 All right, we got time just in time. I've learned a new term this weekend called technical problem a group of us We're heading to the sky bar just around the here this area on the Saturday night or Sunday night. Yeah, and We met these bouncer's and they they said you're going to the sky bar technical problems They didn't let us go there We speculated the rest of the evening as to what the technical problem was was a fist fight You know, what what was going on or did they just not like us? I think it is either we just they just didn't like us So my name's Todd little I'm vice president of product development for IHS IHS is not the Indian Health Service It's a company that's a global company that's invested in data and analytics I'll talk to a little bit about them what I'm going to talk about tonight That's this afternoon here is Stand back and deliver this is the book that four of us wrote together the four of us met through conference just like this I was organizing the Agile Development Conference in the United States and met up with a number of like-minded You know, we'd get together in the hallways and start talking about things that were of interest to us Polly Anna-Pickston Neil Nicolaius and Cat McDonald and I said hey, you know, we've got these ideas and if we pull them together We've got something that's better than each of us individually and the synergy came together in the form of a book The sort of the outline is this model up here where we have purpose collaboration and delivery and Around that the influence that has on decisions we make in the development process So yeah, my welcome to you. I am mr. Toad or and about IHS I said it's not the Indian Health Service It's actually a company that you have definitely heard from and you probably have no idea who we are We're the ones that are the information and data behind a lot of things that are going on in the economy We're the ones that are out there predicting what oil prices going to be we're the ones out there telling you what's happening in the military Advice through a company an acquisition James. We're applying a lot of companies We are providing and feeding a lot of the data and analytics and decisions that are influencing a lot of Major economic risk major decisions that that company's making we're a global company I've been involved in global teams one of the reasons. I'm here in Bangalore is that we have a very Strong facility here in Bangalore many of my team aren't in Bangalore I represent in my organization. I have nine different sites that we're developing software and It's you know, we are global company and we're globally distributed to how we develop that software So let's start with it. Let's start with purpose. I think I always like to lead in with purpose That's how we lead in in the book Really we find is if you really know what your purpose is a lot of other things will flow from it So purpose is really a real key part of software development So I'm gonna start with a Movie from movie a little clip from Apollo Apollo 13. Hope this goes Sound The option with the fewest question marks for sight I agree with Jerry use the moon's gravity slingshot them around No, the limb will not support three guys for that amount of time barely holds I mean we have got to do a direct abort. We do an about face. We bring the guys right home right now get them back soon Absolutely, we don't even know if the Odyssey's engines even working and there's been serious damage to this spacecraft Hold it down Hold it down people the only engine we've got with enough power for direct abort is the SPS on the service module What level is told us it could have been damaged in an explosion. So let's consider that engine dead We like that thing up to blow the whole works just too risky We're not gonna take that chance that the only thing the command module is good for is reentry So that leaves us with the lamp, which means free return trajectory Once we get the guys around the moon will fire up the limb engine make a long burn Pick up some speed get them home as quick as we can and Jean I'm wondering what the what the Grumman guys think about this We can't make any guarantees We designed the limb to land on the moon not fire the engine out there for course correct. Well Unfortunately, we're not landing on the moon. I don't care what anything was designed to do care about what it can do So let's get to work. Let's lay it out So it's pretty clear what their purpose is here, right? They've had a problem on the Apollo 13. They've got a purpose They got a well-defined purpose once you have that well-defined purpose You see the passion that that that all of the members had they knew what they had to do now They're debating over the how but that's the passion and things who having that purpose is very critical Sometimes it's not so clear You know, we say powerful questions are what are we building? What business are we in? Too often what we get are what building are we in? So what do we do about this? So software is a lot less mall a lot more malleable It's not so clear as you got to get a guide back from the from the board of space mission. So What we start looking at is one of the things you really need to do as an organization is figure out Where are you gonna make your differentiation? Where are you going to be specialized because you can't be everything to all customers? You can't be everything so this is something in the very beginnings out of Tracy and where's my belief and the idea is where are you gonna specialize? Are you gonna be a cost leader? Are you gonna be a product leader or you're gonna be a cut best customer solution? Those three areas are you gonna be really intimate with your customers? In which case you have a particular business model that you need to work with with that cost leader you're gonna be like An Amazon you'll be the cost leader and and make in the other part of this is because You can sometimes be a little bit of two of these Amazon's a cost leader low cost and also making sure that they've got very tight ties with Customer delivery making sure the feedback loops as fast Or you're gonna be a product leader probably more in the space that Apple's in Product leadership is a big part of what they're about The next thing we look at is the purpose alignment model and this is the model that came from Neil Nicolaiason And we look at two quadrants here or two two axes on four quadrants first we look at market differentiation on the y-axis and on the x-axis we look at mission criticality and Based on that we try to figure out where are we going to be? differentiating Where are we in the category where we're low? We start through here if we're low mission critical and low market differentiating Why are we doing it eliminate it minimize it? This is one of the key things I think when I come up with with looking for an organizational strategy or where is our strategy? One of the key tests that I have for a good strategy is it tells me when to say no If I have a strategy and everything fits in the strategy, is it empowering in any way whatsoever? No, because I'm just doing everything the best way for us to really focus and make a difference Is be able to eliminate the things that aren't so smart we want to do more smart stuff and less stupid stuff And the things that are down there that have no low mission criticality or low market differentiating We want to minimize or eliminate The other side of that is the things that are really differentiating. That's where we want to innovate and create Those things that are parody we call them parody the things that are low market differentiation We but on the other hand it's mission critical that we have it or that we're involved in it So something like if you're a company you must have a way to pay your employees now Are you gonna recruit better people because you have the absolute best way to pay the employees? If you're really bad you have to be good enough at it you got to pay your employees But you don't have to be gold-plated you want to do this at parody when achieve and maintain parody You want to mimic your competitors? You will look at who's doing this really well and do it about that. Well, that's all you have to do That frees up your intellectual capital to work on the things that are really going to be differentiating And then the other quadrant is one where you're looking to see we call it partnering It's not mission critical that we do it, but it's potentially market differentiating and in that case We're looking for what type of partnership might be be able to do It's a really simple model. It's not it's actually even pretty easy to implement in reality What I'm gonna do is is what I like about it is that I see that it's applicable at a lot of different levels corporate strategy Even product strategy and even down at the feature level. It scales out pretty well Let's take a look at this from company pretty well. No is Apple So where's Apple at in this? What are the really core competencies of Apple they're really good at new product development They come out with new products on a regular basis. We'll see if they're able to keep up with that They've got a lot of new competition sometimes what was new oftentimes was new becomes parody So, you know, they've got it. They've got a lot of competitors out after them But that's their there's what they're really good at is being able to pipe out pump out new products They're really good at design really good at the user experience and then through iTunes and Have been really good at and the app store have been really good at content distribution. So they've built up networks around that What are some of the things they're parody? Well, when they were building the Mac, they weren't at parody with the Windows platform So they weren't they did some partnerships with Microsoft. So they had MS Office available on the Mac They which went over to Intel hardware, which was competitive Which was parody with what was popular in the wind tell platform and a lot of other software became just parody to them Partnership when they first came out with the iPhone, they signed an exclusive agreement with AT&T for the network They didn't have to be a network provider But by creating a partnership, they were able to capture market value more so than if they'd made it open It was what they believed they believe they could capture that market as competition changed they moved away from it exclusive with AT&T and then It no longer the partnership and they captured market value in a different manner And then the who cares they were involved in peripherals and pretty much got out of that space So we moved through these things the next side as once you've got the purpose pretty well understood If you know what you're doing a lot of things things flow nicely But a key to it also is do you have an environment where people can collaborate because if you have all of the people working together? collaborating if you have the in you've engaged the entire organization So much you can then Make sure that that purpose is Fulfilled so I love this from Lexi Kravitzky The version of the agile manifesto blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah Individuals interactions over processes of tools blah blah blah blah blah right it is really all about individuals interactions Knowledge work is about individuals and how you could empower individuals in order to make and fulfill on the purpose and Direct your long-term sustainable competitive advantage you get really good people you can build really good products and really good services an Old-school leadership model There's one that responds to change knows the answer. It's bureaucratic. It's all top-down Leader decides authoritarian We oftentimes call this command and control I've been fortunate had some good very good discussions with Sean Dunn on the whole concept of command and control And and the misuse that we have in almost all of our industry and how we interpret what we meet what command and control means You know the military has a very clear definition of what command and control looks like and it's not at all about micro management And if we look at the old school we turn that into micro management, and that's that's what really is the challenge micro management Let's take a look at sort of a military view of command and control Sure, you Lord Vader my men are working as fast as they can Perhaps I can find new ways to motivate them. I tell you if this station will be operational as planned The Emperor does not share your optimistic appraisal of the situation But he asked the impossible then perhaps you can tell him me The Empress coming here that is correct Commander and he is most displeased with your apparent lack of progress We shall double our efforts. I Hope so commander for your sake The Emperor is not as forgiving as I am so Very much fear-oriented This is a follow-up to the second book that Polly Anna's written I was involved in helping collaborate with her But it wasn't an author Polly Anna and Neil went on to write another book and partner with Paul Gibson Paul Gibson is the One who started with this trust ownership model? I think it's a really good place to to look at how teams oriented on the on the left axis We have trust at one end and control at the other More a taking control away or taking trust away lack of trust really and on the other side We have team ownership is the team owning the problems that they have and And here at the low end where we have low ownership from the team and low control and a control environment or a lack of trust environment is the micromanagement command and control type model If we move away from the team tries to take ownership But the leader is not allowing the team to take ownership Then we have a very conflicting environment the team wants it But the owner but the leader doesn't believe them to have it So they're they're just fighting on a regular basis So we can't actually it is impossible for the team really to take that ownership and hold it for any period of time On the other side we've got a team that's a leader that says okay team I trust you and the team goes and becomes country club They don't actually do anything so the leader in this case is abandoned. They're abdicated responsibility and has allowed the team to just flounder without without encouraging and being able to take the team to bring and take that ownership and If we can get the team and the leader to work in concert So that they have a high trust environment and high ownership by the team. That's where we get empowerment and innovation So how do we get there? And again, I'll look at them. I like another model and this is a model is used by Henryk neighbor again the Spotify video It's a very similar perspective, but just a little bit different nuances in this case It's looking at the autonomy of the team and Then alignment on the other side and so in lower quadrant again We have the the command and control because we have low alignment and low autonomy Everything's being told down and we really want to get to a level of aligned autonomy where the team is able to take ownership Then they're aligned in the direction that makes a very positive direction So with that what we like to do we're wanting to get an environment where we're embracing change fostering new ideas Collaborating we're give the leader is giving ownership and encouraging the team to take ownership and it's influential So let's look at again from Apollo 13 Example of a team taking a little bit of ownership Very very Order these guys to go to sleep Did you sleep up there gonna get off of cold in there for those guys? We have a situation brewing with the carbon dioxide We had to see a two-filter problem on the limo module five filters on the limb Which we meant for two guys for a day and a half So I told the doctor you're already up to eight on the gauges anything over 15 You get paired judgment blackouts at the beginnings of brain asphyxia about the scrubbers on the command module They take square cartridges ones on the limo round Tell me this isn't a government operation. It's just isn't the contingency. We've remotely looked at Those co2 levels are gonna be getting toxic. Well, I suggest you gentlemen invent a way to put a square peg in a round hole And we got to come through We got to find a way to make this fit into the hole for this Used to nothing but that So this is what I call the We call the leadership dance because the leader has to step up and say this is what we this is the problem We've got very very clear We haven't we know what the problem is the leader doesn't tell how to do it You empower and get the collaboration to figure out the how So part of this is what do you need to do in order for this to happen? First of all, you've got to get the right people to get the right people you got to figure out What is your mechanism to bring in those right people and this is a model that the polyana brings to the table really Based on some of the work in good to great What you're looking for is finding the right people that have the passion the ability and the organizational fit If you can get people in that area Look at that. There's nothing in you have to have a minimum ability, but we're not looking for the best technical person Right, we're looking for the best fit across the board of those areas. Do we have the passion? Are we motivated? Do we have the integrity do we have the ability to do the job? Or do we have the ability to train them to do the job and then are they an organizational fit? You find that you get the right people Like I said, I started to talk about the leadership dance You saw that gene Kransy is the missing control leader on Apollo 13 It was very clear about stepping up and saying yes We have a problem and our problem is we've got to do this which they probably already knew it But it was really clear They've got to figure out how to get the co2 levels reduced and they have some constraints around that The real problem solving begins at that point and it's a collaborative effort They all get together in the room and they look and say here's our problem. We know what it is We know why we're doing it now. Let's solve it The leader steps back gene Krans wasn't in the room doing that It was the team sometimes the leader can get involved But basically the leader needs to step back because they're actually oftentimes the leader knows less about what needs to happen Then the people then the rest of the collaborative work the way he's doing the work When we collaborate individuals step up to volunteer for what and when we don't push that down So when we have in individuals take that on Amazing things happen because of an individual that's hold themselves accountable and they'll they'll actually follow through very well So here's an example I call agile leadership It's only a few guards this shouldn't be too much trouble Now go I could tack tack well only takes one to sound the alarm Then we'll do it real quiet like My the princess layer I'm afraid our 30 companion has gone and done something from a rash Oh, no There goes our surprise attack ball. There's only one left you stay here. We'll take care of this I have decided that we shall stay here So you saw an innovation you saw the team get together collaborate a little bit then you saw some initiatives They went off and they did something right they took some action and most important they convinced the manager was his idea, right? Great teamwork and they got the job done So now we work on you've got the team you've got the purpose you've got a team built You've got teams that could collaborate Now, how do we deliver? What's the model for delivery so? People familiar with the Wizard of Oz here nice a bit of Americana, you know, it's not terribly important that you know They would use the little clips from that So in our project kickoff we have a little Dorothy saying oh when will you get the requirements? It's the wicked witch telling a man, but I guess it doesn't matter anyway I'll just give us your estimates by this afternoon. You heard that one The team binds together No, we need something today, okay, then it'll take two years Though we need it sooner Already promised the customer it'll be out in six months. You're a very bad man We're not in Kansas anymore The developer hero. I mean I come out alive, but I'm going in there They've just about got things under control And what do we have the reorg The great and powerful Oz has got matters well in hand My people come and go so quickly here. All right. They keep persevering and now they're going into testing Going so soon. I would hear of it. Why my little party's just beginning and Too many software projects operate under this environment and this is why we like to look for What are some of the creative solutions? So here's here? We look at the how do you follow 13 crew do it? Procedures Okay, we have a an unusual procedure for you here All right, so what you see is they they came up with solutions How do we get to these creative solutions delivery is getting the teams together? So one thing I love and this is a video clip of John Cleese John Cleese was from movie star TV star Monty Python Nearly headless Nick from the Harry Potter series He was doing a set of management videos and this particular management video. I just absolutely love it came out in mid 1980s or so and When I viewed this I said this is probably one of the best best descriptions of agile development. I've ever seen Gordon the guided missile Sets off in pursuit of its target. It immediately sends out signals to discover if it's on course to hit that target And the signals come back No, you were not on course. So change it up a bit and slightly to the left and Gordon changes course as instructed and then rational little creature that he is He sends out another signal am I on course now and back comes the answer But if you adjust your present course a little bit Little bit further up and a little bit further to the left then you will be so he adjusts his course again And sends out another request for information and back comes the answer. No Gordon You still get it wrong. You must come down a bit and a foot to the right and the guided missile It's rationality and persistence a lesson to us all Goes on and on making mistakes and on and on listening to the feedback and On and on correcting its behavior in the light of that feedback Until it blows up the nasty enemy thing Then we applaud the missile for its skill and then if some critic says well It made a lot of mistakes on the way we reply. Yes, but that didn't matter did it? It got there in the end All its mistakes were little ones in the sense that they could be immediately corrected And as a result of making hundreds of mistakes eventually The missile succeeded in avoiding the one mistake which would really have mattered Missing the target that to me is the essence of agile development It's about enabling your teams to be making mistakes and learning from those mistakes so that you can correct it And that's having that feedback and having that learning is absolutely critical So and I'm I'm actually a chemical engineer by background Chemical engineers deal with control systems and I actually view this as a control system environment. So The thing I've found in the world is people tend to be in one of two camps either you believe that you can Control outputs by controlling inputs or you believe you can you can measure outputs and control the system by the measurement of the Outputs I think the traditional approaches of all focused around the idea if I can control my inputs and control my processes I can then control my outputs Chemical engineers tried this in chemical plants a lot of them blew up right that it doesn't work. It's an unstable environment What found out to work much better is if I don't worry so much about the inputs I accept that inputs are going to be random But I really focus on having a very strong feedback loop around my outputs. I do my control systems based on the outputs and then adjust make the set adjustments in the Behaviors in order to get that that's what really works and that's what's running most chemical plants in the world That type of approach. This is very stable works very well It's also really I think what agile leadership is about focus on outputs and adjustments based on outputs Focus a lot less on predicting forward where forward from inputs If we go back to the trust ownership model a lot of this is and again We work with this idea called command and control like command and control a bad idea. I mean I like control I want control controls a good thing, but control comes in a different form control comes from the fact I actually have stable but zone of control along the diagonal I can behave I can be in that area and any one of those areas that could be controlled I can't be in the conflict because once I'm in conflict It's an unstable environment similarly abdication is doomed to failure if I allow it to be there too long But anywhere along the diagonal is actually the zone of control and I want control, but I want good control I want the energized control. I don't want the control. That's that's the micromanaged version of control The work that look at the one thing that I've looked at is something called the context leadership model Here we're looking at the two of the axis that really impact us in our in how we deliver projects the uncertainty scale on the project both from a business and technical perspective and then the complexity side in terms of the Number of people on the product on the project the distribution the knowledge of the domain knowledge that's available to the team And if we look at these four areas We have what we call sheep dogs colts cows and bulls that go through them a little bit here It first person just the examples of things that are parts of uncertainty and complexity. You can look at this Let's move on to it. So here we have the different types of the low Uncertainty low complexity. These are what we call sheep dogs. They're really relatively small projects and not a lot going on with them You can be very laissez-faire and you can take a very simplistic approach to project and scaled project management We have the high uncertainty low complexity We call these the colts. They've got a lot of energy. They're tempted to be young This is a place where we've had some really good in the early days when we've developed this model We had some really good experience with things like extreme programming where it was really one team one team type scaled model Look at the bottom corner. We have the complex mature products These are large-scale projects. They're very complex, but they don't have a lot of uncertainty that you typically Mature products that have been out there. Oftentimes, they're the cash cows of the organization They need a different style to them. They did a little bit more. They don't move as fast So but they have a lot of complexity. So you really need to work on managing the interfaces And then in the upper quadrant, we have the high uncertainty high complexity projects. These are the bulls They're not so well controlled to make a lot of damage when they run around But they're also very high visibility and very important We look at these and one of the things that I like to do when I'm when I'm looking at my overall scale I like to see can I decompose my projects? So overall I may have a large uncertainty. I thought a bull type program but and this is an example from that Pollyanna had from her days in the squistock exchange the Overall program was really it was something new it failed twice before she had gotten involved in it It's very high uncertainty very large-scale project But she could decompose it so she treated the what the part that was really had the high uncertainty But it was a small team dealt with that as a cult. It was the client side of the of the system The the back-end server was a mature product They were having to make some updates to it But they could treat it differently and then they had to work the interfaces on it So we can decompose it and by decompose it you can work with each one of them slightly differently and the style of leadership Changed based on on the type of team that was involved in working it The other thing we did with this was looked at how your portfolio looks and one of the things It's not bad at all In fact, it's quite good to have a large number of dog projects because they don't have to they can be small If my current situation I've got a lot of small teams that are working on supporting a large business, but they're all small They're not interconnected. It's really good. It works out really well I can keep those teams. They're independent and they can work independently I don't have to worry about a scale problem. My scale problem is very simple I have very few things that are having Connections in between so having a lot of dogs is perfectly fine The one thing you've been really careful with you find there's very few leaders that are capable of leading bull projects It takes very special skills to be able to lead that high uncertainty high complexity You don't want a portfolio that has more projects than you have people who could lead those projects We also found that typically products where I come from a product based or orientation So we found that when we're in the product life cycle products tended to have Pads they might start as a a dog or or sometimes skunk It's a may have a little bit high uncertainty, but very small team as it gets up It eventually may become a bull once it it really has hit the market It starts to we slow down development It might move down into cows and eventually may move back as we into a sheepdog What we found didn't work very well is the times when we started projects as bulls I mean starting and as high uncertainty and high complexity You know this thing that's gonna save the company. Let's throw everybody on it Those those fail fairly frequently, but if we started it as a a smaller project and let it Evolve we were much more successful The other part of this that I've looked at this is a similar model to to our purpose alignment model But it's actually a model from Jeffrey Moore looking at products from again this market differentiating height men mission criticality Products tend to have us a life cycle here as well They move from invent to deploy To eventually we manage them and they become the sort of the cash cows there and eventually we offload them and looking at it from a Approach to change in the early stages. What we're looking to do is we're looking to create change This is we're building something brand new once we've created change We want to exploit that change and we want to embrace change Eventually we're wanting to control change a little bit more because the products is reaching the end You know it's mature state and at the final state. We want to eliminate that change and From a approach here as well early stages, maybe two guys in the garage Sort of the core team-based agile is in the embrace change the single team or or maybe a Little bit more scaled agile eventually this becomes a bit more structured in a more mature environment can still be quite agile But it's a bit you you're really focusing in different areas and then eventually oftentimes moving towards sunsetting or outsourcing If we look at leadership development, I like to look at four angles We start with people process and technology. Those are the three people usually use I like to add business to that because it's business focus that I find is really critical It doesn't really get covered necessarily from people process technology I was interested seeing Sean's earlier today because he has the same not only the same categories But he's minimized the process part which I think is actually not bad idea sometimes process takes on too much focus and You know if you get your business and your people part together Strong technical practices the process almost evolves out of that So we look at it from a leadership development What I found is that the leader there are some leaders who are much better at dealing with people in process They tend to be really good in managing and in leading the cows The other people that are really good at building with business and technology and handling that uncertainty that's associated with that They tend to be really good at dealing with the cults And then there's a special breed of people that are able to handle those high uncertainty High complexity the other thing I have found is one of the ways to develop some of those leaders Is by taking some of those people that have been really good in the in the large scale and then? Cross-training them and giving them into try out projects on the end in the cold category In order to get them learning how to deal with the uncertainty and eventually they can take on the bull type category With this model one thing to watch out not all dogs are the same Hey, nice dog. Yeah, this is Piper your breadboard are calling watch this Piper betch Good boy Piper you such a smart dog So, uh, what can your dog do? Fergus Bud Light It's all here So the important thing both dogs delivered and they did it a little bit differently, right? So lastly I mean with all of this what's really important is what are the decisions we're making on a regular basis and A lot of this is gets back to the business perspective. What are we really trying to optimize? So Typically we start with well, let's deliver by business value and how do we measure business value? Well business value is costs and benefits and a calculation and we end up with this magic thing called business value Okay, what really happens well eventually we really have an estimate and we have some fabrications about business is about the benefits so yeah, we do it all this time to make estimates on the cost we fabricate the value and run it through a calculation and justify the project This is really not a minute. It's not a number. That's the whole point of this What we found is it's much better to have a recognize the business value model is really a conversation and the conversation Starts with purpose where it starts with understanding what your purpose is Understands what the considerations are yes cost and benefits come into it But it's a conversation and that conversation is trying to influence. What are the decisions actions and intentions? Okay, so we look at a little bit here my little rocket ship We start with a bunch of ideas coming in we have these various filters that we're coming through And so we have that purpose alignment filter as we have the purpose alignment filter We can eliminate some things that aren't strategic. They don't really fit We've come things will come through it Then we have another filter to Roughly understand what the values and costs are and we do some prioritization and that the prioritization Some become the critical ideas and some become things we can differ until later This is one part of that that model that you can use The considerations can be things like risks assumptions and constraints Some of the risks we want to look at we want what types of risk what are the places of uncertainty that we have cost Uncertainty We have some general market uncertainty. We don't know when we're what's oil price going to be next year What's it going to be two years from now? These are general things that aren't really things that we can influence directly and then there's other parts What's the feature the features that we're building how well will they be taken up in the marketplace? We don't have to find where is the big uncertainty that we're dealing with The conversation is very clearly identifying what the constraints are Referring back also to the purpose. What's the purpose? We got to get these people back safely, right? And these are the constraints. What's the most important one? They found it power was it Have the conversation Ultimately, it's the decisions we're making What do we do? When do we do it and when do we decide this key part of? When I like to look at something called the cost of delay as well And we're having that decision because so often we we focus so much on well the date is this But really what conversation do we want to know? We want to really understand Well, what sort of market situation are we in because we don't want to necessarily absolutely fix the day some people say an agile You absolutely fix the date and then you ship whatever you got. Is that the smartest thing it may be but it may not be Sometimes there may be really case of what you're really trying to do is optimize those trade-off decisions Have the conversation the adult conversation around How important is the date? What do we really have in the United States? If you're in the gaming industry, you've got a market opportunity to hit something at Christmas time You miss that you're pretty much in trouble that dates pretty important or we're having some software developing for the year for the World Cup We're not ready for what the game is the tomorrow, right? Yeah Big game tomorrow, we're not ready for that, you know, it's it's a bad thing But sometimes you know a mature market where we have type curves that value doesn't depreciate that much over time Maybe like that C category if that's the case we want to have that constant conversation Between the team and the business. What are we really trading off here? What does that that conversation and how do we set ourselves up appropriately with the commitments that we make? We come back to it again. The whole idea is that this is a conversation It's a conversation understanding it and having the adult conversation having it Collaboratively with all the people and stakeholders that matter really just in summary make sure you've got your purpose understood tool to do that's a collaboration of the Purpose alignment model is one tool that's really helpful for that Collaboration work together to have your team and harness the entire intellectual product the intellectual value of your of your people Understand how you're going to deliver and structure. What's the how do you scale your your delivery process and then enable your team to have The conversations to make decisions that are influencing many of the micro decisions that they're making and we think they're the of decision filters have we Properly Educated the team as to why the why behind everything they're doing if they understand the why behind it they can make a whole lot better decisions With that contact information, I'll be around all week here books stand back and deliver Love to talk to you all. I think we have another session here in about 15 minutes where you get to ask me anything I think that's what the conversation and I got a few minutes that we can take a couple questions if you got some questions Saving all the questions for later Okay, I guess we take a We're coming back. We probably have to take the wall down too, right? I don't know Okay, thank you very much