It's, you know, progress is measured in moments and we definitely need to take time to celebrate all of the little successes that we have because we don't get too many really, really big ones. So we do start all of our retros and all of our meetings focusing on great things have happened, no matter how small that greatness is. So yeah, that's me. So I'm happy to answer any questions. Yep. My question is around the reporting on structure. Does that align with the chapter structure or is it the separate metrics or matrix organization structure? So the chapter is your reporting line but it's not your working line. So you're working in a domain squad which is different to your chapter squad. So your chapter is about growth to mastery but it actually also does account for the admin components around sick leads, et cetera and also performance goals. But as a chapter lead, you're engaging with people in the domain in terms of your performance. My follow on question on that one then is if the chapter lead is also a kind of a line manager responsible for the growth as well as the performance and quite likely linked to the salary and promotion, et cetera, how do you deal with this kind of like a power structure over there because the chapter lead is going to be very influencing person. What if this chapter lead is not aligned with the scores objective and tribes objective? How do you deal with that? So they're not aligned to the squad's objectives. So a domain coach manages a group of domain coaches and they're separate to the chapter. In the domain, so the COE domain squads, they're separate to the chapter squads. I understand that. So I'm saying then what if the chapter lead, his or her objective is different than what a squad wants. And then, but chapter lead has a huge influence on the squad member because it's the line manager, it's pretty much the boss, right? And then if the chapter leads goes to the squad member and say, hey, I want you to do this for me, but that is different than what the squad has signed up for. Who does this squad member listen to? So I think that the chapters are about, so what's happening in the domain squads is they're working for security or risk or someone else like actually out in the world, out in the technology world and the chapters are within the COE. So their objectives are aligned to the COE. So their objectives should be fairly aligned. So I haven't come across that challenge yet. It might be my eyes, but we haven't had to deal with that yet. We can talk later if I'm not answering. You showed a coaching canvas. Is that used for a conversation between the coach and the team and the squad? Yes. That what it is for? Yeah. Okay. I saw some semblance of the typical grow model which is used for individual coaching. Is that the goal reality options? Is that as I come from the grow model, the ideas? We have used, this is an amalgamation of many, many things. Yeah. So it's, we've just kind of mashed together. I'm trying this actually. So how's the coach's performance? Is that tied to somehow the team? I can see this is tied to team performance. How does it reflect on the coach's performance? Well, the coach basically agrees with the domain lead or the tech area lead or the squad in terms of what they're going to, what they're going to deliver. So what, so the conversation is, what's important to you and how are we going to do that? So just because somebody says, this is what I wanna do, the coach doesn't automatically say, okay, that's what we're, they're not order takers, we're in partnership. So the first job that this coaching canvas has is to elicit the requirements from somebody or from a team. And on that basis, it gives a license to then ask questions and tease out where somebody is coming from. And so somebody might, and that's where the, that's why the column there in terms of reality is really important. So somebody may say, I want this, this, this, this, this, in a two week timeframe. And that's just completely unrealistic. So in terms of the conversation, you know, the initial, especially if it's a first meeting, the initial conversation is mm-hmm, mm-hmm. Yeah, we just get that down. And then from a realistic point of view, we're just gonna note some things, but then it's about for the saying, okay, that's probably unachievable at this stage, but it doesn't mean that it can't be achieved. It means those things will go on the backlog and let's look at some prioritized items and let's create an agreement based on these things that we're going to deliver. Yeah. Thank you. You can dig other questions off me. Yeah, lovely. Okay, thanks so much. Thanks.