Good evening. Wow, that's a lot of energy for the evening. We need more energy now. I think everyone's kind of tired, at least I am. So, you can't hear me. Alright, that's a challenge. They can't hear me at the back. Is those speakers connected? Alright, can you guys hear me now? No, I think those speakers are maybe not connected. But if you can't hear me now, then you can come in the forward, in the front, right? So this is the first time we are trying this format. It's IMA Ask Me Anything format. How many people have participated in something like this on Reddit? Because that's where it became originally popular. People would ask, people would go up on Reddit and post saying, I am such and such person. Ask me anything you like. And some very interesting conversations, very interesting insights from people. Like, I've attempted suicide seven times. Ask me anything, right? It was interesting to see how something like that could take off. So we said, you know, why not try and give that an agile spin, right? To try and bring in some of our speakers and some of the people who helped us put this conference together and, you know, put them in front of you so that you guys can ask whatever you feel like to these guys expecting an honest and unfiltered answer. How many people are up for it? Very few people. Why are you here, otherwise? Alright, so without wasting too much time, I would like to call Jeff Patton. He's the first bakra. I like to be first because, look, I will be the best so far. It can only get better from here. I'm Jeff Patton. I'm known for story mapping and I spend a lot of time telling people they worry way too much about the way they write stories. Writing stories isn't the point. I'm going to stop there. Ask me anything. What would be the next technology you would name? Say it again. What will be the next?  You had different things. What would you name the next phase if it comes? What's the next thing after Agile? First, it's about time for Agile to be retired. Now that everybody's getting on board, I'm looking for the next thing. Oddly, the next thing looks like it's lean start-up thinking and design thinking and I'm already tired of that already too. The next thing is for us to put words around how difficult it is for us to predict whether the stuff we're building is worth building at all and lots of practice and thinking around that. I think there's not a word for the next thing yet and I'm waiting for it. Say it again. Why do we need stories at all? Why do we need stories at all? I spend a lot of time reminding people that stories get their name not from what we're supposed to write but from how we're supposed to use them. Kent Beck referred to stories originally as an alternative way to work, not an alternative way to write, that instead of communicating what we want built with a document, write anything down you want but get together and tell me your story. We need stories because we need to start talking with each other and then I'll make another point, it isn't just talking, it isn't just words, it's words and pictures and diagrams and sticky notes and things we do to make a point.  That's the short answer. And we don't need written stories, we need people to actually work differently, to actually tell stories. Wow, I'm being much more concise than I normally am. So do you need really smart people to make agile work? If you say yes, then it's agile and important if you have smart people. Yeah, that's a... You just answered your question I think.  And the truth is you can't take uninterested, unenlightened people and put them to work doing anything and expect good results. However, good process builds structure that lets people become interested, let's people become enlightened, let's people start to care, let's people start to take responsibility for what they're doing. I don't think, some days I think differently than other days, but I think there are a lot more smart people than we give them credit for. We just don't give them environments where they can grow, where they can be smart. We don't put them in situations where they're paid to be smart. We put them in situations where they're paid to follow instructions, paid to shut up and do what they're told. We need agile to give us a framework to let people start to think again, but that's hard. I could ramble on, but I wouldn't be making any fresh points. I see a hand right there. I want one question. In user story, what is the relevance of user? In the word user, because many times whenever we saw user story, the end user or who is going to use that user story is far behind. So why not only story? Why user story? That's a good question. I have no idea. I started with this process called extreme programming in 2000, and that's where the concept came from. And actually when it was defined, it was called a story, not a user story. Now what we're supposed to be talking about when we tell a story isn't the specification or the requirement or what to build. What we're supposed to be talking about is who needs what we're building and why. And there were a lot of modifications we made to the concept of stories to help people remember to talk about the right thing. One of the first things they did is say, well, it should be delivered from a user's perspective, so let's call it a user story. One of the next modifications that was made was the very dogmatic template, the ASA type of user, I want this thing so that. But hey, look, calling a user story makes people say, wow, if I'm writing a back end system that's headless, it can't be a user story or if I'm writing something about a business rule deep into the bowels of the system, the enforce is something the user would probably rather, it doesn't care about, makes it sort of not a user story. I go back to what I originally learned that they are stories, not user stories, and it's important to talk about the users and the choosers, the customers, the people who pay for this stuff to be built. And when I'm dealing with commercial products, it's the users that will use this stuff, the choosers, the people who buy this stuff, and your company, your organization, and what it's trying to achieve by building that product on the market, and all the whys behind all of those things. That's a good story conversation. So I'm with you, I'm not sure they, I go back and forth between calling them stories and user stories, but unfortunately it's the word we're saddled with now. I don't know if that helps. All along in the sessions, we talk about cultural change, we talk about problems that we can solve through Ajay. So in your view, what are the problems that we cannot solve through Ajay? Sorry, the sound that kind of stinks here is, what are the problems we can't solve with? Through Ajay, yeah. Through Agile. Ajay is not a solution. Ah, crap, that's another hard one. At its heart, I'll see an Agile process as something that is built to pay attention, to respond to change over following a plan, to work, to collaborate with each other. And look, it's my personal bias that working in short cycles, collaborating well with each other, works almost anywhere. Some of the things that get left out of Agile that bother me are principles like working software is the primary measure of progress. A lot of situations I work in learning is the primary measure of progress. The work we do to figure out whether we should be building working software at all is valuable, and Agile tends not to value that. So look, I have an article due that I'm supposed to write tonight to submit to an accelerator program in the U.S. and it's about why Agile isn't appropriate for startups. In a startup context where we're trying to find a product solution where there is none now, what we value most is rapid learning, working in two-week cycles and valuing only working software gets in the way of learning faster. And I'm confident there are some contexts where the results are fairly predictable. Todd, what's the lower left-hand quadrant of the diagram you just showed? Stog projects, things where the risk is low and they're fairly certain. Hey, we may not need a responsive, it may not be necessary to work in that kind of responsive framework. That's a muddy answer. I haven't thought it through, but thanks for asking, so I did. Am I getting the hook? Is that ten minutes? Awesome. Thank you, Jeff. Who do we get next? Can we get Fred next? George, I'm known for very fast delivery cycles and also for microservices and something we call programmer anarchy. I'm sure there are no questions. And there aren't. Perfect. I took a page out of Kent Beck's book. Not literally his book, but Kent Beck called it Extreme Programming back in the early Agile days. I've been doing this since about 1998, before the book was published. And I was out there trying to sell this to my customers. And I kept telling Kent, wow, companies are already afraid of programmers. Extreme programmers, they're really afraid of. But it got a lot of press. And so when we were trying to do some recruiting for a company I was working in in London, and we had some very, very strange process associated with that, I reached through the bag of tricks and said, let's pull out a very controversial name. I called it Programmer Anarchy, because anarchy and its original definition, first definition is about a team that organizes itself. There's not some outside party doing that. And the analogy is a bit like Pirates. This is a book called The Invisible Hook, which talks about the social organization of pirates. There was no rule book. They were self-organizing. It's a very interesting sort of look at how social dynamics happen when that happens. Hence the name was very controversial. By the way, if you're a consulting firm, I wouldn't use the word. Agile loves polyglot programming. We'd want programmers who'd be willing to work in some of the things that we've learned from Microsoft. This is a polyglot environment where you know the right thing to collaborate using microservices. So now that we have such an environment, a programmer doesn't need to learn any language because using microservices, you can collaborate with anyone else. So there's no incentive for the programmer in order to learn multiple platforms, because the platform that people use is going to be possible to work with multiple different environments. Are you suggesting that now that this platform is available, programmers don't need to learn a lot of tools and languages? So the base of the question happens to be that microservices, as specified, are very, very small pieces of code. They're independent of each other, very loosely coupled. They exchange useful interfaces, they publish on buses, and they use JSON packets. So lots of programming languages support these constructs. And so if you're a microservice architecture, you're allowed to basically write code in different languages. So most programmers I know of that have been microservices take advantage of that to show off new languages that they think may be very cool for doing the particular problem they're trying to solve. We were doing some work for a web-based client in London. We wrote the original version of a service in Ruby. It was about 600 lines of code to completely encapsulate an algorithm. But they heard about closures, so let's try closures. They wrote a 300-line version of closure. They said, oh, this is very cool. But also, now that I understand, really understand closure, because I've now written something, let me write it again. They wrote a 200-line version that turned out to basically replace four different dedicated hardware boxes of significant size. So I think programmers, given the willingness to explore, this actually enables that. Yes, if you're a, let's say, Fortran programmer and you still want to write Fortran, maybe microservice is also an environment for you as well. Your faster delivery, what did you view on if it is done in a legacy system or a complex enterprise product? What does it mean for you? In general, you always want to be accelerating delivery times. I think the difference between where we stand in 1998 at the beginning of this agile stuff and where we stand today is our cycle times are much, much shorter. Back in the day, Kentback was one of the fastest cycles right there with XP compared to the others, and he was in three-week cycles. Now you have people delivering almost daily in some environments. So there's acceleration has occurred. So I'm trying to think of a nice way of saying this. Ask the question again, though. Let me see if I can figure out a nicer way to say it. In a legacy word, for example, you're using football, Legacy code is never going to go faster than what it does now. It's been designed with a certain process in mind and it's been built with that process in mind. But you want to take legacy code and do the same things that Michael Feathers talked about in his book for many years ago. You also want to do the same sort of thing I do in most of my clients. Find something new that needs to be built, build it a new way, and attach it in there. I worked a lot with Fortune 100 clients in my last role in California. And almost all of these Fortune 100 companies have data warehouses and ETL processes get data out of it. Almost all these clients also have transactional APIs into their production systems. So it's pretty easy to go grab some data of the data warehouse, do something with it, draw some conclusions and publish it back to the transactional API. And that's how we're building our business around those concepts. The question is little outside of the software world. Recently I read an article where a wedding planner applied Scrum on the wedding plan and executed it in sprints What's the weirdest place you've seen agile being applied and did you think about faster delivery there? I think the strangest thing I saw was working in London at the company forward. We basically at that point were shipping something new into production every three and a half minutes. The average project size was one person for four hours. So in that environment there were no handoffs. And the shift was moving from requirements thinking into idea attempts. Trying out ideas is what we're trying to do. By the way, I think it's the next focus for agile. It's going to be get our customers away from thinking about requirements, get them into let's have some ideas and try them out. Do experiments. And we were doing that. And we were extremely successful at that. At one point in our company we had 50 employees, we made 50 million in that year. With 50 employees just by just trying out ideas and finding out which ones failed fast. So I think some of the things that have been talked about here especially the accelerating, working with business differently. That's at the heart of most of the business I've been working with the last five or ten years. It's working differently like that. Awesome. Thank you. You're welcome. You said you have expectations in delivering faster. So we often hear from the customer that delivering is not faster. So when you say speed of the delivery, is it like delivering ahead of the schedule and estimation or delivering as per the plan? So how do I define whether we are doing it faster? What I find delivery is from an idea to getting the code into production. And that was four hours. That allows you to try ideas out. Now our systems are fairly robust. We understand when things we have a bad idea are obvious because we're watching the KPIs. And that's again I think it was a lovely talk about Sriram in this room a few hours ago. He talks about trying to get the development team to start focusing on the business results. That's what we do. We measure business results. Clicks if it's clicks, if it's money, if it's sales, if it's logins. That's what we're measuring ourselves against. And we have ideas about how to make more of those. So you basically have to teach your programmers more about the domain than we've done in the past. We understand what you're trying to accomplish. And armed with that, they have a lot of clever ideas of their own. I think I'm being pulled. I think that's good. Thank you, friend. Next, can we have TV? So I'm TV. Tathagat is my name but everyone calls me TV. So I'm TV. And I'm a volunteer for Agile India Conference, work with Nareesh for the last few years. And in addition to that as a day job, I'm a agility coach. I help large organizations improve their agility. Ask me anything? He's also the program chair for this team for the scaling agility. Thanks, Nareesh. Sure. We see two hands there. Agility transformation. So I have a different perspective on that which I used when I was at Yahoo. My strategy is not to boil the ocean and really in my view, the goal should not be 100% adoption. So if I just use the phrase instead of 80-20 adoption I look at 2080 adoption and let me just take a minute to explain that. Instead of 80%, which is a kind of a notional way to say 100% adoption is what we are looking for which tends to end up only very patchy and shallow. So that's 20%. I would rather take 20% of my products that are that can really move the needle when I really improve the agility quotient on that and there I want to really improve my agility quotient 80%, 100%. I believe those are more successful rather than really boiling the ocean and saying everybody under the roof has to follow a certain blend of agile. Thank you. Yeah, Krishna Murthy. Hi. I wanted to know how I can volunteer to such programs. Okay, wonderful, wonderful question. There are a number of ways to volunteer and I think the first thing you probably want to do is sign up for agileindia.org mailing list. Whenever the new programs keep getting announced you have the first opportunity to pay your dues. I think the best way to get involved in this community is to pay your dues and make the withdrawals later. You keep paying the dues and people will pick up and people will know that hey you are the guy you are the go-to guy and we want to really have you on this team. Have trust in the system that somebody is going to pick you up as soon as you are really shining out there. That's what has worked for me. That's what I know has worked for a lot of people I know. I'm sure it's going to work for you as well. Hi. My question is more on the t-shirt that is given. It has a lot of advertisement at back which makes it completely useless. I don't know how many people know. It's an honest feedback because the morning when Naresh asks I'm giving honest feedback. Thanks for your feedback. I just want to be respectful to our sponsors as well. First I want to also correct my mistake because morning when I stood here right after Diana's talk I called out the sponsors I made a mistake of not introducing our key sponsor JP Morgan Chase which I was promptly reminded so mistake corrected on the same day it was made. Secondly, just to your question I would have a slightly different point of view I think we are able to defray the cost of running a conference like that and make sure that it's very wallet friendly by having a bunch of speakers come down and we actually host a lot of logistics for a lot of speakers that we get down to Bangalore would not be possible if we were not willing to collaborate with a lot of sponsors. I would probably request you to be just change your shoes a while and just see it from a different view. I am sure you will see a different perspective there which allows us to actually do it without worrying about because if we had to do the same thing we would probably be charging 20,000 bucks for every day if we just had to do that just to kind of put a perspective there. So I think and obviously the sponsors have to see a value in them being there and the standard we are doing that one of them is really to have that's fine with you but that's the accepted form of how we really brand some of these goodies today. Well, point noted, we'll try and do that next time. Ideas are always welcome, yes. In an Indian context what do you think is the biggest impediment to have in the agenda? I think our Indian work context I will give you a bonus as three points actually and you'll have to pick up depending on your context. One is I think we have an obsession of... I think we are under a genetic trap of thousand years of being subservient we do not believe that we can actually do something by ourselves. We believe that somebody has to tell us only then we are going to do something there that's my personal take on things. Number two, we are a society obsessed with the accomplishment titles and social status which actually impedes our free thinking and ability to be ourselves. I mean how many people will actually want to step out from it? It's like some of you who don't understand Hindi, pardon me I'll try and do that but one of the things we were discussing few weeks back in another conference was this mindset of it's like how many people were under your command and control that kind of a thing. I think we have a very very bad obsession with this thing unless we get out of that thinking we are not going to do that the third thing is I think the teamwork kind of a thing it's like our cricket team is just learning how to use teamwork properly for a long period of time we were all stars but then when we got together there were a lot of fireworks and not really in the right sense. I think we have to learn how to be a great team without really bringing ego in between so I think those are three things from my point. What do you think come again? So I think the great faith and hope that I have is actually the people I think the fourth point I didn't include was actually people like me who are the biggest impediments to that because we came from the old school of thought and we don't like to change we have a serious problem in the organizations. When I walk into the organizations I see there are a lot of people like me who are actually very ossified with their thinking and the biggest hope that's why is all the coming generation that has never known a world where there was a waterfall development happening I mean when I actually go there and I try to put up the slide on this is how we used to a waterfall I now have to remove it purposefully because that people don't know that that part of history is not known to a lot of people today I think that's a great part of being there so I think the memory is the right thing that's happening there so we yeah so thanks we'll take the compliment open heartedly we'll also sign you up for the next volunteer event thank you with your permission but on a more serious note yes we would like to in fact we don't really go out and really make any gender discrimination on that we love to have as many people as much diversity as we can I know and I'm sure I speak for Nareesha as well that given an equal opportunity we would actually want to have more women come here and speak for the women there I hope if there is an opportunity to actually find some ways I have spoken at Grace Hopper in the past I would love to get an opportunity to do more at Grace Hopper and a lot of other events we would like to explore more opportunities so with your guidance I'm sure we can do more thank you I think we've had multiple places where we had a proposal come in and immediate reaction by the group was everyone put it down and we would reject the proposal but then one exception we would make to that we would say okay if it is someone coming from one of the groups that we want to encourage students it could be people from other parts of the world not very well recognized as a software giant we would actually make an exception in the sense that we would go back give them feedback if the group proposes this way we think it is better to position it this way and we take those steps to encourage more of that at the end of the day I think it's again how they come back is what we decide but when we do the final cut we make sure that we are giving everyone an equal opportunity okay my question is I mean you have been doing it in many cities I mean last year you have done it okay so are you planning to do it in Mumbai next time I'm sorry the sound is getting a little muffled they have been doing this conference in Bangalore do we have any plans do we have any plans of doing it in Mumbai it all depends on well-being people if you come again I mean Naresh is based out of Mumbai I did hear Naresh one complaint actually that your heart is in Bangalore a lot of Mumbaikers feel that way so I guess maybe it's an opportunity to show that his heart is in Mumbai as well but on more serious notes I actually want to just call out one small example and I might be pitching for another conference but just to illustrate the entrepreneurship that is there last year when Sarabh organized Agile Noida in August we had two people from Chandigarh and Chandigarh doesn't have any culture really we have done I'm sure we have done in the past once and these two guys went back to Chandigarh there cannot be an Agile conference in Chandigarh they kept doing the heavy lifting in the background they worked it and in one week from now we are having Agile Chandigarh conference happening in ISB campus they have been able to get ISB campus for hosting the conference so I think it only requires to be honest just two or three people to organize an event of this kind and I'm sure if your intentions are right if your efforts are good people will come and just follow you whatever help you want a lot of us will actually fly down on our cars just to make sure that it's successful so just let us know whatever help you want and we'll be happy to do it for you we actually pay speakers to fly to smaller cities we don't pay speakers to fly to this conference just as a note we've paid people to go to Kerala and speak we've paid people to go and speak because we want to encourage smaller more focused conferences here we don't do that we make some exceptions but most speakers we don't pay their flights so that's stuff like that we do to encourage more smaller conferences I guess I'm done thank you, thanks Naresh thanks TV my name is Sean I'm an accidental Agile coach and an unapologetic commander and controller they said you can ask me anything they didn't say anything about baiting the conversations so any questions, ask me anything it's funny because the mindset actually wasn't a shift very much at all I started my come out of the Army, spent my first day working in a software company as a product owner for a defense company and on the very first day they say okay we're doing this Agile thing we know it's not going to make any sense to you there's this thing called servant leadership and it's going to be this big surprise to me that's actually what I've been taught for the last 13 years because there's this funny thing that soldiers are people too and soldiers don't like being micromanaged any more than software developers do so the reality is they're incredibly consistent and in terms of leadership and how we want to give the wise in the overall direction because they go to this way responding to change over following the plan when a battle situation you actually have an enemy who is actively trying to destroy your plan by killing off your team members so responding to change is actually really really important in that situation so the domains are incredibly consistent actually there wasn't much of a change at all so what process would you recommend to increase the total energy in teams because that seems to be the same the total energy in teams that's a very good question let's not talk about accountability lots of organizations really get focused on that we want to hold people accountable and have accountability and I look at it from a different perspective and I look at that from the a small team in the army again what kind of accountability do you have and what's the really powerful accountability and I think it's a different kind I don't think it's an accountability that to your boss or a commitment the real powerful one and if you've talked to people who've been in a combat situation it's an utmost accountability to your team members you don't want to let your buddy down and when you can foster that kind of environment of accountability where we've got shared objectives and I've got this really personal connection with my team members and I don't want to let my team members down I think that creates a really really positive energy energy in the group and the other aspect to that is when you've got a leader on that team who will lead by example who will jump in there and start demonstrating and modeling the behavior of this is what it looks like to collaborate to communicate to work together and just like Todd showed in the video in Apollo 13 and collectively solve a problem I think if you look at those two things it can be really powerful good question thank you I have mixed feelings on hierarchies I think there's an I think like anything there's an optimum because in one hand I care about personnel development, people development you know we want to invest in people and to do that you actually have someone who has to take their time so if I'm a leader a manager I want to be developing the people underneath me and I want to be really intimately involved in their needs and making sure that they can grow that's difficult to do when I've got 30 people I can't do a good job of it if I've got 30, 50 people directly reporting to me but at the same time we don't want to artificially create really really deep structures that just add extra layers it slows down decision making so I think like anything we really have to look at it as trade offs where do the pros and cons and where do we find this optimum where do we find that optimum balance for us so that people can get properly developed while we're also not artificially creating bottlenecks in our decision making Hi, Vinod from ISIS given that when we're talking agile I think things are moving really fast development side and the business side and one of the most common challenges that we face is that business priorities do change from release to release where you invest it completely changes that means we have to reorient all the teams pretty much every six months how do you handle this challenge when the real team delivery and the team velocity is a function of keeping the team together hmm just to just so I understand so after every release that the teams all shuffle around and people move around because the investments change let's say in a given release if we invest 20% of our total let's say budget on one module in the next release it could drop down to 5% because other 15% of people have to be reallocated to somewhere else highest value will be delivered I'll give you the easy answer which isn't necessarily the one that's easy to implement going back to the military experience there's an economic benefit to having long lasting teams because if you look at the storming, norming, forming performing model usually it takes six months in fact I'm still working with teams that have been doing this for two years still learning how to work together to get to that high performance stage so it makes very little economic sense for them to finally learn how to communicate and collaborate and work together, only to disband them and go through the process all over again and you can apply the same thing to firefighters special forces teams operating room teams so one way to look at it if it's possible is a team is kind of the smallest atomic unit if you want to move resources around the only thing you can do is apply a team to it now you can time division multiplex a team you can have one team that has multiple things and they can work on multiple things but at the end of the day you don't start worrying about people in fact I've seen lots of organizations always try to manage people and this woman over here no no it's look at a team as this atomic unit of resource that you can work with that's exactly the challenge because you have to maintain some continuity because teams might go down from 10 to 4 so those 4 guys will continue but the other 6 people will get reallocated somewhere else so I would say instead of reallocating the people to the other projects or other I would say look at what that extra work is and give that responsibility for the teams instead of resource multiplexing time multiplexing I would suggest something to try all right thank you so much hi I'm Diana Larson and the jet lag bit me this afternoon and so I got a little late to this but retrospectives starting teams well thinking about Agile fluency ask me anything Diana Sarah there you are this question has been on for the last 1.5 years going up the ladder of the organization I'm still not able to convince the marketing folks we work for organizations on specific business value and specific I would say on the proper time it becomes very difficult to convince the marketing people on the specific teams somewhere on the lower core you have different frameworks and models which aren't working fine there is self-sufficiency in the system to sustain that but once it comes to the final decision making and then we talk about transparency we talk about Agile fluency how and what could be the best way for a marketing guy to gain marketing people getting commission based on the value of the projects with different it's not about the value of the product and eventually we see services organization managing people as the right team so how would you want to actually bring a change to this change to actually bring the projects not also bring the projects there are small startups of course in such a challenging but still that question still wants to a marketing guy what would be the end cut which I will get should then Agile fluency how would you want to accelerate Agile fluency model for these people to actually create their customers so I think one of the things that's going on is there may be a different model here and with most of the companies that I've worked with describing happens with sales more than with marketing marketing tend to get it a little quicker than sales because of the commission structure that you're talking about this is one of those places where Agile begins to bump up against the rest of the organization and how the rest of the organization does their work and this is where we begin to see are we going to optimize for the sales guy in the organization to get his commission or her commission or are we going to look for what's best for the overall organization there are some places where they are beginning to restructure the way sales are done and putting salespeople in teams and doing the same kind of joint accountability the same kind of we're in this together that Sean was talking about for software teams with sales teams right so that's one possibility the way you frame the question I find it really hard to convince anybody else of anything or to make anybody else in a certain way what we have to do is use the persuasive technique of not trying to manipulate them into seeing things our way but connecting with what's in their interests and how can we align together so that we're moving forward and as soon as I said that word I'm hearing Dave Snowden in my head saying watch out with trying to get total alignment we need that diversity we need that diversity of perspectives so there's a it's a hard problem and it's an organizational structural problem about how people are compensated for their work and some of those things have to be fundamentally rethought in terms of trying to serve the needs of a function or are we trying to serve the needs of the organization and turning that on its head is a hard problem I mean there isn't an easy answer to your question but that's the places where I have seen it be effective it has happened because either the sales folks have just seen that this is going to be better for everybody like a longer view than just this month's commissions or the organization has has reformed itself so that that becomes a non-issue I'm Krishnamurthy see in the morning you have taken Indian context related examples to explain the fluency model so as a participant I really enjoyed and as a coach I want to ask a question when you are coming for the first time to India how come you can manage such an information at a faster pace I really wanted to ask you a question saying that there is some message saying that you want to convey this in a locally I just want to know your thoughts on it I have found that the best way to explain the concepts that I want to talk about is to make it relevant for the people that I'm talking to and so one of the analogies that seems to work pretty well for folks is that one of moving down a very large highway and so I in when I'm in the states I talk about a different highway there's a highway that runs up and down the west coast called I5 from Seattle to LA and where we would stop along the way in Europe I have talked about going from I think it was Frankfurt to Rome and do we want to stop in Venice or do we want to stop in Rome that is an easy one to translate because all you have to do is find that main route that because every city is unique and every city has its its own its own specialness and so I sat this morning with some folks and we looked at the map and we saw the highway that went from here north and there it was there you go I really enjoyed the session in the morning because we talked about scaling the use of the art and clearly the principles are pretty universal right all about continuous improvement innovations and so on and all these concepts existed even before the term I came into the picture and with the recent emphasis on a lot of these certifications which again are sort of targeted toward processes and methodologies isn't that diluting the message of agile when agile has more people focused than processes mm-hmm I think the way I see it is that the agile way of approaching organizations is actually a part of a much bigger movement and some of it has to do with this idea of continuous learning and continuous improvement in organizations some of it has to do with a a much larger movement toward more humane more organizations that are more aware of the real asset that they have in the diversity of people as opposed to thinking of them as a mass of interchangeable resources right agile is not the only way that is moving that idea forward at all and if looking back even coming out of what 50 years ago 60 years ago coming out of the big world war Deming going to Japan there were some folks in the UK Fred Emory and Eric Trist who were working in something called the Tabistock Institute there are lots of lots of folks going further back than that there's a wonderful if you've never read the writings of a woman named Mary Parker Follett she's definitely somebody you want to look up so this has been moving along for some time this idea that the best way to improve our world whether by selling peanut butter or building a car or whatever it might whatever your particular idea if improving the world might be it has to do with treating people in a humane way and in the last number of years ideas that you're going to hear more about later acknowledging that technology has moved us into an increasingly complex world listening to Sean talk about his experiences in the Canadian Army there's also a concept that has a new buzzword a new buzzword that's come out of the US Army War College called VUCA and that American military loves acronyms and so that stands for volatile, uncertain complex and ambiguous and originally it was to describe the kinds of situations that Sean was saying that when you are in battle things change you can't be trying to dictate from some headquarters site how people are going to move they have to have the autonomy and the skill to make decisions in the face of rapidly changing conditions right so they came up with this idea of these folks are in VUCA situations well a year ago or so they came out an article in the Harvard business review about it looks like the marketplace turns out to be volatile, uncertain, complex and ambiguous and all of us need to live and understand how to behave and act in that world so when you put together the ideas around continuous learning and continuous improvement in ways to do what we do better and the ideas around more humane workplaces and the ideas around how are we able to move in a world where information moves so rapidly and things are changing and we can't really know so much of what we are dealing with emerges from the conditions that are present those three things are part of what Agil is talking about but part of a much bigger group of things that are happening for organizations, societies cultures and there are people who are very comfortable in not thinking in those ways so then we, there's a lot of interesting clashes happening too it's the nature of how the world changes so do I think Agil is particularly unique, no but I do think it's a part of a broader shift in the way some folks are beginning to think about the world so that they can have an impact on it you need to cut short we've kind of run over time if aren't these sort of formal certifications picking us backwards all the certifications didn't you see how deftly I sidestepped the whole certification issue there I was on the Agil Alliance Board when the Agil Alliance Board wrote up a statement of philosophy about certifications Todd was there too I'm troubled I'm troubled by certifications I think it's a way of enabling or it's an attempt it's an attempt at enabling people to make easy decisions that should be hard right if we can only get this group of people who are all categorized in some way then we can pretend again that they are interchangeable right rather than having to look at what they really bring the the beauty of their diversity and the richness that's held there so I'm not a big fan of certifications I understand the purpose they serve for human resources folks to be able to rapidly look at resumes or whatever and make choices and I don't know that I think there's got to be a better way I think that that doesn't really serve us well and I'm one of a lot of people who put that stake in the ground I'm not unique in that yeah and we all want to know how we are progressing we all like to get that mirror from the world that helps us understand our own ability to get things done and sometimes degrees and certifications and things can help us with that but it can also blind us to the unique and wonderful jewel that each person is the perspectives that they bring the skills that they bring and so on so it's a crutch I think certifications are a crutch and I'd much rather see us all walking strong wonderful thank you can I quickly call upon Dave Snowden now I think one of the disasters in our job is you get more status by training and certifications and by delivering code and the economic models are actually built around that I once famously tweeted at the conference SharePoint is to knowledge management what Six Sigma is to innovation and Safe is to Agile and I'm standing by that I think a couple of things coming out of that we've had a major problem in Agile in that Scrum has become coterminous with Agile which has denigrated both Scrum and Agile we've assumed that the executives aren't Agile and need to be actually they're a dam site more Agile than software they have been for years they're waiting for the software department to catch up what they're not prepared to do is to put corporate strategy into sprints thank you very much they've got better ways of doing that so I think the issue about agility is to recognize that a software development concept of agility is not the same thing as a strategic concept of agility and I've sat in both of those and I think this I go further than Diane because we've been in several meetings discussing this in Portland and Sweden there's a new thing we're talking about and I haven't told you this but I got approval from the University of Wales two days ago to actually set up a three-year multi-discipline part-time education program which does nothing whatsoever to do with cases that gives you one-on-one courses in anthropology, psychology biology, ecology and then gets you to apply those to real-world cases and to keep a case book of what you've done over three years working with experienced people and that's called professionalization going on a two-day course and calling yourself a master on the basis of a multi-choice questionnaire is highly dubious going on a one-week course and then being authorized to make money provided you pay me royalties by doing the same training is basically the same thing as a neuro-linguistic programming contract it's a desire to basically create stability, rigid process it's a contradiction of our job sorry, I couldn't resist saying that I think that was probably what I was meant to do anyway I'm more brutal and dying I don't have to be nice to people about this either way, open to questions that gives you a sense of what will come back just for a way of warning sorry, Day Snedon not many people know this but at a pub in Cheltenham something like 20 years ago myself, a woman from logic went to the DSTM consortium because we said if we don't actually have a standards body we're never going to sell this bloody stuff and that was one of the founders a long, long time ago on that I actually think we've lost a lot from both XP and from DSTM in that we've over-focused on delivery and we've under-focused on user understanding that was my background on that after that I became a C-level executive, I've been an IBM executive and all sorts of things in my life and I sat at Cognitive Edge about nine or ten years ago to apply complexity thinking into business in general can I have more of this one? I shouldn't have told you what I thought up front I was scared to live in daylight so there's a few people never wanted to defend safe? yeah, okay hi the agile manifesto has been around for a long time so do you think there should be a new version if you had to add something or something off the manifesto? I think we need a yes but manifestation of the agile the agile manifesto was written at a point in time in a context where we'd switch things away from supply sorry, away from demand and into supply and it swung the pendulum and I think we could do with swinging the pendulum back a little bit it's kind of like users actually aren't always right and to be quite honest, most agile techniques assume they don't understand software anyway so we didn't really implement that one I don't think we need another manifesto I mean they tried that with Stoose and that was what I just called New Age Fluffy Bunny Dumb Run Mad let's get together and say how wonderful people would be if everybody was nice to each other everybody was open, everybody consulted with you anybody can do that we actually need people now to start to institute methods and tools which actually apply what we understand about systems and what we understand about people and stop the sort of idealism get into deep pragmatism get into sustainable approaches which increase the interaction between unarticulated, I'll talk about this on Friday unarticulated user needs and unanticipated technology capability at the moment we're still taking a linear process expecting users to define what they want and then we'll deliver it more effectively as I said to somebody over the break you can draw a linear process as a circle it doesn't make it non-linear it's still linear even if you put a feedback loop into it I'd also say one of the things I'm doing at the moment is going back to Danny because from work I did with Drucker before he died I'm absolutely convinced the complexity thinking which I and others are pioneering has more in common with scientific management than it does in systems thinking and the reason is if you go back to the pioneers of scientific management like Denin, like Drucker yet like Taylor they respect the role of human judgement they didn't try and replace it they automated what they could automate effectively they did physical augmentation what we should now be looking at is using technology for cognitive augmentation but not cognitive replacement and part of the problem with the big data hype is a lot of IT development and with most of systems thinking from Six Sigma onwards from business process region onwards it tried to reduce people to an engineering diagram and I say come back to it you look at anything and I could almost show a brochure which was in the handout that's an engineering diagram it's not an ecological map we need to start to think about organizations as ecologies not as engineering processes and the scientific management people respected that they respected apprenticeship models they assumed that people would spend three to four years in multiple roles before they were given management responsibility they left space for people to make judgments and you had to take responsibility for making those judgments you couldn't fall back and actually blame a spreadsheet so long answer to the question I think we need to get back to some of that stuff and we need to start to use technology as a tool and the whole point about a tool is where you pick it up it should fit your hand you shouldn't have to buy a re-engineer your hand to fit the tool and that's part of the problem we're not making tools yet we're imposing a constraint on human intelligence which matches the way that computers work and that's limited compared with human capacity you never get short answers from a Welshman when he's jet lagged I should just warn you about that my question is related to again the certification because my question is it's my view what I am seeing is the current certification is not working because the quality is not there just two days training you should have 26 or 28 bucks in your pocket and then you are certified well actually you are certified but it's a different sense of the word so what I'm my question is so are we should we expect a change in the way current certification is happening can we think of a way that somebody submits their experience and then they get a questionnaire on the front and then they are valued on their psychological on their managerial or on their team aspect and other aspects of their right values or it's going to be the same I'd be very careful about rating all principles we've been talking about this now for two years now isn't it though I went to the Vice-Chancellor at the University on Monday because we are setting up a new centre for applied complexity which is going to be distributed between University in Wales, Stelenbosch University in South Africa one of the New Zealand so we are working on that one of the programmes which is going to come through that is basically a three year programme in that three year programme you will be expected there will be a curriculum list of humanities in the main we will do no case studies because actually case is a past practice and they don't replicate of the world as complex anyway this is the confusion of correlation with causation which is a real problem in management science but the point is you've got to go to a university valued institute to do your 101 course in anthropology we don't mind which university we're not going to offer that because then we'd be actually selling the training it would be one of the things the university can do but basically we don't mind which university you do but you've got to do some anthropology which would hugely improve IT people full stop because they start to understand something about people you've got to do something on ecology you've got to understand the difference between adaptation and adaptation so there's a curriculum of knowledge that you have to acquire almost like creating generalists at the same time as having to pass that by examination in whatever university you've also got to keep a workbook and we're working on an electronic form of this by which every experience you have is recorded in the workbook and certified by the people around you now if you look at it that's the way lawyers and accountants and doctors produce professionals and nobody grants them certificates in the sense that the agile community talks about certificates and it's a five to seven year program in fact if their vets are even better my father never allowed us to go to a doctor because he was a vet and he said vets have two years more training which is just what people say so I'm going to do the diagnosis the principle is an extended period and it involves two things practical wisdom and theoretical wisdom and there's far too many people in our job I had this argument with Ron Jeffries all the time but he's coming around who say if it works it must be okay well if it works it just worked that one time you don't know it's going to work again if you don't understand why something worked you shouldn't try and repeat it or scale it and I think that's the problem we've got people are producing methods and certification based on two or three case studies reported by people who have left the companies to join the consultancy firm alright now I'm very sorry I've been in companies I don't buy that also novelty works the first time the first two or three times you do something it will always produce results so actually producing a method of payment success based on limited cases and then relying on self-reported success from people who make money out of training your method that's not professionalization that takes several years so that's what we're talking about thanks Dave I think two questions but you nailed it I know we are running a little late we do need to kick off the job fair but I do want to invite Todd to come up and quickly introduce himself Todd Little some people called me Mr. Toad I don't know why so I'm a software executive for IHS I gave a little bit of history of how I got into Agile I came into an organization via an acquisition in the 1990s and it came into just this amazing culture we were producing software that was transforming our industry and this culture was sustaining we were integrating companies the things we did as an organization was we put together conferences like this and brought together worldwide all our developers you know sales people have their conferences it's very rare for development to pull together developers the thing is we were finding that if we really wanted to be good at integrating our companies that we were pulling together and that was really the important part of our purpose our purpose was we were going to transform the industry by integrating software and in order to do that we felt that we had to integrate people together into a worldwide developers conference I happened to get really good at running conferences Serendipity I ran into Alistair Coburn in 2002 and he were at the bar at the MIT bar at a conference and he pulls out some diagrams that his wife had drawn and said which conference logo do you like and I said oh really you're going to run a conference he said yeah we're going to run a conference and I started telling him if you thought about this this this and this he said no we got to talk so ended up helping him so he went to the Agile conference in the US went on to really take that and run it for a number of years was on the Agile Alliance with Diana was interesting because I was the only non-consultant on the Agile Alliance everyone else was either a vendor or a consultant so I was always trying to push a few ideas that were a little different and take things a little bit different direction I do remember the Serendipity I was on two boards that were dealing with the certification question both the Agile Alliance as well as the APLN was also dealing with the certification question so interesting how we how we had to step around and deal with that go a few ideas around that a couple other things about me a bit of a data geek I mean I work for a data company now but I've looked at a lot of metrics and organization also view myself as a globalist been involved in global teams may my view as I'm a globalist I'm an American imperialist in a sudden plow so ask me anything it's coming please run software so Agile as a software development process is needed in everything that we do so why isn't that we are limiting Agile to software development so why are we limiting so I'm not one who limits Agile to software development I guess I would question that all things rely on software because I do like to do a few things where software is not involved and they seem a bit more natural that way but yeah I think certainly in the industry software is becoming more ubiquitous so I mean it is this tent that almost all organizations are highly dependent on software of some form or another so yeah I like to think in terms of a bigger picture and really many of the problems that I end up facing aren't really software problems I mean I spend most of my time not dealing with software problems I'm dealing most of the time with working with the business and helping them understand their business problems and how software can work well to help them in their business I don't know if that's helped the answer if you take some of the identities of this confidence from software companies so the movement is more okay so the Agile Alliance specifically said we're going to only work with software and I think that was a good choice because one of the things you have to do is you have to figure out what you're going to be good at and what your target market is that you're going to go after and so I think early on in the Agile Alliance life it was really a smart choice to pull back and say we're going to work with software because had they tried to take on more than software at the time I think it probably would have failed actually the APL did try to move outside of software started had just a little bit of traction and pulled back and ended up really you know turning out to not be much more than software because there wasn't enough there and there wasn't enough momentum we didn't have the critical mass in order to take it beyond software now did people have people taking this beyond software yes quite a few people have gone independently but I don't think you've got the same level of movement at that level in IHS which came from the employee giant culture or really so I came into IHS last year and I came in really after the so my boss came in about about three years earlier I think but he took a position about about six months or so before I came in and so as I do a little bit of archaeology and look back I think what he has made a huge difference because he came in from a product company he came in with a very agile perspective and so I think the interesting thing with IHS was IHS as a company had been very chaotic as acquiring people had a very very good strategic direction had guessed well that data and analytics was a really important thing so they had a really good strategy they had been acquiring they had been growing they had been empowering a lot of things to happen at the business level they had really messed software up pretty badly so when my boss came in he had a very low bar to change things and he's made an enormous difference and brought in additional people and built leaders up that really have embraced the agile culture and I think as soon as he was available to provide the air cover the culture of the software development organization rapidly went behind him so transforming the culture in this case was really easy because it was sort of organizationally the culture was there it had this really messed up side because it got thrown into IT and I think my experience almost every single IT organization is broken so I've been with product companies and product companies that have IT organizations always think IT is broken and usually for a pretty good reason because they're disconnected from their customers product companies are very if you disconnect yourself from your customer as a product company you're out of business on an IT you don't go out of business because you just change out the CIO every year and it's not a problem you just keep getting crappy service so now that my boss is in there he's provided the air cover he's provided the connection to the business he can speak their language the key part of the executive in the software side is you gotta be able to speak the language of the business you know how do you enroll marketing you start speaking the language of marketing you fit that in so that you bring him into the conversation you show them what's in it for them what's in it for the business how can we work with you have that create the environment create the culture and I've found that developers are really easy to get across with that they really understand it they're problem solvers after all and what we're doing is creating a culture where they can solve problems and make a difference they just want to see their work done and have a difference so if they get you get the cultural parts that you get the clarity of purpose you stop overloading them you get prioritization and focus and start saying no to some things some amazing things happen can take one last question oh a lot of people now they ask questions earlier they didn't ask any questions I have 15 minutes available I did a question yeah so what percentage of projects across the world do you think for large-eyed people see a day when all the projects are 100% so what percentage of projects are agile or what percentage of projects claim they're agile what percentage of projects claim they're agile I don't know probably I actually don't know I don't have that type of data there are a lot of surveys out there that are strongly biased in a lot of different directions because of who they ask I still see a lot of projects that are not even close to being the potential that they could have so I think it's a very small percentage that are actually performing well I like how Diana put it probably what we're seeing about 5% that have really evolved to extreme a really strong performing level and that sort of result was of teams that already were declaring they were starting down the agile path so that's the 100% that we divvy up of whatever that is and I think of your starting point is probably of those claiming to be agile claiming to be agile maybe is in the 25 to 50% range I don't have good numbers on that it's not an area I tend to work more the data that I've been collecting has more been a bit of a passion around estimation and risk and so I've got a lot of data on that I do look at other data too but not too much so I don't know if I can give a true answer I have one question yeah this I think is an interesting and controversial at the same time so we had this manifesto from 2001 the agile manifesto and the 12 principles and I was here in this conference last year and there were a bunch of issues people were talking about that they're having in agile option and scaling and so on and so forth so on retrospective thought this question is more to all the subject matter experts basically you and the other folks out there who are sitting in the front row have they ever kind of look back and see that is there time to kind of go back and look into the manifesto and see if there is something which needs to be changed because I don't think there's except the pigs and the chicken remark except that nothing much has been changed in the last 14-15 years and we've been hearing the same problem every time again and again from different people in some form or the other form so I'm a little confused and disappointed at the same time that if that is what is solving the problem then where is the problem everything is there so that's something which is not clear to me so let me try to give a quick answer to that which probably won't be quick so is it solving all the problems absolutely not there's no chance that you can solve all the problems because you can't solve problems with poor statements and providing guidance that's still valuable today I believe it is what are the areas that I would say is probably was neglected I think from my side I think that a lot of what we see that has driven the agile community has been much of a bottom up technology up driven perspective I don't think it's really has really done a good job of engaging the business properly I think Jeff brought that up very clearly and what he's spending his time with is the I think too often we've started with the assumption that users know what they want or that the business knows what they want and the reality is they don't some users know what they want sometimes we know what they want but this is all the learning experience and so getting fast feedback and understanding the challenges that we have and really trying to figure out what's the right thing to be doing in the first place there's always been the problem I think the manifesto glosses it over a bit way too much and Jeff made a good point on that earlier many of them, many people did already on that same issue I see people just trying really hard to squeeze in questions and you're running short of time just one thing so we are conducting this manifesto year on year on we're conveying the messages making sure that when people are aware of it and all those things so do we have a goal from the agile team all over here or who are leading the front row or this one so what is that we are going to achieve in this year do we have a roadmap or we are just having this communication done and go home and forget it it's actually there in our it will be always there in the plan but how are we making sure that one there is some implementation from this year to next year back in 2001 we worked up a Microsoft project and this year's roadmap calls for for that exact question to be coming out so I'm glad to see that we were pretty good in our estimation and predictability so I know it is very hard to answer so I think the thing that so I think I'm hearing asking as well is there a plan of where the agile community is taking things and the thing is the agile community is here it's you it's not something out there the agile alliance as an organization for example it's just a holding body trying to figure out what is the agile alliance and the agile alliance is a holding space for the community to take it and drive itself where it needs to go all this question about is there a need for a manifesto a change to the manifesto my recommendation is write one and start circulating it and if you want to see the change or come up with something new right now I don't think my view from a marketing perspective there's probably not white for it because there's enough momentum already in what's there to take things continuous now we have the other challenges I think Dave addressed very well is what's the ecosystem that's driving this the ecosystem that's driving this is the certification drives training, training people make money so has certification worked it's absolutely worked for training companies training companies have been a wonderful ecosystem one of the problems we had when the agile alliance looking at this and the APLN looked at certification we looked at it and said well we're not against certification we just don't like we don't like that model which is about training and certificated based on a couple of days of training or answering a test if anything we want something that's more experience based and has some real meaning to it in that case the problem with that is that has no real economic benefit for training companies they can't sell their training based on that type of model so it died we said okay if you want to do it do it but it has to be this type of style it has to be something different it's going to be certification 2.0 or certification 3.0 certification 1.0 is the one that has the economic model that fuels it so if you want to start a manifesto find a way to market and circulate and get the ecosystem that funds it what do you think is the most challenging aspect that needs to be addressed for agile adoption of the good organization and what should be the first thing that we should do with that institution yeah good so it's hard to call out one particular thing because every organization is slightly different some organizations so I was describing this culture the beautiful wonderful culture that we came into through an acquisition well just shortly after that we were acquired by Halliburton Halliburton is a big multinational American American company with a little bit of multinational to it it's not a software company it sells cement right it's a very very and it's an operational efficiency model we were a software company that was value generation so inside that we were okay as long as they were arms length away from us but over time that eroded because fortunately they screwed up another software company before us so they knew that that was the organizational memory was there eventually that organizational memory went away and they thought they knew how to run software as well as they knew how to go do oil field services so in that environment the culture was the problem and you could only get so good on an agile from an agile perspective because the culture was destruction and leadership at the highest levels didn't support it coming to IHS it's been very different the core things were there what we really needed was my boss who came in and really provided the air coverage of the overall development organization to enable us to go off to each one of our business units and run those according you know give us the autonomy and give us the ownership that we needed so once you have that in that case it was much easier so I think the executive support is key I think there are other times where different problems you may have just very poor talent to work with and other things so fortunately I've got good talent to work with alright thank you very much I hope they have answered few of your questions and you have a lot more questions left because otherwise this conference would die you wouldn't come back next year there has to be an economical model to it I'm just kidding I mean obviously in this one hour we're not going to answer all your questions but you might get some thought process around how people are looking at it and you know that would start some conversations within you so hopefully this is fueling curiosity and you would probably go and mingle with other people and ask questions and get their perspective on it so I really appreciate all these folks who came up on stage and shared their honest opinion on the questions that were randomly thrown at them I know it's difficult to answer impromptu but you guys did a great job thank you so much so now we're going to switch over and the next thing that we planned for this evening was to kick off a job fair I'll give you a little bit of context around why we are doing this what's in for the Agile Software Community of India to be running this we are not a consultancy company we don't place people we don't do any of this why are we running a job fair what does this have to do with us in fact the job fair last year we piloted that the reason we did that was we would get two reasons for companies to sponsor the conference and one of the main reasons for companies to sponsor the conference was to be able to find good talented people whether Agile or not a secondary but good talented people was something that they really wanted and they felt that the Agile community seems to have some of those kinds of people that they are interested in and so they were sponsoring the conference they were supporting us running the conference but it got a little difficult for them to have an open conversation around you know can you join us are you interested in it this is an awkward conversation to have at a conference it was also a little awkward because companies do send people in and then companies are a little scared like I don't want my people to get poached it just doesn't feel right so we said we are going to call out a separate thing where we want to enable we want to provide this platform where people who are trying to find good companies to work for and companies who are trying to find good people to work with them we want to be able to provide that kind of platform so with that thought process we basically last year we launched the job fair we had quite a few companies come in but one of the mistakes we did last year was we kept it on after the conference was over because we didn't want any conflict with the conference itself but what we realized is most people left after the conference and it was not a very successful it didn't really serve the purpose so we tried to change it a little bit and we said maybe we give couple of hours in the evening where the companies who want to participate in the job fair can come and quickly talk about what do they do what they are interested in and then maybe people who like what they are doing or interested to hear more could visit them and then have a more extended conversation over the next two hours and we do this three evenings we are going to try it out this evening what is it really helping and then we will inspect and adapt from there so with that I would like to call upon folks from JP Morgan to kind of quickly talk about how they want to position themselves what they are looking for and help people understand what kind of people they are looking for can we have you quickly so what we are going to do is we have three companies in this today each of them would quickly come and present what they are looking for and then people are they will be back in those stall areas you can go visit them if you are uncomfortable sticking around that is absolutely fine we understand you could leave we don't want to hold you up but I would appreciate if you give five minutes to listen these guys out so I had a recruiting for JP Morgan for a couple of businesses from a technology standpoint for India and the reason we are here today is not to bore you through some 15-20 slides we just want to talk some real stuff help you understand what JP Morgan is what do we do in the market and what are we looking for I am not going to take too long I just want to open up with asking people I want to understand from folks around the room how much do you guys know about JP Morgan because anybody know how many cities in India does JP Morgan have offices in anybody I am just opening this up it can be a guess, it can be anything if somebody knows about it I just want to check anybody knows how many offices in India a wild guess somebody who answers can get a prize I will throw a little twist absolutely so three offices do you know which cities Bangalore Hyderabad obviously Mumbai is the largest Bangalore is growing and now we are in Hyderabad what makes JP Morgan today is five key lines of businesses like this hand which is something that is not stoppable JP Morgan has five key lines of businesses Corporate investment bank asset management enterprise technology consumer and community banking which is our retail business and last but not the least is our commercial banking business so these are the five key lines of business that are spread across all parts of India where we have technology presence across India that is from a line of business perspective so yes we have a presence across these places we have a huge strength of organization but I am sure all of you are asking this question in terms of what isn't it for you as a technologist to work with a bank like JP Morgan to work with any other tech house or any other product development firm on the street and five points given the business that we are in it's ever changing it's a very fast and dynamic business the market is so volatile that we are expected to live out so what isn't it for a technologist we expect our technologist to be as creative as possible because every technologist in JP Morgan is able to come up and make those because we are challenged every day with something that goes around in the market that we need to make changes in the way we work and we develop our software so given this, it is very interesting for a technologist to work with JP Morgan second one is our impact and reach we have offices over 100 countries that is huge we touch people across these countries we touch markets across these countries but not the least, we touch products across these countries hence for us to be in this highly competitive environment we just can't go out there and just build and develop some lame software hence we need to be up and running creative and innovative lastly technology shop in JP Morgan is of our own we call the shots we create softwares, we build applications for ourselves we don't make it for others hence it's with us to be as innovative as we can and as creative as we can I want to read out something which is a pre-key message from some of our leaders so we have pegabytes of data running across our internal cloud computing platform our firm like I said the market is so volatile that our firm responds to volatile conditions, our ability to react quickly and intelligently and our margin of success all over competitors our firm comes down to technology like I said, technology is big everybody wonders, JP Morgan is a bank what do you guys have ruined technology but technology plays a big big big role, every line of business like I spoke about, the five lines of businesses all of them have technologies who are empowered to take decisions in the organization and these are the hats these are the thinking hats that we look at in order to make us where we are today I just want to show you something quickly and you know what doesn't it for you guys to be a part of our firm 58,000 servers managed by our infrastructure engineers connecting our employees around the globe 30,000 technologists and you won't believe, India has over 8,500 technologists and the 30,000 technologists represents 11% of our entire global workforce 7,200 applications developed and enhanced by our software developers to improve client experiences I've missed adding something here we spend year on year over 8.5 billion dollars only consuming technology which shows how strong a believer JP Morgan is in technologies, in hiring good technologies for the organization what do we looking for JP Morgan has moved from what we used to do five years now, five years down the line we are looking for strong hands-on technologies yes we are going the HR way, we want to grow lean but at the same time we are looking for strong hands-on technologies we are looking at people even across the even at senior level who are able to drill down and get down into coding or whatever you may want to call it but we are looking for hands-on technologies and with all of this comes together with something I want to talk about people agenda people agenda and you may wonder that you know some of you in the market don't have domain expertise I've never worked with a bank so how am I going to add value to your bank not required we are looking for strong technologies we are looking for somebody who has the acumen who can be who can be an evangelist and somebody who can come to the firm and add that as a technology perspective we will give you the training we will provide the domain training, the functional training we have the experts in the bank and that's something that we will do for you second, the firm is very very high on mobility career mobility, moving people internally last year we closed 2000 roles within the bank and 25% of them were closed via internal mobility so we believe in bringing in talent grooming them in and just not letting them go after 2 years 3 years but we keep talking to them to ensure that you know there is another role in 5 businesses numerous roles in the organization we are currently working on over 1000 roles last year closed 2000 roles and mobility is a big aspect for India I don't see too many women in the round but I did see them, I was a little happy when the panel session was going on and I want to talk about diversity very very high on diversity one of our key objectives in JP Morgan not just because we want to increase our male and female ratio but we definitely feel that there is a different thinking between both the gender globally diversity is not only male and female but as color and all the other aspects but in India it's male and female we just concluded a drive to commemorate International Women's Day on the 8th of March and you won't believe we had over 1200 people who walked into our organization and we were able to offer close to around 80 people so we are stressing the fact that we are looking for women women technologies including obviously male technologies but this is another key factor I just want to end with one last thing one of our key believers innovation innovation I am not trying to be Ekta Kapoor but innovation innovation these are three things which is one of the biggest biggest components that we look for from a JP Morgan perspective because that is one thing that helps us service our customers with the first class business in a first class way so ladies and gentlemen I can go on talking all night about JP Morgan but I would like to keep some suspense any kind of queries you want this is just the trailer that I have spoken about work with the bank and you will watch the rest of the movie thank you okay great good evening folks a lot to be here with fellow agile enthusiast my name is Ambar Jamal and my name is Pradeep we represent QAI so what do I have today evening to share with you about what we are here in the job fair for QAI born in the USA Orlando Florida 30 years young 300 clients across 30 countries over 600 person years to be politically correct have to stop using man years and women years isn't it cumulative experience present USA, India, China and Singapore that's QAI in short for you amongst the clients I spoke about let me share a story about one of our Maki clients we have 12 years of awesome relationship with this customer partnered with them for 40 plus transformation programs across 8 countries and I don't have the count of the numerous working groups and business areas and they have these engagements for a single account of clock more than tens of crores in INR for QAI in consulting, revenue alone that customer is Accenture so you'll be glad to know we are hiring and that's the very purpose of being with you here this evening what kind of person and people and talent are we acquiring and looking for as a consulting firm no better way than to share with you a story of my colleague Aditya Bhalla let me tell you about Aditya Aditya's story started 14 years back fresh IIT enthusiastic graduate working as a marketing and sales business development professional in micro land was interested for looking for exciting stuff in life comes on board QAI as a process consultant is not happy and we are happy that he is not happy because he moves on to explore his passion in business process improvement and statistics through Lean then moves on to Six Sigma then to innovation and when he jumps into innovation he comes to know about a model called Trees have you heard of Trees Trees, yeah and he's excited to know about Trees and learn more about it and explore and go on this adventure but he faces a peculiar road block to be really a master of Trees knowing that this is one of the inventions of a Russian group of scientists, Archula he needs he's interested in learning the language so he goes to Russia takes a flight, learns Russian learns Trees from the masters in Russia and comes back to India to propagate and disseminate his knowledge and his experience and wisdom and he becomes one of the two or three Trees masters that are there in the country today we are looking for the next Aditya Bhalla in agile what are the attributes that we are looking for in what I told you just now and if you happen to be sharing common philosophy and interest in having been there okay, so here are some of the attributes okay, I know your laptop is already glitching you have a flip you have a flipper for that, okay wonderful so if you happen to be sharing these common values and common interest you've been there done that, want to explore unexplored horizons work with constantly changing environments culture, technology, clients geographies and whatnot then QAI is the place for you we are young enough and not young enough to perpetually learn, change and make an impact so we are a team which wants to make a difference in every space by excellence and driving excellence denotes or characterizes the QAI team so we are here and we'd like to I've timed myself Noresh and like to have you over at our stall those who are interested in profiles want to share with us what your interests are we'll be coming away first 20 interested profiles from QAI but more than anything else as I said we invite you to become a part of this enthusiastic young consulting team 160 strong and come and join us going back let's put a ding in the universe thank you ladies and gentlemen thank you Pradeep Pradeep me and Jonah would be at our stall Pradeep is from our North America operations Jonah heads China and Middle East and I look after consulting business for India thank you Noresh we had Saber also participating is anyone from Saber here to present don't see anyone so I guess that's it the two companies they'll be back at the stalls please go visit them and have a discussion with them thank you again dinner has already started we'll see you tomorrow at 9am sharp