 Not at all. Not at all. So how are you doing this morning? Yeah? Heard some good things already? This is, uh, Lisa and my first time in India. And, uh, we like it. There was some resistance when I had to get a lot of shots before I came. Yes. You guys are really nice. Yep. You know that? Yep. Like, we go all around the world and not everybody's really nice. And it's a wonderful city. It's so different. We've been all around the city. We've been here for two days. So we've been all around seeing all different parts, and we still want more suggestions of things that we need to see while we're here. So please let us know. This talk is titled, Windows on Transformation, and there was a miscalculation in the number of pathways. There's actually 64, I'm realizing. 64 pathways. But it gets reduced to four. Don't worry about it. It gets simpler. So the, um, the challenge of our, of this time right now, you know, the challenge of how to develop software in a way that works has been solved, right? It's really pretty obvious that Agile is the way to develop software, and there's so much innovation happening. That's a really clear, uh, pathway for us. The challenge that I see, and Lisa and I work around the world, um, teaching several thousand Agile coaches at this point in all kinds of different organizations. And what they consistently say to us is, we're disappointed with how our organization, we're really pretty happy with our team, but we're not very happy with the rest of our organization and how it adopts Agile. I see many of you with very big nods out there right now. Yes? And Enterprise Agile is the challenge of our time. Scaling is part of that, but scaling is not the whole thing. It's how to get Agile and what we like about our teams into the whole organization. Isn't it? Isn't that a challenge for you? And isn't it what you want? Yes. It's what you want, and are you getting what you want? Probably some of you are, and probably most of you are not. If you're like the people that we talk to around the world, most people are not getting what they want. So we want to talk a little bit about the complexity of this Enterprise world we're in and all the noise that's around us. Actually, I want to pause just for a second. Lisa wrote a book. Did anybody know Lisa's book? Anybody read it? Coaching Agile teams. I've met many of you already. If you haven't gotten it, you should get it. If you do anything to lead Agile teams, you should read that book. And it's not because Lisa makes money and she pays me that I say that. You know, I actually don't make very much money on a book. I don't know if you know that. But it's because it's a useful book for people and people find it very useful. I'm writing a book too right now called Coaching the Agile Enterprise to address, like I say, what I think is the challenge of this time in history. And we'll tell you how to get it later, but an excerpt of his book is already available. The first four chapters and pretty soon the first five chapters of the book is pre-released. All right. So now we're back to the enterprise noise. We have to go fast with all this noise. We have to go fast with all this noise. Fast with the noise. Because it is kind of like that in the real world, right? So there's a lot of stuff going on. If you look at, again, if you look at a team, there's a lot of stuff going on. But if you take that to your department that you're in or the program that you're a part of or the organization, the business unit you're in or the enterprise you're in, my gosh, there's all kind of stuff going on. First there's an organizational structure. Who reports to whom? Who cares about what? Who's measuring whom to do what, right? This is really slow, isn't it? Yep. There you go. There's how do I get ahead? How am I going to get promoted? How am I going to get noticed by my boss? And that's going on inside you. Anybody care about that? You care about that? Sure. And I have my own strategy and my own set of whatever. And she's got hers and you've got yours and you've got yours. And then when we mix that all up, holy cow, lots of stuff is going on, right? And then how do you get things done here? What are the processes? How do we make this simple for everyone? Are any of you finding that the processes in your organization inhibit what your teams can do? Anyone finding that? Yeah. Yeah, I mean it's a huge problem for us as Agilist, right? And how we work with those processes. And then we have, we just were talking about this at breakfast today. We have the lunch room problem. Who likes who? When you go into the cafeteria, you scout for who you're going to sit with, right? Yeah. Don't you? Right. Let's see, who do I like? Who likes me? And again, that's going on times 1200. I mean what's the exponential, what's the factorial number of all those connections of you like who and who likes you and how about for her and how about for you and how about for you. Oh my gosh. All this is going on. There's a lot of stuff. A bit of noise. How do leaders lead? Well, most leaders aren't actually very mature as leaders even if they've made it up to the CIO, CTO, CEO kind of rank, right? They want to lead in an old way that doesn't work in our world. And then there's, a lot of these are about our culture. Culture is the big glass ceiling that stops Agil from working because it goes, anybody have a problem with Agil? Their culture not working with Agil? Yeah, sure. There are a few companies Agil actually works well with. So this is the reality we're working in, right? And there are lots of different ways to work with all this enterprise noise, not just one way, not just one solution. Cool. All right, so we want to tell you a bit about the good news and the bad news. Those of you might know about this survey. Version 1 does it every year. It's called the State of Agil Survey. This is the eighth time they've done that the results have just come out. The great news is that Agil is normal. That's the good news. Agil's normal now. Most organizations are using it. Most teams use Agil. The continued bad news they're reporting for the eighth year in a row is that the glass ceiling that keeps Agil from going to our enterprise are these things. Inability to change organizational culture. So culture is the biggest thing by far. And general resistance to change. These things have nothing to do with Agil. But they are what Agil creates because Agil is a change maker in organizations, right? And so this is what you're being asked to step into if you want Agil to be in your organization, that you have to somehow work with these reasons why it's not performing as well as you'd like. So the framework that we're going to talk to you about today addresses all these issues. It doesn't make them go away magically. It's not an alternative to something else, but it's a meta map, a meta way of seeing why all this stuff is so hard. And one of our primary messages for you is that just like you have to upgrade your machine, your phone, all of those other things in your life, you also need to upgrade yourself, your own internal operating system. Because it's not just about learning the latest framework or scaling pattern or continuous delivery method. It's about being able to apply those in a way that brings an Agil mindset. So this is one type of window, and now we want to just go to regular old windows. These are regular windows, right? So look at these windows and see which one you like. Typically you're drawn to one of these more than the other, right? This is the one I happen to like because it's straightforward, it's very plain, and it's useful. I can see lots of stuff through this window. Ooh, there's something. So I can see this woman, she's got a long dress on, she's standing in front of some kind of tree it looks like, it's flowering or something like that. And I can get so interested in what I'm seeing through this window. I can say, oh my gosh, what is that? Is that a baby she's holding? What's going on there? And I can just really get so delved into this that I don't understand at all that this is only a slight picture of what's really going on. This is something called nine faces. There are nine different faces in this picture. If you find all nine, you're supposed to be a genius. I've only found six. But this is like our enterprises. They are this complex. Ooh, I see another one. Yeah, there's one over there in the top right-hand corner. It's pretty cool. Our enterprises are complex. And if we drill down on the one thing that we think is going to solve it, we might not be solving the right problem. And what's useful for us is to be able to look through multiple windows. Multiple windows to see what's going on. We still don't get a completely 100% complete picture, but we'll certainly get more of a picture when we look through multiple windows. So that's a bit of a metaphor for what we're doing in this talk. The other thing that I want to tell you is a little bit... It's a lot borrowing from 13th-century poet and mystic Rumi. Who has heard of Rumi ever? Oh, thank goodness I'm here. If you do this in the United States, like one person raises their hand. So here's a wonderful poem by Rumi that I love. He says, An ant hurries along a threshing floor with its weak rain, moving between huge stacks of wheat, not knowing the abundance all around. It thinks its one grain is all there is to love. A lot of times in the Agile community, we're like that ant. We hurry around clutching our one grain. We say, oh, it's safe. Safe will make it work. Oh, it's continuous integration. Continuous integration will make it work. Oh, it's a leadership maturity. If our leaders get more mature, it'll make Agile work. And actually all of those are but partial answers. Because we have this abundance all around us of great answers for truly complex situations when we look at the complexity of it instead of trying to simplify it. So here's the great thing. Human beings are not ants. We're not stuck in our one experience. The gift of being human is that we can take on different perspectives. We can see a situation from multiple angles. In fact, studying psychology, which I have my training is in psychology, if you study developmental psychology, you find that people grow and mature by their ability to take multiple perspectives. A child at very young doesn't have the ability to take somebody else's perspective. They don't know when they hold up a block that facing you it's red, but facing me it's yellow. They don't know. They see red. They don't know that even if you show them, here's the yellow. Now what color am I seeing? They go red because they can't take your perspective. So it's a sign of our maturity that we can take more perspectives. So this talk is about perspectives. And it's about upgrading. We talked about that internal operating system. It's about getting some new models that help you upgrade that operating system so you can work with the complexity. It's really there in your organizations. The upgrade we're talking about is this computer right here. And actually it's really this computer right here because do you know that you have a brain in your heart and in your gut as well? There's not as many neurons there, but there are quite a lot of processing function that's available in your gut. That's why you have a gut sense of something and why it doesn't feel right to me because there's brains there. So the upgrade is about an integral operating system, integral. So what do we mean by integral? We mean that it possesses everything, that it's comprehensive, that it can handle anything, that it can handle everything from scaling agile to people's values, that it can handle everything from culture and how we do things around here who likes who to... How can we visualize the work? Those are very different things. So we have a model. The model contains quadrants and altitudes. So the quadrants are four big perspectives that you can take on things and we'll talk about that a little bit later. In the meantime we're going to talk about these, primarily these four or five, what we call altitudes or different levels of seeing things, greater perspectives that we can take on the world. So we're going to talk about these altitudes first. So this is some research from a man whose name is Claire Graves and he did research a long time ago, but it was profound because he asked the question, what is mature personality? He was asked by a student. He taught personality courses in college and he was asked by a student at one point after they looked at all the different theorists that are out there. So which one of them is right? And he was like, I don't know. That's a good question. And he didn't have his own theory of which one he thought was right. He decided to just ask students to write down, what do you think a mature person is or does? What are they like? And he found these answers. He did this research every year for nine years and each year he had different sets of judges rate between seven and nine judges, which is a lot. Usually you only have three when you're doing work like this. Which one or how do these categorize together? How are they similar to each other? These were just free form written examples of what does it mean to be a mature person? And he came up with five different conceptions that people had together. The first one in these colors came in later. He didn't call them that. The first one is called express self and to hell with others. Lest I feel ashamed because I'm not taking my power. This is like a three-year-old. Or a dictator. Or what? Or a dictator. And it's about, it's the heroic struggle of I'm going to conquer the world in some sense. It's a very important thing. Everybody has to go through that phase, that way of thinking. And some parts of the world, that's still the way it is. Much of Africa. That's still the way it is. The next kind of conception was called sacrifice now to get a reward later. These people believed in the truth. They believed that their system was completely true. Usually those are associated with religions. Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, whatever philosophy, communism even. The Soviet Union was very amber. And actually I want to say, he started to study. He didn't have enough people in red because most of the people that we encounter in modern organizations are not at that level of development. There's a few bullies. And actually it's common in a, what do you call it? Illegal organization. A criminal organization. Drug cartels are red organizations. But most modern organizations don't have that kind of a culture. When he put these different groups, and we'll get to what the other ones are, he put them together. So he put all the people that were sacrificed now to get a reward later, the amber people together, and gave them a project. They didn't know they were in the same grouping, or they had the same sort of conception. And they, guess what? They organized into a pyramid, into a hierarchy, into a couple of hierarchies usually. And they didn't have disagreements between different levels in the hierarchy, only at the same level. Only the top people did, or the people in the middle, or the people at the bottom did. And when they had problems at this level, they would go up one level to their hierarchy, up one level, these guys would argue, or go up and up, these guys would argue. Sounds kind of like some organizations perhaps. Yeah, might be beginning to sound familiar. This orange one, the next one, expressed self-calculatedly with little shame or guilt. So that's a step up from red. I've now developed some kind of a moral code, and I act in an ethical way, what Martin was talking about. But I'm going to get what's do me. I'm going to, you know, I'm looking for success. I'm looking for rewards. I'm looking for promotion. I'm looking to be the best I can be. This is very highly individualistic. It's about me, and she, I think. And when these people got together and organized, they fought each other for who was going to take the lead. They competed for, you know, no I'm better, no my idea is better, no mine is. And whoever could maintain dominance at some point became the leader until their idea stopped working, and then they were thrown out. And then the new leader emerged with a new idea, and then the same cycle continued. Does that sound like any companies, you know? Yeah? The next place was called the Sacrifice Self Now to get a reward now. So this is called green. This is some of what Martin was just talking about. This is the place of a humanist. Now many people don't get to this level of development. They don't move this far. This is people, the people that organized this way when people all at green got together, they were really careful. They really wanted to hear what the other person said. They spent so much time listening to each other, being really polite, tool harmony. We wanted to make sure we get consensus before we move on. We don't want anybody to be unhappy. We want to make sure that we all get along together. We all hear each other's viewpoints because, you know, it's important to hear each other's viewpoints, yeah? So when green goes too far, a group like that can't get anywhere. They can't go anywhere. They can't get off the starting block, right? But it also is a higher form of maturity because it's inclusive. The ones prior to it are quite exclusive. So here's where the story gets interesting from an Agile point of view. Agile is a way of thinking that's basically at the green and the teal level. It's not, and most companies, are at the orange level. The culture of almost all companies is a combination of amber, mainly orange and a little bit of green. The green is the political correctness part. But Agile is an idea that you can start to see it in green in us valuing each other's opinions, and particularly you can start to see it at teal. Where the people that organized it teal, they were really interested in getting their ideas out. They were really interested in people hearing what they had to say. But they didn't diss each other. They didn't talk badly about each other. They disagreed with their ideas, but they didn't vilify or make the person wrong. And so even somebody who took a leadership position, it was very fluid. It changed from person to person according to what the task was, according to what the problem was. Huh, does that sound familiar? So we're going to have to go a little bit faster through the next bit of this. It's good that we've laid this groundwork for about 15 minutes. So we're not going to go over this chart. This is just to show you the complete set of these. There's actually a couple more before red. And this is the online column, is how long that's been in human culture. So this is not just about individuals. This is about how whole society is developed. How we've evolved as people, as whole cultures. So Graves also asked the question, how should we manage people depending on what level of development they primarily think from? Now, with any kind of developmental theory, it's not that you are green or you are orange. It's really more where's your center of gravity. It's a preference or a way that you express yourself, mainly at one of these levels. And for right now, because we're all developing and we're all evolving, becoming more and more enlightened. So it turns out, if you look at, we're going to ignore red. That's just there for you to see it. The amber is a pyramid or hierarchy. That's the natural organizational form of an amber culture. And the normal management style in that organization is paternalistic. It means the boss takes care of you and expects you to do what they say. You're supposed to obey authority, right? Now, people at that level want to be managed in the way that the next level is. So people at amber actually want to be managed in a consultive way. They want to be asked their opinion. They don't expect to be making the decision, but they'd like to be asked their opinion. By the same token, somebody at Orange, who the normal management style is consultive, wants to be managed in a participative way. It's starting to see how Agile fits in here, right? Most of our organizations are Orange, many of them. And Agile team members want to be worked with in more of a participative way, going to the next level. So the other thing about people at each of these centers of gravity is that they think that the people at the... So Orange, for instance, thinks that amber is crazy and thinks that green is nuts, okay? So they don't get along very well. They don't tend to talk to each other. They tend to think that the other people are stupid. Sound like conversations in the Agile community, where it's like this guy is talking to this guy and they're crossing completely, not understanding each other? So you have fights between different levels. Fights are often between different levels of thinking, different styles of thinking. If you take this into Agile, so if you take it down into amber, it's not going to work very well. It's going to be, they're going to want to follow rules. They're going to want to follow strict rules. They're not going to like shifting or fuzzing the roles very much. You know, no, I'm a tester. That's what I do, stay out of my business. I have my manager to report to who's expecting me to do a certain thing. I'm obeying what that function is. I'm loyal to that. If you get to Orange with Agile, Agile's going to show up very oriented toward money. You know, I don't really care about this mumbo jumbo Agile philosophy you talk about. Just show me the money. Just show me the results. Have any managers like that? Now, actually, you can work with an Orange manager pretty well. Agile works pretty well at that level because Agile's results driven. They won't want to hear about the mumbo jumbo values and consensus and all that kind of stuff. Don't bother talking to them about that. Now, at Green, people driven Agile, that's going to be very, you know, we're going to really want to listen to each other. We're going to want to self-organize. We're going to like that idea. We're going to like the idea that we get to make our own estimates of things. But we're also not going to want to make other people mad. And so we're not going to sometimes make the hard choices. We're going to get, any of you have experienced teams that get locked in consensus, they can't come to consensus because somebody's disagreeing. That would be an overabundance of Green. When you get to Teal, that's what I call adaptive Agile because that's when Agile really works the way it's supposed to because Agile is a teal-oriented philosophy or way of thinking. So if you think about the Agile manifesto, most of what's in it comes from a Green or Teal perspective. And it's trying to work in organizations that are amber or orange. So for instance, plan-driven is an amber-orange kind of a concept. Adaptive planning is a teal concept. So if you're feeling pain, we hope this starts to explain a little bit about why that's so. You're at different levels of evolution, literally. You are at different levels of evolution from the people in your organization. Now this is from recent work. I see the source got dropped off of, unless it's in the next build, a man named Lalo, I can't remember his last name. It'll be in the slides that we have online. And he's studied these organizations that are at teal. There's not very many of them in the world. Again, part of the disconnect. The organizations that we want have just started to come online and there's not many of them out there. Most organizations are fundamentally in orange. They're not yet at teal. So you need to start some organizations. That's what you need to do. If you don't like your organization and how they're becoming Agile, you need to start your own. There's plenty of people you could network with here to figure out how you're going to start. Here's, if you notice, you don't even need to worry about the orange organizations in this middle column. Look at the teal organizations. Now this guy, I want to make a really important point here. This guy was not studying organizations that use Agile software development. He doesn't even know about Agile. He didn't even know about that. He was just studying organizations. And here's what he found. Let's see, they have self-organizing teams and they have coaches that don't have management authority. Does that sound like us? Huh. Okay. They don't have, when they recruit people, they don't do interviews. The manager or the HR doesn't. The team doesn't. Well, sometimes we get to do that as Agilist, right? Well, that makes sense. They don't focus on individual performance and have the supervisor appraise them. They have the team appraise each other. It's a team-based kind of a thing. How many times have I heard Agilist want to go there? Well, that's not going to happen in their organization probably. Because they don't live in teal organizations unless they create a small encapsulated part. Okay. So that's a lot about the altitudes. That's a lot about the altitudes. So think about altitudes as levels of development. And now we're going to quadrants. This is back to the idea of windows. What window are you looking through to look at your enterprise when you want it to be Agil? So this is, again, part of Integral. Integral, I should say, was developed by a man named Ken Wilber. And right now there's an Integral movement that's actually not too dissimilar from the Agil movement. It's all across the world. There's thousands of practitioners of it. You can look it up online. And what he did from researching hundreds and hundreds of systems of thought, everything from spirituality, to psychology, to physics, to biology, evolution, theory, he saw patterns in them. And he saw four basic patterns. That things were either about an individual level of things or they were about a collective level. And things were either internal, what we call subjective, or they were external or surface or objective. And he came up with just very simply, I, we, it, and it's. Really basic. You're sitting there, oh, hello. Of course there's first, second, and third person. All languages represent that. So if we think about it, this window we could call the psychological window. What happens inside someone? It's what only you have access to in your own self, what I think, what I feel, what I'm trying to do, or you can get access to somebody else by talking to them. That's how you get access to somebody else's eye. They're it, on the other hand, the behavioral window is something that you see from outside. I see your behavior and I have a certain reaction to it. I see if you check in code or not. I see if you talk in a nice way. I see if you're doing test-driven development or not. It's just easy to measure. The we window is the cultural window. It's what we all believe together and our relationships with each other. Are they positive or are they tense and strange? And then this final one is the systems window. How do our systems work from an objective external point of view? Like an anthropologist would examine and find the artifacts of our culture. So there's different kinds of methodologies that work in each of these windows. Now, none of these is right. Nope. None of these is right. They're all happening at all the time. It just depends on where your attention is. If I look through the psychological window, I might be focused on somebody's emotional intelligence. Are they aware of their own feelings? Do they know how to relate to others? How are they as a leader? How do they lead the organization? Have they developed to a level of maturity that they can actually be an agile leader? Over behavioral? If I look through the behavioral window, I'm going to use the scientific method. I'm going to be objective. I'm going to only look at the surface of things because that's all I can see. I don't know about what's going on inside. I can only see what I see. That's where statistics comes in, where looking at a process chart, for instance, comes in. Very useful methods. Down the cultural window, also useful. This is where vision lives. This is where meaning-making lives. This is where our shared mental models, what we believe together collectively that might be true or might not be true. Just check it out. Sometimes do these things hold back your agile implementation? What we believe together? The answer is yes. In the systems window, we have systems thinking. We have things like the scaled agile framework is in this window. Actually, that's the next slide. We look at whole system effects of how things work. Let's go away. Just to take a simple example outside the agile world, if we're talking about how people look at depression, if I'm looking from the eye window, the psychological window, I'm going to say, you need to have therapy. If I'm going to look through the behavioral window, I'm going to say, you need Zoloft. You need a drug. If I look through the we window, I'm going to say, how's your support group? Maybe you should have people give you good thoughts. Pray for you. Scientific benefit to people praying for you, by the way. If I look through the it's window, I'm going to say, what's the person's socioeconomic status? Do they have health insurance? Are they in a place where they can get good treatment? Those are going to make a difference. But usually, your doctor is almost certainly biased toward one of those. And you, as an individual Agilist, are certainly biased toward one of these windows. We want to get you to start pointing your attention to what it might be for you. So look at these things. So here's some of the things in the agile world. So think about, I don't know if you've heard of the book, Leadership Agility by Bill Joyner. It's a look at levels of leaders, developmental maturity, actually sort of similar to what we've been talking about with the altitudes or levels. If I focus on, it's really important to be agile, not just to do agile, but to be agile. You hear people talk about that. That's an eye kind of a place to be. Bill Schneider's culture model, control, competence, collaboration, cultivation. Some of you probably heard of that. That's a we way of looking at. What do we all believe together? Like I said, over an it's, the scaled agile framework is an it's way of looking at things. It's an exterior scientific method, sort of de-personalized way. It's a process system. So all of these are fine. All of these things in all these quadrants are fine, but all have to work together. Not any one of these things will give you enterprise agile by itself. Your organization is too complex. In the it window, we have the level of a single technical practice. Not how they all interact with each other, but take a technical practice and actually do it. And did we check in the code? So if your tendency is to look through the it's window, for example, and if you think, safe is it. Safe is going to do it for us. It's going to help us be enterprise agile everywhere. Great. It's a piece of the puzzle. The challenge for you, because you are a human being and you can take different perspectives, is to look through the other three windows. What's going on in my organization? What level, what altitude, what level of evolution is the organization at? What can they handle there? What do I need to do from the other three? So that's where the arguments happen between the levels and between the quadrants. Because usually my preference as a human, mine happens to be we and then secondarily I. That's my bias. That's just where I think all the time is from a human systems point of view. And what's the feeling state between us? That's how I see the world. That's my bias. So let's do a quick poll. People, so what you're looking for up here is, oh yeah, the ones that you say, well yeah, that's just the way it is. That's probably your bias. How many people are a I? How many people think they might look at the world through an I window? Anybody? First. Okay, great. A couple of people over here. How about we? We? More we's? Yeah, great. Quite a few we's. How about it? Great. How about it? Yeah, great. Cool. You should look around, but you should look around for people that don't have your quadrant bias. For me, I got to find people that do it because that's the hardest for me. Me too. I totally don't get it. So if you raised your hand for it, help me. Yeah? All right. And we have to get all four. So knowing your preference is really key to you being able to help your organization use Agile everywhere at the enterprise level. This is about upgrading your internal operating systems. What we're talking about, your ability to take on these perspectives upgrades your operating system. So this is the full, what I call a metamap of Agile enterprise transformation. And the point of this, I've put names on each of the quadrants from an Agile enterprise transformation point of view. And if you don't address all four of these, you're unlikely to have a very successful implementation. If you don't figure out which altitude is my organization as a whole coming from, which altitude am I coming from? What's the delta? What's the difference between those two? What's the strategy that I'm going to have if I'm dealing with an orange organization? I'm going to have to talk results. I'm going to have to talk pure dollars and cents kind of value. And does it make results? Not does it make people happier? They're not going to care about that so much unless you can tie it directly to less turnover means you save this much money. In a green organization if you work in Scandinavia for instance, anybody here from Scandinavia? Yeah, kind of one. Scandinavian culture in general is green. Their politics are green. Politics in the US is orange amber versus green. That's the Republican. Huge transition in the United States right now. So okay. We want to give you a couple things that will help you. One is the excerpt from Michael's book. So if you go to agilecoachinginstitute.com this is what the homepage looks like and right on the homepage is the ability to download that excerpt. It describes all this in much more detail relates it to agile all along the way. It's a slow read. Don't expect to breeze through it. It's not exactly... You're going back to college to read this excerpt. But if you think it's academic you're not reading it carefully. Because it's not academic. It's very applicable to our world. The other thing we want to offer you is an interview that Michael and I have done recently and it just came out last week on InfoQ and there's a short link to it where we talk about ways that agilecoaches develop themselves all the way up to enterprise agilecoach and also about this model of the four quadrants. At least that piece of it. There's also a podcast from when we were in Australia. What's that group's called? I have no idea. The Australian riot or something. I can't remember. It was a great name. That's also very useful and addresses the topic of enterprise coaching. All right. That's it. If you want to... I think it's the break between sessions right now. If you want to ask us a question we'd love to hear from you. Why don't you come up in the front and we'll let you go. Thank you for your attention.