 Rwy'n ôl i'r ffraith, ac mae'r bwysig yn bwysig, mae'r bwysig yn bwysig i'r byw i'r wneud. Rydyn ni'n fyddech chi'n gweld i chi. Rydyn ni wedi'u gael ymdweud o'r bwysig yw, mae'r ddigon yna, ac mae'n gweithio'r ddweud o'r ffraith a'r ffraith, ac mae'n gweithio'r ddweud o'r gweithio'r gweithio. Rwy'n gofio'r ysgol o'r ddweud, mae'n gweithio'r ddweud o'r ddweud o'r ddweud, connects gyda'r dda, yn cael ei gyfnod, mae'n gweithio hynny'n gweithio cyd-ddoll, mae'r dda yn ei gweithio'r ddau, ddiddorol, os yw'r ddau, os yw'r ddau i'r ddechreu? Yn y ffyrdd maes ei ddweud, mae'n hynny'n dda, mae'r ddweud o'r hynny'n dda, mae'n ddweud o'r hynny, oherwydd mae'n ddweud o'r ddweud o'r hynny, ac yn weithiau gyda rhywunol yn gwybod hefyd. Yn nifer 3, rwy'n unrhyw gyntaf i ddigon yn ysgrifetur Cammann. Mae'r rhwng ar yw, mae'n ysgrifetur ar gael. Cynghorwch e chrysio hefyd o 50 oedd yn y rwrn. Rwy'n am Plugwr Dan MacCantee ar y gaf. Mae'r Rhwyng oedd angen yn ysgrifetur, mae'n cynghorwch holl wedi bod yn ŵr miliwn yr wrth iill. Mae'r fan yw gweithio hefyd i dda wedi 12 o 15 miliwn gyda ddech chi. The title of the book as well, Kanban, successful evolutionary change for your technology business. I just wanted to emphasise that for your technology business part of that. Now in the book David didn't spend a lot of time explaining exactly how to go about making Kanban or agile scaling your organisation but that is the context to the book. Some of this you have to work out for yourself. Mae'r ddau ddau ac ymddir gael ar ddau'r gael Mae'r ddau a'r ddau yn gyfwyngau wedi gweld yn cwrs o'i ein ddau o'r rhaid o'r cyfwyr Cyfwyr o'r cyffwyr Cyfwyr o'r ceisio ddau Cyfwyr o'r ddau a'r cyffwyr Cyfwyr o'r cyffwyr Felly mae'r ddau'r ddau Ac mae'n gweithio ar gyfer y dyme Efallai ei bod yn gwneud eich llwyth Roeddwch y ddau'r ddau? Roeddwch y ddau ddau Oes, oes, oeddiw, gweithio. Can we use one of those rovi microphones, please? So what we're going to do is do a five or ten minute version of an exercise that you can download and run with your teams for something like 45 minutes. Done properly, it's a reflective thing. We're doing it very, very quickly. This is a super, super quick version. Just can be a bit of fun. Just understanding how CanBans values were abstracted from the principles and practices of the method. So we have a microphone that works, we do. Brilliant. Right. So here's the test. Now I don't know if you're going to be able to read this from the back, but at the bottom of the screen we have nine values. Now they're in a randomised order, not the order that I normally remember them in, so I'm going to have to read them off the screen. Customer focus, agreement, collaboration, flow, leadership, transparency, understanding, respect and balance. Now I'll be surprised if there's a single word in there, or perhaps customer focus, I don't know if that's been mentioned today, but very few of these things haven't already been mentioned today as values that many of us recognise and share. What we're going to do is to see how four of these nine map to the foundational principles of the CanBans method. Now there's a trick here, and the trick is to work from bottom to top because the top one is the hardest one. So if we leave the hardest one to last, we'll have fewer items to choose from. So who'd like to make a guess at which value goes with encouraged acts of leadership at all levels in your organisation from individual contributors to senior management? Right, we've had a few shouted out. Do we have the microphone? Put your hand up if you have an idea what it might be. Quick show of hands. A couple of people over here. Collaboration. Collaboration could be one. Let's have another try. No wrong answers here by the way, but there is a canonical answer. Let's put it like that. Transparency. Transparency. Transparency could be. So I'll go through the list once more. Customer focus, agreement, collaboration, flow, leadership, transparency, understanding, respect and balance. Respect. I hear leadership from over here. That is the canonical answer. I won't say the right answer. So next one. Initially, respect, initial roles, responsibilities and job titles. Respect. Got it in one. Now we're not evil. If the clue is in the question, you've probably got the right answer. Agree to pursue evolutionary change. I think I hear a consensus. Let's hear it from the microphone. Agreement. Agreement. Got it. Right. Now this is the hard one. Now this is one of the most interesting and powerful principles of the Kanban method. Start with what you do now. I'm here. Lots of answers shouted out. This is clearly a controversial one. Let's have some hands up. Right. Let's hear some answers. Flow. Flow. Okay. That's a good answer. Let's hear some more. Understanding. Understanding. Very good answer. I'll hear some one more. You'll hear that I like threes. Customer focus. Right. It was actually the middle one of those three. There was the canonical answer. Understanding. So first four principles. First four values, sorry, of Kanban. Understanding, agreement, respect and leadership. Now it gets a little harder. We've got some core practices. And we've got six remaining values left for four core practices. And what's more, one of the practices is two values against them. The longer and shorter it is, one of the values here is going to occur three times. So we can't just cross them off when we've used them. But again, to make it easy, we'll start from the bottom. We'll start with the more obvious ones. So the first one. The one I can never say, because I can never say the second word, improve collaboratively, evolve experimentally. Right. Everyone's shouting out collaboration. Good. Got it in one. Straight out of the agile manifesto. Next one. Implement feedback loops. Right. So I'll read out the possibilities again. Customer focus, collaboration, flow, transparency and balance. I've heard customer focus. Can I hear another one? Transparency is the canonical answer. Right. Make policies explicit. Transparency again. Right. So we've got one that's occurs twice. Where else do you think transparency belongs? Do you think it belongs with visualise, limit work in progress or with managed flow? Visualise. Right. We're going to get at this. Right. Managed flow. There's an easy one and a hard one. Now, what's the easy one? Flow. Good. We don't need the microphone for that one. It's flow. Right. The harder one that goes with managed flow. We've got two choices now. It's between customer focus and balance. Customer focus. Good. So flow is about flow through. It's also about what you flow to. And we flow to the customer. Right. Last one. Limit work in progress can only be balance. Good. So if it's not obvious what some of these mean, we'll explore these in a minute. But first I just want to ask you just to pause for a moment. So of the nine, which of those resonate with you most strongly? You might even want to write these down. You may find it useful in a moment if you do. So which three resonate with you personally out of customer focus, agreement, collaboration, flow, leadership, transparency, understanding, respect and balance? And again, this is a hard question because you don't know exactly how some of these may work. But which of these might speak into your work situation? Which one do you think, yes, this is exactly how our organisation works or gosh, our organisation really needs some more of this and we'd be so much better off if we had it? Another three. So again, you may find it helpful to write those down. So I mentioned there's a longer version of this exercise, much more reflective, much more discussion and I found that teams very often spend 45 minutes or even longer on this exercise. We've made it freely available. You can just download it from that link there. I also put a little website to first expose some of the ideas in this talk. It's called meldstrong.com. You can create a profile there and put your three values in there. Those will then link through to the pages that describe how those values work. So I asked you to do things in groups of three and actually find there's some groups of three that work really well in explaining how Kanban works. So the first three, transparency, balance and collaboration. Now for months I've been describing it in those terms but not having a good name for them but not with a good name, sustainability. And I think that's something that will be familiar to you in the agile community, agile teams. The idea of sustainable pace, for example. The idea of agile practice is bringing sustainability to a team. The next three are customer focus, flow and leadership and they go with a name we call service orientation and the last three understanding, agreement and respect and about survivability. It might be hard to see the relationship between those three and survivability but we'll explore those at the end. Excuse me. So let's see how those first three work. Sustainability, transparency, balance and collaboration. So transparency is clearly a very important value in Kanban. Kanban, based on the idea of visual management for example we saw three of the practices that were based on transparency. Visualise, make policies explicit, implement feedback loops. And the key idea is a very simple, very beautiful one really. Organise the work in such a way that people can self-organise around it more effectively. There's a bit of an anti-pattern with Kanban. Occasionally you'll see balls that try to organise people. This person can only do this kind of work for example. That is an anti-pattern that's against common agile practices like swarming, it's against self-organisation. Self-organisation isn't just about organising yourself in a self-managing way. It's about the system being able to reconfigure itself. And that's something we can do from day to day around the work. Or we may actually decide that actually going forward we want to organise ourselves in a different way. We capture some learning about the way the work should work and we can capture that learning visually in the design of the board. We can capture it in the form of written policies, things like definitions of done, quality criteria, prioritisation and scheduling rules and so on. So it's all transparency, making things more explicit so they're open to challenge, open to change. And feedback loops. I've mentioned this particular stand-up meeting already. 50 people in the room, $2 million worth of work on the board. David Anderson, the author of the book is actually standing out in the corridor on the right. And this is a daily stand-up meeting that in 15 minutes can go through the issues of a $15 million project. Balance. So the first part of balance is about pool systems. Systems where we deliberately limit the work in progress to improve the flow of work. What this is doing is balancing the work that needs to be done or the work that's currently active relative to the people available to do it. Sometimes we describe this as balancing demand against capability. And when we do this, we can see through that box where we're only allowed four pieces of work, the work flow nice and smoothly. But there are other kinds of balance. A quick question for you. Who here really likes the combination of deadlines and interruptions? Who likes to have lots of date-driven work and also to be running a support team at the same time? None of you like it. Who suffers from that daily, regularly? That is a lot of people. It's a very common problem. And we suffer from work with unnecessary dates, meaningless dates very often, or dates where we've chosen them to do within a particular timeframe and haven't created the capacity or the capability to deal with interruptions as well. That's a question of balance. But it's not just between the balance between fixed-date work and interrupt work. It's the balance between those two kinds of work and other kinds of work, work that is merely urgency-driven, work that doesn't have a date associated with it. It's just as soon as we deliver it, the better. And that actually describes most of the work that most of us does most of the time. And yet we treat it like it is either drop-dead urgent or it's something that needs to be done by a particular date. There's also the work that's not so it's so urgent, but it's still important, things like the improvements, the training, all these kind of intangible things that develop the capability of the team, develop the capability of the process. All those types of work and more types of work that may be specific to your organisation too, these need to be kept in balance and we get much better predictability out of our systems, out of our processes if we can do this. It's not necessary to organise the distractions away. The idea that you divide your team into developers and people doing support, it's actually a very wasteful idea and often not the most humane approach either. Collaboration, now collaboration sometimes seems to mean to people being nice to each other, it means something much more than that and I rather jokingly like to say it helps to think of collaboration as being a thing. It's a creative relationship. Who recognises this collaboration? Most of you do. Perhaps we're showing our age. This is Lendon and McCartney. This is a creative relationship. Were they happy people that were always nice to each other? Not really, but they had a massive impact on their particular domain, the world of popular music. Here's another creative relationship. This one is much more about solving problems. Who recognises this pair of people? This is again a collaboration. This is a thing. This is Watson and Crick, the discoverers of the structure of DNA. It's really helpful to think of collaboration as being a relational thing, a relationship between people that serve particular purposes to deliver things to solve problems on behalf of the customer and on behalf of the organisation, on behalf of the team and so on. It's also a really good improvement focus. A lot of my career has been as a manager, as a development manager. For example, I was the dev manager of the global dev team supporting one of the main investment banks bond trading platform. There was a surprise, shall I call it, that used to really annoy me. The surprise was that a piece of work had been sat around for days, sometimes even weeks, hadn't been reviewed. When it finally got reviewed, there were surprises inside it and more rework was needed. Some of you, I'm pleased to say, have engineered that problem away by using practices like pair programming. I came to realise that when I encountered a nasty surprise, I should look for the failure in collaboration or the failure to collaborate. That's a strategy that served me very well for the last 10, 15 years in my management career. It's not a trick I originated, but I certainly learnt it under the influence of some of my more able managers as well. Collaboration is an improvement focus seeing a lack of collaboration as a possible root cause for process dysfunction particularly for surprise. If you can get into that root cause and expose it and encourage a collaboration to happen, make, for example, in a code review relationship, both sides of that relationship responsible in terms of both the quality and the timing, you will get a better and faster result most of the time. There are also the people that are just left on the outside of the team and not involved. That might be their choice. I'm not saying we should force everyone to collaborate, but if people are denied the opportunity to work in a collaborative way where we are in the habit of throwing work over the fence, for example, or only talking to each other by email, that's something we can do something about. This is the small prince of the collaboration practice using models and the scientific method. In the interest of time I'm actually going to skip over this. Michael and Simon this morning did a really good talk on experiments. This is just about using and building models and using the scientific method to provide some discipline around the experiments that we make. That's sustainability, transparency, balance and collaboration. I've described the can-band that most of you know and recognise. The question is, does it scale? Well, transparency has always scaled. I mean, since for the last hundred years we've used transparency, for example, to give a window on the financial performance of enterprises. That's not a new idea. The idea that we report on the status of projects and programs isn't a new idea. We've been doing that for as long as I can remember. Probably longer. The idea of limiting work in progress at those kind of levels also that's perfectly doable and the idea that businesses should only run a limited number of business initiatives at a time is not a new idea. It's an idea that's very successful. I for a year and a half was the IT director of a medium-sized company and when I joined the company I discovered that we had more projects than there were people in the company. So just let that settle down for a minute, that thought. More projects than people in the company. I initiated something to try and get that under control and that was to try and align all those projects against business initiatives. Give them names. Start to justify those initiatives and we use a technique called A3 which some of you may have heard of. We use A3 to justify them and then come to a decision with the management team as to which of these initiatives should get priority, which should be put on hold, which should be killed and a very, very surprising thing happened. Rather than me having to fight to close things down I actually had a queue of people coming to me to offer to kill their projects for me. That doesn't happen very often because it's predicted to work in progress suddenly realizes that it's killing the company. That it's making it impossible to ever to actually finish anything. So limiting work in progress at the high level, at the portfolio level or even the enterprise level is something that we can do. The last one is collaboration. This is actually a tricky one. I think collaboration on its own actually has a tendency to draw people together. That's a good thing. Something we value when we're members of teams. But it can have some negative effects. Teams don't always talk to each other. They hide their information. You get them and us. That's not inevitable. It doesn't always happen. But the best companies are the companies I believe the ones that have learned to have teams that work together effectively. How do you make that happen is the challenge and to do that I'm going to move on to the next group of three values. Sustainability is a very easy thing to understand at team level. You can take your scrum practices and interpret them in the light of transparency, balance and collaboration, for example. Service orientation is just give us a different way of looking at things that will help us understand how all this stuff can scale. This idea called a Kanban lens is something that David Anderson developed in the last year or so. A way to view what you do now. We're not telling you to reorganise but just a different way of looking at the way things work in your organisations. In three parts. The first one, creative work is service oriented. Nothing stunning about that where I think we use the idea that we do things to deliver something to somebody else so that they can do something valuable with it, achieve something meaningful with it. Service delivery involves workflow. Usually something has to happen before something else happens before we can finally get the thing out of the door. That's understood to various levels of granularity in different organisations. Even each team has its own workflow but there is some kind of workflow there. Lastly, the special one. Workflow involves a series of knowledge discovery activities. This is what makes knowledge work like IT, like software development, product development, all sorts of other creative knowledge work endeavours. This is what makes them special. The work involves knowledge discovery. How many of you are familiar with the idea of your piece of work starting with just a few pieces of work, a few words on a post-it note? Yep. Some people prefer to receive a whole document before they start a piece of work. Some prefer just the post-it note. I'm in the post-it note camp. Nothing wrong with needing a document. But when you're starting with just a post-it note's worth of work, you've got some exploring to do just to find out what the requirement is. Let alone being able to build something. When the time comes to build something, you've got to work out whether you're actually capable of doing it, whether you have the tools to do it, the technologies to do it and so on, whether your system is capable of supporting the kind of thing that's been asked for. Later we come to test it. We discover whether we've done what we set out to do, but also whether it's any good for the eventual customer. Then we've got to discover whether we can actually release it or not. Nine times out of ten, that's an easy thing. Sometimes it's not. Finally, we need to discover whether the thing actually delivers value when the thing is out in the wild, out in production. Lots of knowledge discovery. We went from just a post-it note's worth of information to something actually working, delivering something meaningful and valuable to a customer or set of customers. This camp and lens makes us look just differently at the way organisations work. I'm just inviting you to look at your work in a view other than the functional organisation of your company and other than the projects and programmes of your company more about how the work flows across the organisation. This is my version of the, was it from golf course to cash we heard this morning. The golf course end of the scale on the left. We got the ideas just off the golf course. They need a bit of perhaps a bit of clarification, a little bit of examination, a little bit of filtering. What we're trying to do out of all of that, and Camban's very good at this, is making sure that we have the right number of high quality and sufficiently well understood requirements for us to start building them. That doesn't have to be an elaborate process, but we do need some kind of process that gets the best stuff to the front of the queue as quickly as possible. Then we need to build it and we have teams to build, however organised whether organised by projects or by featured teams or whatever, but a number of things are being built possibly in parallel. Then we need to release, perhaps through a shared service like a testing service, a deployment service and so on. We release into production and finally we have some happy customers receive what we've built. At the bottom we've got various other shared services in the company, things like infrastructure, for example, finance might be involved. In my world or I'm working at the moment, security is an important stakeholder in the whole process and some pieces of work just don't happen without the involvement and blessing of the security community. So two questions for you to just help the stuff work, help you make sense of this, help you improve things at scale and the first question is how can we better anticipate customer needs? This is about the design of the knowledge discovery process it's not about individual pieces of work necessarily. If that's too abstract for you a second question how soon will we know that we have met a customer need? Very simple idea, the idea of validating what it is we've built. Now I first started experimenting a really serious way with validation was in about 2009 and I did it for all the wrong reasons. I did it because I was sick and tired of customers asking for things they didn't want and I thought I know how to stop this. After we delivered something we'll have a conversation with the customer and we'll actually make sure that it was useful to them and we'll make sure that they're properly embarrassed if it isn't. I wasn't quite as rude about that but that was pretty much my thinking behind introducing this validation step and I was actually very humbled by the result. What actually happened was that if you're working backwards from that conversation the customer and the developer had some good conversations about how to do those final implementation steps so that the customer would be ready to use it on day one to use it effectively. They'll be working together through testing making sure they were built in the right thing. The customer will be looking over the shoulder of the developer during development and seeing how it's going making sure that there are questions being answered all those kind of things and so on and so on and back through the process the whole process collaborative work between the developer and the customer to ensure that that conversation at the end was going to be a happy one. That was four or five years ago a profound humbling change for me. I did something for all the wrong reasons but I got a spectacularly good result out of it. I'm currently three days a week I'm the dev manager on a public sector project. Now that might make your heart sink but actually this project is a joy to work on. It's one of those rarities, a public sector project that is investing really really heavily on understanding what the end user that is the citizen in the street that's the person that doesn't have broadband at home who can only access the service through his mobile phone or go to the library or go to the job centre. We're going out to meet these people we're videoing them, we're watching people use the service in observation rooms we're interviewing them afterwards to find out how it felt not just what the problems were but actually how it felt and what it means to them to use the service and so on. We're bringing videos of that experience back into the office so we can discuss them more and learn more about the customer. So we've taken feedback loops very very seriously we're not delivering on requirements we are we're going to focus all the time in every stage of our process of incorporating the feedback we're getting from the real end users again a joy to work on. The third value we've had I've kind of put customer focus and flow together in those last couple of slides I'm going to address leadership directly and I'm borrowing an idea from Morton Hansen he talks about T-shaped managers I tend not to talk about managers because getting to the whole debate what's the difference between a leader and a manager and I actually think leadership is open to all of us whether we wear the special manager badge or the special manager hat or not his idea is the idea of T-shaped managers which are translated into T-shaped leadership that's fostering collaboration within your teams within your sphere of control within your sphere of influence but also making sure that there is effective collaboration crossways as well between completely different parts of the organisation even making sure that the process runs smoothly making sure there's access to the right information that may exist in other parts of the organisation and so on so that's in a disciplined way building networks to the right people that are going to help you achieve what you need in terms of improving the process or finding information but it's not all about being the boss I've shown just one big T here if you remember back to the start of this it was leadership at all levels from senior manager to individual contributor all the other way around and this is something that we've really had in Canvan from the beginning again just referring to the front cover of the book I'm stuck I'm too busy I mind all let's do something about it how many acts of leadership are there quick shout out the answers I'm hearing are four now I usually get one let's do something about it the answer is it's between one and four and it depends on context and it depends on the intent of the person asking as well or saying but in some context we've heard this today I think it was in Phil's talk just after lunch saying you're stuck you don't understand something can be a hard thing to do but it actually may be unsticking the whole project by being the one that makes your hand up saying I'm too busy in some cultures is a badge of honour but also it may be a statement that actually we're doing this wrong we haven't got balance we're not balancing demand versus people for example saying I'm idle now I was the as I said I was a development manager in an investment bank I was doing that in the period up to 2009 otherwise known to people in the banking community as the credit crunch and I can promise you that was a very painful experience and I can promise you that very few people would have put their hand up in 2009 and said I'm idle that would have been a brave thing to do really let's do something about it I think we can easily recognise that as an act of leadership so that's service orientation customer focus, flow and leadership and you can think of it as taking the values of the sustainability agenda the ones that are very obvious how they apply at team level and getting away from this problem of looking inwards as a team actually looking outwards and across outwards to the customer upstream and downstream in terms of the process as well and leadership as a way not just of implementing it but also as another objective and other purpose building the strength of the organisation building individuals as people to achieve this again it's something meaningful for us to do there's probably no better act of leadership than to encourage leadership in other people so the last one service orientation is addressing a gap in sustainability so how do we scale the sustainability bit the gap that survivability is addressing is a more cultural one I'll just quick sip of water again excuse me so three words for you just checking the time excuse me bravado complacency and tampering now if you're well read in terms of business books you may recognise some of these words and associate them with particular authors so bravado comes from good to great by Jim Collins any people in this room read that book good book I really like it some people don't but I really do so this is the idea where that managers overreach themselves they try and take the organisation through a change that the organisation isn't capable of sustaining and that has very negative effects at the organisation at the corporate level and at the individual level and a number of corporate failures even you can put down to acts of bravado complacency was Russell Ackolff's word he said that the biggest sin of management was the sin of inaction and complacency so that's not doing something when you should be doing something managers get criticised for doing things wrong therefore the logic goes I won't get criticised if I do nothing the last one who's sort of deming the quality guru by some definitions the founder of the quality movement so he used this word tampering and this is like the instinct of managers to intervene every time something is not quite right he has a game or a number of games to demonstrate this and to show that actually it worsens performance rather than improves it in corporate life in knowledge work we sometimes see this as the manager saying oh this must never happen again therefore we need a new policy to make sure it never happens again and what you end up with is just burdened under the weight of all those policies policies that apply once in 100 years but you're paying the cost of them all the time if you can't remember bravado complacency and tampering try too fast, too slow or too random right the Jacob this is often attributed to Virginia Satyr the Satyr Jacob strictly speaking there are other people other than her have used this model but hers is a good description and it's the idea that things get worse before they get better when you make any kind of change and there's a whole load of psychology that goes into it the resistance that people feel to change before the change even happens the fact that people often prefer the familiar to what's better all sorts of strange things happen around change but when we're talking about safety we can talk about whether the depth of change is sustainable from a safety point of view from the point of view of the safety of the organisation from the point of view of the comfort and safety of the people in the organisation and we can talk about how long it takes as well as we've said change can be so brutal that it inflicts pain just because of the speed of it or the thoughtness of it but also we can do it too slowly and it takes too long if your organisation's patience for change is nine months say and you're embarking on a change programme that's only going to deliver measurable benefit in a year you run the very high risk that the organisation will lose patience before the project finishes and the change agent gets fired or promoted out of the way the initiative gets disbanded and the organisation tries something else and organisations that go through continual change never achieving it is something sometimes for this reason so an alternative to that is to make your jays much smaller to do things incrementally small jays and then building up a capability for change we talk about evolutionary change and I think one of the subtleties that makes incremental change into evolutionary change is that we're clear about that we are striving for fitness and we have no idea of what better looks like or some kind of true north to navigate towards is one model for it but some measure of fitness whether that's financial whether that's to do with the wellbeing of the people in the organisation the satisfaction of the customers or some sort of blended combination of all of those and this again takes us back to experiments does our experiment deliver something that we would all agree relative to our fitness criteria or our true north something that's definitely taking us in the right direction that doesn't mean we need to know what the final solution looks like we just need to know that we are moving through changes that are delivering benefit and that are delivered in such a way that they're sustainable that they're safe so two questions really just to help concentrate that how can we bring opportunities for positive change to the surface there's two parts to that I've talked about the idea of the fitness function or the true north already so that's how we know that the change is actually positive we're not just randomly changing trying different things every week until something sticks so how do we bring change to the surface or the need to change to the surface and this kind of is the strategy behind canvan in the first place we're all about making things visible and it's actually a good idea to make the pain visible in some way either the symptoms of pain or the root causes of pain so if for example you have a problem that you never have visibility of the pipeline that's easy make it visible put it on the board if that involves conversations with your customers or with your portfolio managers or whatever to do that let's do that not only do we make it visible do you have problems with dependencies between teams it's a very common problem for me in many of my roles the problem has been dependencies on infrastructure teams not the infrastructure teams were doing anything wrong, anything bad but they weren't exclusively serving us they were serving lots of other projects in parallel we had to wait until our turn in the queue again making that problem visible making the impact of it visible means that they and us will make better decisions it may actually be quite right that we're waiting in turn if my project is to improve the cafeteria website I should wait my turn behind the change that benefits the trading system or one of the companies core risk management systems or whatever it might be but it's very possible that the opposite is happening if that team was servicing requests only on a first come first served basis then they easily find that they are servicing the cafeteria website before something of much higher value to the organisation so bring those pain points to the surface somehow do it in a way that's respectful of other people clearly but do it in a way that's going to help build agreement that change needs to happen and then agreement on what the actual details of the change need to be and that's a lot of what this survivability agenda is about is making sure that change is conducted with understanding agreement and respect understanding what the problem is understanding in particular of where we are and how we can go about changing it making sure that change is done on the basis of agreement if your change is done by the people impacted by the problem and you're going to have to carry the change out rather than just directed from above it's much more likely to stick to succeed it's much more likely to be designed by people who understand what the impact is going to be so on and so on and so on and related to that is respect respecting people for who they are and what they contribute and for the journey that they've already been through to get here respecting the same for the organisation you've survived this long you can't be doing it all bad and it's kind of the opposite of the and it's very stereotypical and very unfair but it's the opposite of the change agent their first sentence they utter is we don't need project managers anymore a statement like that is going to generate a negative reaction you don't need that you can generate change actually without confronting people's roles people's personal identity it's something that's very dearly and deeply held by people Camben's focus is on the work primarily on the flow of work on the delivery of meaningful value to the customer and so on if people can see that and they can see that the way the work is organised see that the practices aren't right so on and so on and so on they in most cases will be ready willing to change in fact to even to suggest the changes that need to happen so respect as a test as well as a strategy and this is the cultural challenge really of Camben can you imagine your organisation working such that all change was conducted with understanding agreement and respect that's something you can start just at your team level but it's something you can start expecting of your managers and maybe just that cultural challenge will be something that catalyzes something exciting we've reached quarter past just to summarise so Camben is the humane what you do now approach to change I hope you understand some of the humanity in the values that I've described you've seen what start with what you do now means and you've seen also Camben described in these terms of nine values three agendas you see that some of them directly speak to scale some of them need help in order to scale some of them aren't about scale at all understanding agreement and respect works at every possible level but if you can introduce them in the right place in your organisation it may make some very helpful changes for you that's me done there are some references if you want to read them and some thank yous but I'll leave you with that tonight thank you I don't want to take questions from the floor or just mingle afterwards either is fine by me