 PDD's better, right? Refactoring's better. They're actually really, really good at the way they've learned how to program. So if we want, so this sort of opened my eyes to realize that we can't just preach to people, oh, am I running out of time? Okay, so my last thing, you can't just preach to people that something's better. You have to have some empathy that they will actually have to get worse for a while before they can learn this new thing. So that's what I've learned about Rubik's Cube. I got one minute left. Authority. Stereotypically, India has a problem with authority or more rather a love of authority. Might be a more appropriate way of putting it. But one thing that we need to learn about agility and working in agile organizations is that authority isn't what you think it is. It's not about position. So I'm gonna demonstrate that so pretty quickly. Can I just get everyone to stand up for a second? Yep. All right, now stretch your arms in the air. All right, now wave them. Throw out the horns. There we go. All right, now sit down. I have authority. Exactly. I'm not your boss. I have no authority. I have no institutional authority over you whatsoever. I have what we call influential authority. I can influence the way that you act not because I'm put in a position but because you grant me the authority. The trick to being a good coach or consultant or in fact anybody is to learn how to get people to give you authority in any situation. One of the reasons I wear a three-piece suit. I walk into a meeting in a three-piece suit. It gives them a second to go, hang on, is he in charge? And I can usually take charge in that second so it works for me. So there you go. Two minutes, Naish authority. Yeah. What should I talk about here? This is very, I'm surprised. I don't know. You're in the world of conferences. Yeah, yeah. Well, I love to come to be in the conference spaces. I'm participating in a lot of conferences. And the fact about being part of conferences is sharing learning. That's just realized, why am I such a conference junkie? And if I introspect myself, it was share the learning and have new connections. So I love being a connector. What about you? Inspiration, opening new doors. Now you can ask me why I love opening new doors. And then you can have a conversation about how the brain works. And that's, thank you for the topic. So if anyone else wants to come up, it's just, I'm here just because Ivan invited me. So how our brain works? One of the things that I found out are using agile or implemented agile and working in agile teams and trying to understand what's keeping us going forward made me interesting in neuroscience and how the brain works. And there are two things. The contradiction of the brain is something that fascinated me. Is brain is a brilliant organ, fantastic organ. But it's also very lazy. So it maximizes the work not to be done. Very curious, why and why are we curious? I don't know exactly what unfolded in our brain to become curious and make, put in concepts, but we are also curious because there's one purpose, main purpose of our brain. Do you guess what that is? It's not about fancy concepts. We are in the top of the food pyramid because we know to deal with concepts. But brain's first mission is to keep us alive just like that's the mission. That's the first priority. And so we put up everything to keep us out of danger. So that's why decide fast, decide fast. And we use that habit to decide fast at all levels, including conceptual levels. When we learn something, it's learned. So we make fast decision on that. So this is the pretty nice, effective side of how our brain works. But there's a dark side. That's the exact reason of cognitive biases because something that we've learned, we use it the way that we learn it and it becomes a blind spot. And I think I'm done. Thank you. Because I've heard one thing many times, a discussion around is it okay to fit in agile inside the waterfall? And that's probably a very good discussion as well. And my opinion on this discussion is that if you are working in a company where you are dealing with a product and you actually do not want to decide everything based on requirements from the customers, but actually you yourself want to decide fate of your product, the direction which you want to adopt for your product. In that case, probably it's okay to do internal agile, deal with those internal customers who are deciding how exactly this product should be developed. And once that's ready, then do a major release, probably that's my opinion. And I would really like to get some inputs on this sort of work style. Since I come from, we are going to this dilemma of having hypothesis and taking assumptions on top of assumptions. And the biggest challenge for us is how do we validate those riskiest assumptions? Because as you said, internal customers, it's all based on a lot of assumptions based on their experiences. And how do we validate those are critical one to make an outcome of what we're doing, right? So that's where I believe if we have to really do something meaningful, you have to put the customer in the sender and build what is required for him to be feeling awesome, right? So I strongly believe that customer could be an internal customer based on what product you're building. But it should be, we have to uncover and we have to test those hypothesis and assumptions. Based on that, we make, this is what we need to build. Or this is what we need to have, right? I think that is the riskiest proposition, right? So my take is it's all about when you are chasing an unknown problem and an unknown solution, you have to keep validating those by keeping customer in the sender and uncovering those hypothesis. So everyone who giving you a requirement, they will have certain hypothesis in the mind or they might have listened or heard from someone but we have to validate that. So that's where for me agile is to help to uncover the uncertainty. Let me take a different approach. Why, when do you not use agile? Yeah, if you know the solution and there's no ambiguity in the solution, there's no likelihood of that solution changing. Any other reasons? Well, no, no, no, I disagree with that statement, 100%. I'll come back to that in a second. All right, when the solution is done, yeah, no, they're not agile, all right. In this room, we can at least be honest with ourselves and say that's not agile. So, okay, the two times we don't do agile in my opinion and the inverses when we do. Number one, when there is no ambiguity, not in the requirements, all right, but in the solution, all right, because the requirements are by definition ambiguous. We don't know, we're guessing, but if we've built the same thing 10 times and we know what it's gonna look like, then yes, we don't need agile. The other case might be cost of change where the cost of change is prohibitively high, all right. And if we know that the cost of change, it's why once we start building a bridge, we don't change our mind and bring out the sledgehammers and build another one because it's too expensive, all right. The worst case of making a mistake in an agile world is a week's work, all right, maybe a drop. So, to answer, yeah. So, to answer your point or my perspective of the point, hybrid agile is a cop out, all right, it's for people who aren't trying hard enough. Now, if there is ambiguity and the cost of change is acceptable, then there is no need to do this half-assed agile. I very much agree with both points that were made. The only add-on I would have is to this idea of internal customers, which I believe are a little bit of a fabrication. Often they're not real customers. We all have the same customer. Every one, my internal customer has another internal customer has another, but at the end, there's one customer. That's the person that really matters. Everyone in the middle isn't really the person that we're building the system for. So, when we introduce these internal customers, we're further separating the work we do from the actual reason that we're building it. And we're removing the opportunity to get real feedback from the actual person that we're building it for. So, the longer those feedback loops, that's the big thing about Waterfall. We have these long, long feedback loops to find out if the actual thing we're building is the right thing. Our internal customer will tell you that they believe they know the answer. But that's very, that's just, it's not true. It's a lie. For example, you've got product owners, product owner, proxy product owner, a business analyst proxy, who's been role created for an organization and they want to protect the role. So, they pretend to be a customer who create a hypothesis on hypothesis. I think we've got the last one. It's working for a client and that client is building a product for someone else. So, we do not directly get the feedback from the end users. All we got to here is from our client whom we are working for. And it's, again, their perception as what happens then. So, the objective is, how do you bring them in the game? Yes. Then maybe in particular. Yes. Bringing them in the game only, the chances of you becoming more successful. The whole problem, the reason this question was, actually, probably this is more of a transition phase when these things have been more rare than child inside the Waterfall. But gradually you start moving completely towards the Waterfall because you start making those internal customers needs. You start triggering those discussions. And that leads to overhaul of the organization itself and they move from Waterfall. Great discussion. Thanks. Thank you, guys. Thanks, everyone, for participating in this lightning talk.