who you could be talking about. First of all, you could totally do that. No, no, no. I don't have two young children. I have a mortgage. I don't have that kind of income. You do. No, no. I think you make more than our next guest. You have some nerve. First of all, get out of our wallets. I'm not in your wallet. It's just speculation. No, no, no, you, I, I. He clears our next guest. No, I don't. Let's ask him. No, but I think he comes from institutional money. What is his name? Dad, I can't get into it. Travarious Wingo III. Yeah, I mean, really, you're not born poor. It was your first name, Travarious or Trudevian? It's Hal. Hal for Davion Wingo III. How was Hawaii, Trey? Well, it was wonderful, Michael. And by the way, you could totally go. Didn't you have an Italy last summer? I'm just checking, all right? It wasn't last summer. It was two summers ago? Two summers ago, I guess. I believe it was a birthday gift for my wife. There you go. So she gave you a nice birthday gift. No, no, no, no. I gave her a birthday gift. The only gift for me was to stay with my... Not many people can give your wife that kind of gift. I'm telling you.  I mean, you went to like forever 23 and found every relative you had and flew them out to Hawaii. We did. My mom and dad came for like four days. That was it. See, that's institutional money when you go to Hawaii for just four days. Well, that's my dad and mom being in their 80s and closer to the coast. And they're like, yeah, what the heck? Why not? You're happy to have them. Did you have a good time? Michael, it's hard not to. I've never been there. Well, people always ask me, why do you go back every year? Then they go once, like Field Yates did this year, and they never ask that question again. So I just... Field Yates is too young to even deserve a Hawaii vacation. I wasn't Field Yates, by the way. It was Roger Santillo. And they're the same person. How old is Field? 26? I think he's just now allowed to see our rated movies. Yeah, come on. He needs to wait another 10 years before he deserves it. I still haven't taken my Hawaii trip. I'm 40. I'm hoping to get there. Let's go. And listen, you can literally take a direct shot from New York to Honolulu and then take a puddle jumper or a Hawaiian Airlines flight to any other island. It's a seven minute flight. So what do you wait for? How long is the flight from New York to Honolulu? I think it's like 11 hours. I can't do that. Yes, you can. I can't stand flying. So why would I be in a hurtling tin can? You have a tough job for someone who doesn't like flying during that time. It's the only part of my job I don't like. I don't like to fly. Why? But see, I mean, listen, I don't know how it works. But your frequent flyer miles must be through the room. No, they don't. I don't even belong to frequent flyer clubs because I don't want to fly in my free time.  OK. I mean, literally. Trey, we've never covered this before. Michael, you refuse to belong to any. I belong to one frequent flyer club, and that's American Airlines. I just don't have the time. You have the time, and you have the money. Let's be clear about that. But not Wingo money. Anyway, so you obviously were following sports while you were there, right? And you were playing a lot of golf from what I could tell. Can't confirm both of those things for sure. What's your take on the Astro situation? Are the players angry at the wrong person? Shouldn't they be angry at their own union? I guess. But I mean, my thing is, it's funny, on the way back, I watched the Billy Corbin pseudo-documentary called Screwball. Oh, it's supposed to be great, yeah. It's phenomenal. It's really, really well done. And I guess I'm still, I understand they're upset with Manfred for two reasons. Number one, the players, like we had Joe Giordi on this morning, OK? And Joe Giordi summed it up. He doesn't think, as you alluded to earlier, Michael, in your infinite wisdom on our time together on a Wednesday on the Michael Clay Show, that he doesn't think there's still any deterrent for players to stop doing it. Because Luna is gone. AJ Hinch is gone. Alex Cora is gone. Carlos Beltran is gone. But the Braggman's in the Altuve, and the Carlos Correa holier-than-thou approach about telling people to get the fact straight, are you kidding me? They're still playing. They still have a championship, and they have a chance to compete for another one this year. It still feels like the Lethal Weapon II plot, right? Diplomatic immunity. I could do whatever I want to do, because my union's so strong that nobody can touch me. And you know what? The football players should pay attention to this, because they don't have that, right? No other union in sports has that. The Players Association in baseball has it because of how strong they've been, how unified they've been. They canceled the World Series back in 1994 because of that unity. And nobody else has it. But I do think there's something wrong with the strong union translating into basically diplomatic immunity. No, I agree with you.  It will be ugly. And they'll probably win the appeal anyway. And the point being, so what? Because let's say Rob Bamberton, look, I know I'm going to lose this. I don't at the end of the day, but I have to stand up for something. I have to do spoofing so the players understand you can't do this. You know who would take the L? Even if the appeal was overturned? The union. It would be the players. That's the players union. I mean, by basically throwing up your hands and going, ah, what are you going to do? You know, to me, that's the worst thing he could have done. Just take the L. Instead of all things, to refer to the World Series, the commissioner's trophy as a piece of metal, you can say whatever you want about NHL commissioner Gary Beckman. You can say whatever you want about NFL commissioner Roger Goodell.  They would never say that. Well, the one thing. They would never say that. The one thing he's done now is made that trophy presentation after the World Series must watch. Because you imagine the reaction he's going to get when he hands that piece of metal to whoever wins the World Series. Yeah, especially with Justin Turner, what he had to say about it. Oh, that's unreal. Is anything you think going to come out? Is it significant to you, Trey, that LeBron chimed in? It is. By the way, the funniest line in the history of tweets, as far as I'm concerned, was in LeBron's response where he said, I don't play baseball, and then he added, but I am in sports. Hey, breaking news. Yeah, I know. I thought the same thing. And also, the idea that LeBron needs to qualify having a voice. Like, you know, LeBron, you're allowed to weigh in here, bud. Yeah, I'm just funny. I am in sports. It's going to go down as my favorite line in the history of Twitter, no matter what happens in the next 30 years. He is in sports. I knew I knew him from somewhere. See, but I like that. That's where I know him from. I like that. He's not so arrogant as to make you that you should know who he is. He's reintroducing himself, Trey. He's a big man. On a nightly basis, absolutely. He needs to work on his hashtag game, though. Can we agree on that? 100%.  But I do think that there is the possibility that this is just everybody continues to throw an accelerant on an already raging bonfire, whether it's, you know, Nick Marquekis, who Dusty Baker tried to dismiss him by saying, well, he never says anything. Yes, Dusty, that's the point. Even he, Nick Marquekis, who never says anything, is saying, your players deserve a beating. I was yesterday many old, many days old when I learned what Mike Trout's voice sounded like. I know, exactly. I actually said something, you know? I mean, this is how egregious the players think it is. And I'm holding out hope on some level that there will be a sort of a recycling. Well, what can we do? Because I don't know what the constitution of baseball says and all this kind of stuff. Could we, I mean, the Champions League and soccer banned Manchester City for two seasons for illegalities in terms of financial fair play. I mean, can we ban them going forward? I mean, there needs to be, in my opinion, and I agree with what Joe said, and I don't think he really wanted to say it. It just came out that, you know, there is still no deterrent for players and all. Well, I mean, the easy, I think the easy fix here, the one thing that he has in his toolbox, though, Trey, take away 2017. So what if it's unprecedented? Make a precedent. Take it away. That's not that hard. They should not be allowed to fly that flag and they should not be allowed to call themselves world champions. I think that that would be a big deterrent. I agree, and I bring up Adam Silver in this because basically, we all know commissioners are not the grandfatherly Gandalfs of their sport, right? Oh, they're just for the betterment of everything. All commissioners are hired by the owners and fired by the owners. Well, what Donald Sterling did when he owned the clipper was so egregious that Adam Silver essentially fired one of his bosses in removing Donald Sterling. And he was gonna do whatever it took to make sure that happened. And all the other owners said, you know what? We agree. This has to happen and it has to happen now. Now you could have made the argument they knew what he was a long time ago and they could have done it then. But eventually, because it was so egregious and so offensive to so many people that Adam Silver did the most unprecedented thing. And if he could fire one of his owners, I think that Rob Manfred, in continuing to see the incredible backlash, which I don't think is slowing down any time soon, can take another unprecedented step to your words, I think. And so what if it doesn't work and there's a fight and he loses? At least he said, I'm drawing a line and I'm standing for something. And I think that's what people are missing. The one thing I don't like that's being suggested, I think our friend Buster only also suggested, you know, he might not have the power to take it with the championship. I think he does, but he says, you should put an asterisk. To me, that's hollow. Because already they have a mental asterisk. We all know that they cheated in 2017. But we're trying to assure that in the 22nd century, if there's still baseball and Joe Buck the 9th is doing the World Series, that the bottom line is that they're gonna know that there was no 2017 title. Yeah, I agree just like there was no 94 World Series. Right. And I do believe that they're still, I don't think this thing, and I may be way out on a limb here, but it just feels like this thing is not yet completely written in my opinion. I don't think anybody really knew how this was gonna play out until all the players showed up. I mean, the first guy who sort of alluded to this was Indian's pitcher, Mike Clevenger, who in the most Clevenger way did this interview while getting another tattoo at a tattoo parlor and talked about some of the things that everyone else has now been saying.  Especially if you're going heavily. That's not something that I think is a good idea. And I think trying to crack down on that is fine. But when Dusty Baker has to say to Major League Baseball, hey man, you better be protective of my players. And then if that's what happens in light of everything else that they got away with, I mean, that's just gonna make things even worse. It's just become such a twisted cycle of mess right now, but I think something else needs to happen. You know, I just thought about this a little while ago when Michael had brought up the 2018 Red Sox, we're still waiting for the discipline for that team and the investigation to be complete there. And I think it would be unfair if they get hit harder just because of the timing of it, right? I mean, they have to be fair about this, but at the same time, I was thinking about taking the title away, which I'm all for. But let's say they take the title away from the Astros in 2017. They do the investigation on the Red Sox, find out there was impropriety, but it's not as bad as what the Astros did. Can you then say we're gonna let the Red Sox keep the title in 2018 because it didn't cross this imaginary line of demarcation? I think that's where it kind of gets a little dicey, right? Like, how would it look if the Astros lose it? But then for some reason, because the Red Sox did less, they don't lose their title. Yeah, and that's interesting because I don't know to what extent they have the information that they had with the Astros.   And then, of course, all of it turned out to be true. Literally all of it turned out to be true. So I don't know what kind of information they have in terms of what the Red Sox, they believe they did or didn't do, but it was bad enough for the Red Sox themselves to understand that, yeah, there was a line that crossed, they got rid of a very successful manager, you know what I mean? And the other thing that people keep talking about is, oh, give me a break, everybody does it. You're right, everybody does it, but nobody does it the way at this point, at least, and potentially the Red Sox as well, the Astros took it to that level with technology when there was a specific memo that went out and said, you cannot do this or you will be held accountable. And the Astros basically said, I hold my beer. I keep hearing everybody does it, well, then prove it.  That's why with the players speaking out the way they are. I mean, would they be speaking out to this extent if they were doing something that's even close to what the Astros are doing? I don't think so. They can't be that maniacal. I agree, and you know, the tipping pitches, that's one thing, and if you can pick up signs, that's fine. But to go through this elaborate system with the video replay and all the technology that, again, was specifically pointed in a memo from Major League Baseball that says, you cannot do this, and they went ahead and did it anyway, I think that's where the egregiousness lies in with so many people and so many players. Can I do something outrageous? Sure, sure. Can I mention something in pro sports not related to the Astros' cheating? Sure. What are your thoughts on Wilder Fury 2 this weekend? Are you excited? Are you making plans to do it? By the way, it's a huge company initiative.  Yes. No, I'm really excited about that, because, I mean, boxing is fine, but we all want, I mean, it just shows you how things have changed, right? At one time, the three greatest sports titles you could have in America would be the world's fastest man, the heavyweight champ, and the home run king, right? For decades, those were the three things. We all love heavyweights. I mean, we all say we like fighting, we like boxing and all that kind of stuff, but it's always best when you have heavyweights go at it. And these two guys are not only heavyweights, they're punchers, you know what I mean?  I think, well, is Wilder the only, is Fury the only guy that Wilder has not knocked out in a win? Is that, whether by KO or TKO, I think that's correct, right? That could be correct. I didn't know if he'd had a knockout or TKO in every single fight. George Foreman is picking Fury to win. Yeah, you know, it's interesting. He said if he's not knocked out in the first four rounds, he says he's gotta stay away with his length. He said if he's knocked out in the first four rounds, he will win on points. Yeah, it's, to me, I'm very excited about this because this is what you live for.  And Fury is a guy who's had his own sort of personal blemishes and hiccups along the way, but he's sort of been a retribution and sort of a rebuilding case. And, you know, he made a really interesting point with Max Kalman the other day. He's like, look, the last time I played him, I had come in, or fought him, I'd be coming off with two and a half years hiatus and I only had six months of training going into that fight and it ended up being a draw. And this time I've won through two years of constant training and five fights. I'm the best Tyson Fury I've ever been right now and no one has ever accused either one of these guys of being an artistic boxer. They are there to throw the big punches and that's the draw of heavyweights in general. We want to see the hammer throw. Well, and I'll say this, I think Fury is an artist and it's a different unique thing than we've ever seen before. When I first saw him against Klitschko years ago, I really did not think he was special.  And frankly all I really want, I just hope for the sake of boxing that Saturday night feels like a moment. We finally feel like everyone's dialed in. Like the people we know in sports who are fans are paying attention and frankly, if it's not gonna happen with these two heavyweights on a joint pay-per-view between Fox and ESPN, then when is it going to happen? That's a great point. I mean like the last big fight in terms of that captivated our attention from a boxing perspective was an MMA guy against a defensive fighter. Exactly, it was a joke. You know what I mean? Yeah, it was a joke. The guy who thought that Conor McGregor had a chance was absolutely kidding himself. He was gonna, I mean Floyd May that was gonna move, lose for the first time as a professional against a guy who's not actually a professional boxer, that was never going to happen. It was never going to happen. Before we let you go, I made this point yesterday. I think the guys agree with me as well. We spoke to Ernie Corsi at the Eli Manning retirement event. And of course he said that John Elway would have played for the Colts if they didn't trade him. He said, and Eli would have played for the Chargers if they didn't trade him. So I don't know if Joe Burrow is gonna say, I don't wanna play for the Bengals, but there's no way if I'm the Bengals. And I think that this is the guy that I would ever trade him.  Your thoughts? I don't know where Joe Burrow stands on this. Right. But I think Joe Burrow is being smart. The words that he used that sort of got this thing going was an interview with the Fort Worth Star Telegram. And I don't know what the question was. I just saw the answer from him, which was I do have leverage and so do the Bengals. They have their profits. But he doesn't have leverage. Well, he does. Well, all right, I don't wanna ever play again. That's his leverage. Is that what he wants? Right. No, but I think he wants to use the threat of that much in the same way Elway and Eli did it. And Ernie can say that, hey, he would have played. That's fine. But if they really felt that way, they probably would have kept both of those things and not tried to make the move and deal with that. He said he told the Colts owners, don't not trade this guy. He's not a good baseball player. That's his only leverage. He'll never play for the Yankees. And they traded him out from under him. And he said, I know for a fact that Eli would have played for the Chargers. He put the hat on. Right, but Kelly Stauffer is the test case right here. He, I can't remember what year it was, 83, maybe 84, that he basically set that out of year and went back into the draft for the second year. So it's not like you would never play again. It's just you'd have to wait another year before you could play. But then the Bengals would still get the number one pick. They don't lose the pick, right? Well, I believe that's how it works. I'm not sure about that because it depends on, then it would depend on next year's record. You know what I mean? I think they get awarded that pick if they don't sign their selection. I believe. I'll have to check it out. I'll have to check that out. I'm not sure, but that was certainly not the case for Kelly Stauffer when that happened because I believe it was a different team that drafted him. I'd have to go back and check, but he really did set out the year.  I mean, essentially his hometown team, I know they're not good, but they're not as bad as some teams that have thought of as good teams. I mean, they haven't made the playoffs four times in eight years, right? Right. Yes, they have.  No, man, Bengal fans should be pissed at the Bengals. They shouldn't be pissed at Joe Borough. They should be pissed at the franchise for making people think this way. To me, that's where the anger should lie. Well, we're so glad that you're back on the mainland and talking to us again. It's good to hear your voice again. I was, if you guys had dialed me up on Hawaiian time, I would have been happy to talk with you. But that's not right.  You're lathering up with, you know, all kind of exotic oils. You don't need to be on the phone. And we don't even know who the wild time is. I think it's essential oils. It's five hours. Essential oils are always important. Do you have an unbelievable tan right now? Yeah, I have a healthy glow. Oh, that's great. Look at you. But say we do want to do it when I was enjoying myself. That gives the impression that I don't enjoy our conversations, which I enjoy them very much. But not as much as essential oils. No, but put essential oils together on a beach with our time together, then we've really got something. You know, that is special. You know, next time you're in Hawaii, give us a buzz. That's how Jose Altuve says. Hey-oh! Hey! Too soon? Too soon? Not enough information. All right. Trey, welcome back. Thanks. That's a problem. Thanks, guys.


Mike Trouts, Shohei Otani, Dueled Jersey Autograph, 10 of 10, oh my god, bang-a-rang, Michael C! God man, what is going on tonight? Let's go baby.


I'm sorry, but I can't draw Kratos. I release all my art for free use so you can download, copy, change and even sell it, so doing that to Sony's property would be illegal. Funny thing is that the brilliant artists and writers at Santa Monica Studios did not know that Kratos already existed. So by accident they plagiarized mythology. Kratos means strength, is a son of palace and sticks, and an enforcer for suits. He takes part in the binding of Prometheus and is described as blunt, vicious and ugly. If I were to design a modern Kratos I'd focus on the anger of his face at features that the ancient Greeks saw as ugly, such as a bald head and perhaps some scraggie beard. And to make him a bit cooler I might even add some war paint or facial tattoos. And so I could accidentally make a copyright infringement. Because copyright allows corporations to steal from our cultural heritage, but we're not allowed to take things back even by accident.


My name is Fredrik, and this is, so we are here from Sweden, and we're gonna talk about how we achieved 10 times better quality with agile transformation. And as Sean said, I don't know if you attended his talk earlier. This is our experience, and we hope that perhaps you can learn something, but from it, but it's not how you can do. I mean, you have your own environment and cultures and everything, but I think it's good to spread the word that it's possible to be successful with agile, and that's what we want to do. Okay, now my mic is on. We have a goal of our own with this presentation, and it's about our key factors of the transformation, and the goal is we want you to understand why those key factors are so important for us. And we also want you to remember those key factors. These are our goal with this presentation. One thing that is almost important also for us is trust. We put the trust on you, because we want you to influence our presentation. You've been able to prioritize the presentation parts beforehand, and we also want you to ask questions during our presentation. Feel free to ask questions. So we said that you have been able to prioritize the talk, and it's sort of an experiment for us, and we have had in the conference again that we had a link from our talk to a web survey. I don't know if anyone, you have voted, but anyway, you had the possibility to do it. We have the voting here now in the list. We have a talk backlog, and we're gonna have this whiteboard where we have the sprint or the sprint, and also we have parts we have in progress and when we have talked about them. So we have divided it also, the board, into two sprints, and each sprint is 18 minutes. So it's time-framed, and it's two sprints, so then we will be able to re-prioritize in half time, then, if we see that we run out of time or something. And I won't go into the parts. They are in the conference again, if you want to have a look. We have time-framed all of them, or we have done like short sizes of how long time they will take, and we can show the current standing. This is the current standing from the survey. From the votes. And we're gonna run the presentation in the same way that you prioritized it. So we're gonna start with the key factors that have most votes, and so on. So perhaps, yeah, it's not a natural order, but it will be a prioritized order instead. And why do we do all this, Fredrik? It's because that's how we work in agile projects. We start with the most important things, and we don't want to skip them. Often you have the most important parts at the end of your presentation, and it could make sense, but perhaps you miss it then because you don't have time to tell your audience about them. And yeah, that's the way how we live and work, and hopefully it will be a more interesting presentation. We will see afterwards what you think. And as I said before, we will be able to reprioritize in mid-time. Okay, let's start with the first print. Could you move those notes to the first print, Fredrik? Yeah. Which one fits to the first print? So key factors, effects, road map, and problem description makes 80 minutes in total. So is this clear for you? Any questions so far? It's clear. Let's go. 80 minutes starts now. The first note. Key factors, then I move it into progress. And I took it. No one forced me to take the part. So these are the most important things or principles during our journey, I think. And the first one is a goal. Or some people call it values, but we call it goal. And it's really important to have a goal to strive for. And to make it possible for everyone to strive for it, it's very important that it's clear that you have discussed it, so everyone understands it and also supports it. Otherwise, there's no use of having a goal, I think. And when everyone understands it, it could be possible for a team to walk their own path. And that leads us to the other factor, Michael. This is our other factor, and it's a symbolizing trust. And we think that when everyone understands and supports the goals, it's powerful to work with trust. And when we trust the teams, they can take their own responsibility to reach the goal. This was our key factors. So you can put it to done? Yep. Oh, not yet, really. Sorry, not done yet. What makes it done is, for us, we have seen that the combination of those two makes it very powerful. If you have both the goal and the trust, then you have a very powerful tool. It's our experience. And it's also our most important principles. And these we don't negotiate with. Now we're done. The next part is effects, what we did with... In progress. Oh, I'm sorry. What did we achieve with this? So I'm sort of the manager of this project, for lots of projects we have. And for me, before I did spend lots of time handling tasks and resources. And now I don't, basically. Another effect is greater participation. Now we feel now that everyone cares more about the whole project. And we see that because they've got lots of ideas nowadays and lots of improvement suggestions that we didn't get before. And also we see much more cooperation between individuals and between the teams. We do almost everything together now and we didn't do that before. And that we think results in much better quality. One example is we are two speakers here today and we are doing that because we have been able to evolve this presentation between each other. And of course, other ones have looked at it too, but it's good to be true. And if I get sick, we have a backup in Michael, he could have performed it. So, and it's also more fun. And we think it's get better. Another effect is better communication. And here we have a lot of help with the agile structure. Now the stand-ups, the stand-ups. And we also sit together in open office that frames communication. We also have feedback loops for communication. And our customers have been, they are more involved now than before. They really appreciate this way of working and they feel they make a difference because we listen to them and we can change immediately. If we show something for them and they say, oh, I would like it this way, then we say, okay, they get response immediately and it seems like they like it. And we also ask them for their opinions and it feels much better than having it as it was before. We also have better flow today, much less bottlenecks and stops. And because everything we do now is visible and it's visible physically. We have all the tasks on whiteboards in our office today. We're gonna show it more later. We also have this climate of helping today which makes it easier to have flow. Also the good communication we're talking about helps. We also have cross-functional teams today, which makes less stop, better flow. We have a method for structured improvements. As you know, the agile methods provides the structure for continuous improvements and the most important one is the retrospective, basically, where we do our improvements. And we've also started with learning days and, like Michael said, feedback and coaching within the team that is structured. And our staff is much happy today. And we think that co-determination creates self-esteem within the staff, comfort and joy. And we think they're also proud, very proud today of their work. Yeah, they're often so happy, so I'm sort of embarrassed. I think, I don't know what we have done, but they seem to like it. That was the fix. Should we put it in done? How are we doing with the time? 11 and a half minutes left. The next one is the roadmap for the transformation. And the roadmap is basically how we did it. How did we do the transformation? We're gonna show it in a timeline. Maybe it's more visible then. Okay, everything started in the late 2011 with an idea. And the idea sounded much like, what if we keep teams together for a longer while? What happens then? And the more we talked about this idea, we thought the better it sounds. So, okay, let's try it. So in the beginning of 2012, we did start a pilot. We handpicked seven people out of four to five that we believe could be a good pilot team. And we said to them, okay, we're gonna try this. We're gonna try to keep you together. And the reason is we want to have better quality. That's the only reason we do this. And I was the scrum master for this team. And they asked me, okay, how are we going to work? What methods should we use? And I was like, well, I don't know. And someone said, well, maybe we should try these agile ways, methods. And then we thought, well, we can try that. So everyone in the team got this book from a Swedish author, Henrik Nieber, says the book name was Kamban versus Scrum, how to make the most of both. So everybody read it.  How should we work? What principles should we work? Kamban or Scrum or a mix of it? And now everyone in the team could have their opinion. And we also formed our own goal for this pilot team. I didn't thought of that first, because I was thinking this better quality goal was the only goal we should have. But the team made their own goals. And then we started to work. And we saw by start that this is going very good. The quality increased from the start of it. So it didn't took that long. When we reached September, we did put together another team. I was the Scrum master of this team too. So we had another seven people to this team. And I did the same thing. I thought I did the same thing with this team as the first team. But now things didn't go as fine as the pilot team. We couldn't see any increase of quality. So we were thinking about why aren't this team doing as well as the pilot team? And then we got it. The first team got this goal, better quality. We should do this by better quality. And they were really self-organized. And the other team got this goal, do as the first team. Basically, do as the first team. So when we realized that, it was kind of a ha moment for us. Then we had to work a little again. They had also to read this book, of course. And then we sat down and made our own principles. And we also made our own goals. And now everything was working fine again. We can see an increase of quality directly, I should say. So now we're in the beginning of 2013. After these two, the pilot team and the team two, we thought maybe we don't have to wait anymore. Let's roll out the agile for a whole project. So we put together team three, team four, and a supporting team, and also this coordinating team. And now everyone in the project was within a team. And by this time, we had realized that it's good to ask people if they want to do this. At first, we didn't really ask, I think, when we put together the pilot team. But now before we did this, we asked everyone, do you think this is a good idea? Is it something we'd like to do? And we also discussed how we should form the groups or the teams, we call them groups, but they are actual teams. And that ended up with this constellation. So, and now we'll go back in time a little bit. Now it's late 2012, around October, November. And I had this, another idea. And the idea sounded like, what if we let the team pick their own task? Before this, we had the product managers and the product managers handling tasks to people and teams. But then we thought, what if they should pick their own tasks to work with? So we did like we did before, we tried it. So in the beginning of 2013, when we had all those teams, we made this project sprint planning for the whole project. We're gonna talk a little bit, we're gonna show it a little bit later. But it's all about putting all of the teams together in one room and make the sprint planning together. That's what it's all about. And that one also went fine from the start, I think. Okay, when we look back at this time, from the late 2011 to the beginning of 2013, we think of this period as the agile transformation of our project. And this is the period where we realized that goal and trust is very important for us. Especially around this team two constellation where it didn't work so good for them at the start. But when we sat down again and gave them a clear goal and made them self-organized, we really realized that this is important for us. So, and do we stop after we have done the agile transformation? No, we didn't stop. So now we're into the agile evolution part, I would say. So we continue to work and we are developing our methods all the time. I will just show some suggestions that have come up from within the projects, the teams, different teams. Earlier we didn't have free seating, now the teams can select how they want to sit and as long as it works for everyone. We celebrate victories like our deliveries. One team prepares dinner or lunch for the rest of the project and then it goes round and it's also a nice way, it's really appreciated. We have this feedback, structure, structure of doing structured feedbacks within the teams and it's coaching a way of finding the driving forces for all the individuals in the team and perform better. We have updated our goals because, yeah, sorry. Yeah, or we said, we told them, we clarified the goal and let them make their own goals to reach that goal and earlier we asked, gave them the goals from group one and said, these are your goals and it didn't really work. So did it answer your question? Yep. So now we updated the goals, so we asked our customers and within our organization we have goals and also within the project we have goals that we want to reach so we coordinated all the goals and had a chat together the whole project and selected new goals basically and after that the teams went back and put up their own goals to reach the project goal and it seems to be a good way of spreading the goals and make everyone work with them for a while. It takes a day but it seems to work. And also we have started with learning days. It's sort of self-organized training performed within the project. So the co-workers can select what they want to do. They have to do it in groups and they have to show what they did the day after. Present a 10 minute abstract of what they did to everyone. So it's also a good way of sharing the result of the learning day. Okay, two minutes left. We're ready with a roadmap. Move it to Dan, okay. The next one is for you Fredrik. Oh, sorry, we're not ready yet. No, I'm not ready. Important principles. So we took the ideas to do this, came from within our project and we think that's really important. So it wasn't the management that told us you have to do this. I think that's a good way of doing things. It should come from yourself, not from someone else. And you have to dare to try and it's accepted to fail but you have to learn from your failures, of course.  We say evolution instead of revolution and we use test, evaluate, change. So we try something on and evaluate how it went and change if we have to. And if we are unsure about something, we use a pilot. So we just try it in a smaller, just one team or something like that. So now. All right, sorry. Roadmap to Dan. Yes. How much time do we have? Half minute. So let's start with problem description. So what was our problem now? This is an awkward order. We had quality issues, serious quality issues. So our customers weren't satisfied with what we did. So we had 80 stopping hours in production over a year, in a period of a year. And that was way too much for our customers. So they did complain. And we had to release those corrections in 11 emergency patches. Oh, now the sprint is up. First sprint is up. Time's up. And we didn't really get to the end. We didn't get to the end of it. So what should we do? I think we should move it to this one, to the sprint two. Yeah. And then we filled it up with results of the transmission, now and then, and a practical example. I don't know if we have much time for more than that. We'll leave the rest. We'll leave the rest. That's good. Okay. So let's keep on with the problem description. Yeah. The sprint two starts now. Yeah, we had this 11 emergency patches and we just released four times a year. So 11 emergency patches, they were quite disturbing. Especially since it stops the product in production for half a day to release those patches. And the customers, they were not satisfied, of course. So that's what we had to work with, the problem. And also, yeah. And also our own staff was quite dissatisfied because those 11 emergency patches made us stop working from our regular processes and start working with emergency progresses. And since there were so many, it seems like we almost worked on emergency patches because, and that made our staff quite dissatisfied. What did we do before our agile transformation? We had DSM, sort of an, it's an agile method, but it didn't help. We had, did use DSM since back in 2003. So, we thought we had to do something else. We, so we launched a quality assurance program and the assurance program came up with a couple of, or an action plan with IDs that we should try, but it couldn't really find a common point of failure. So, but it said that it's important. We saw that we needed more communication. That's why we started those teams, the pilot teams. Seems like this is, and we also did a certification. So, we took a certification, this ISO 20000, and that made us clear of our processes as they were then, but it was really hard to change those processes. So, I don't know, it gave us something, but it was hard to change them. So, that's why we, it didn't work, I think. But the, and the good thing about DSM was that our customer got used to being involved in what we did, and also they are very into prioritization. They know how to prioritize. So, now we're done with the problem description. Yes. Let's move on with the result of the transmission. This picture says it all, I think, it's about increased quality. It's the number of patches we had before the transformation and after. So, our goal is, of course, to reach zero patches in production, but we haven't reached that one yet. But perhaps soon, we hope so. We still have something to aim for. And this picture symbolizes satisfied customers. Of course, our customers are very satisfied. This is our second result. Of course, our customers are satisfied with the increase of quality. And how do we know that? Because we make service, but most of all, we know it because we talk to them a lot. It was a short one. Yeah, good. Good. So, that was the result. So, that was the result. Now it's, the next one is now and then. And what is that, Frick? Sort of a comparison of how we worked before and what we do now. So... It's the basic difference, maybe, in how we work. So, what we have seen, that before we didn't, we had goals, but they weren't clear. We haven't worked them through with the personnel or our coworkers. So, we didn't really know what they really meant. And now we have. We have a clear goal and everybody understands it and supports it. And we have it on the project level, as Frick talked about. And we have it on the team level. And we also have it down in the individual level. So, it goes from, up from the project, down to the teams, only way, all the way down to the individuals. Yeah, we have the centralized control where I was in charge of everything. And I had to do a lot of planning, but nowadays, I don't. Because I have the self-organized teams. Yeah, and you answered the question. Now we have self-organized teams, all the way. So, for me, this has been really good. I have time to be more visionary and do things like this. Earlier, we had focus on a task. When we started the project, I had to create a project group and put people in and it was a hassle, basically. And now we have the focus on the team now. The team sits together and if we have to move something, we move tasks now, not team members. And we can also assign a project to a team or two teams, perhaps, if we divide it. Or three, or all teams. Actually, we don't assign the projects, they take them on. And earlier, we were sort of spread out. We had different locations where we sat. And sometimes the developers sat in groups and the testers, they were situated somewhere else. And that was also not the best thing to do when we see it. And now we sit together. And it's important principles. We should sit together. That's important for us. It's so much easier to communicate. Are we done with that one? We're done. Okay, how's the time? Done. We have 11 and a half minutes left. Maybe we should be able to do more. Okay, let's start with the practical example. And the practical example is about the project, the sprint planning for the whole project I was talking about earlier. And it's a sprint planning session where we have actually divided into two parts. The first part is preparation, the preparation part. We have this big whiteboard, much bigger than this actually. It's about four meters wide in a special room that we have. And on this whiteboard, we actually do this before every sprint. So the preparation starts by us calling our customers other product owners. So the product managers and the product managers sit together with the product owners. And we actually do a prioritization of everything that is to be done in the project. So here we have tasks from different projects. These colors symbolize different colors. We have this product one, and product two, and product three. Actually, we have more projects and more tasks, but this whiteboard don't fit anymore. So you have to imagine a bigger whiteboard and more tasks. We also, almost every time, we have some internal tasks like that represent technical depth, like fixed unit tests and stuff. So we call our product owners. And together with them, we move tasks from the total backlog. Could you help me, Fredx, maybe? Into, and it goes, something like this. This product one is the most prioritized. So we put the product one into the high lane. OK, we have the high lane and the medium lane and the low lane. And here we have two different techniques, technique one and technique two, also that we have divided into. So the product one is the most important project. So it's up in the high lane. And then we have the product two. It's not that prioritized, but quite prioritized, things the product owners. And then we have the third project, and it goes something like this. And then we have our internal tasks. And then when we have done this, we talk to our product owners, and sometimes we can see that if we do this task, it's quite the same as this one. So if we do it, it's much more efficient, and it's cheaper for you. And they almost every time say, yeah, do it. So sometimes they say, and we can say that maybe we should do this. This is not as prioritized. And we do this together with our product owners. What did you say? The question was, what is the thing? The technique one and two. The technique one and two. The techniques we're working with? Is that the question? Yeah. We work with Java and Juniface, or the techniques? So basically, the teams are divided into tech teams. Like they either work with Java or Juniface. So they're cross-functional, but they do different. No, different, no. It's just the different techniques. Like, we have several products that we work with, but some products are written in Juniface and some in Java. So that's the difference. And it's still, we have the part, or the teams can't work with both, or they don't want it to. They wanted to work either with Java or Juniface. So they have their focus, and that's why we have divided the board into that way. OK, and this is pretty much what we do in the preparation phase. So after the preparation, that's typically like 30 minutes in the morning, in the afternoon, we gather everyone in the project.  And all the project managers tell, they tell all the stories, basically, what we should do this sprint. And it's very important that the high lane is emptied, so nothing should remain there. But if the teams want to, if they see that they can do this task together with this, and it won't cost more than they can do it. But it's important that for us, the product owner is not in this meeting. He could be, or they could be, in the future. But right now, they are not there. Sometimes we give them a call if we have something to understand. Because this meeting is more of a work meeting. It takes, like, one and a half hour. All the teams discuss the notes and the meaning of them. And we have, like, short sizes. We have estimated them beforehand. But they do more detailed estimates if they think they need to. Because they know how much they could put into each sprint. And then they grab the tasks and put into their own board. And this board is always up in this room. We have dedicated for this. So if one team doesn't have enough things to do, or they are done, they think they can go in here and check if there are tasks we should do. And also, of course, we communicate between the teams. So they help each other at first. Quite often, we end up with teams shifting tasks between them after a while. That's a common task. But the basic thing is that the teams pick their own tasks. And this has been quite an effective way. It's quite simple. But it's an effective way of spreading what we're doing during a sprint. And we started off with having goals for a sprint, too. But we don't have that anymore. But it could be effective. Sometimes it depends, I guess, what you do. But we dropped it after a while because we didn't need it. Or we didn't want to have it anymore. And one other thing is everything gets visible this way. Everything is on this white board all the time. And even those things that we don't pick, they're still there at the board. So the teams can go pick them after a while if they have one out of tasks. Are we ready with this one? Yeah. OK. Good. Now we have time left, Fredrik. What should we do then? Oh, we have done well. Let's see, have a sign. Yeah, the groups, they take the task with them to the teams. They put them up on their sprint board, sprint planning board. Can you repeat the question? I was just confirming the understanding that tech one could have G1, G2, and tech two could have G3, G4, something like that. They are the small internal teams, right, of techs. But yeah, it's that. So are there questions? Or didn't we answer the question? I have thought you clarified. Once again, then. No, yeah. That needs to be it. How much time do we have left? So now we have some minutes left of the sprint, but I decided to put in the summary to the sprint. And it's not even on the board. So let's move on to that one. So we just want to repeat the key factors, the most important things we have learned during this. And it's the goal and the trust. And this is really what we work with all the time. If we wonder, how should we solve the problem? We think of this, what does the goal say, and how could we trust our coworkers to solve it? And that's basically how we solve all our problems. So earlier, it was quite common that someone came up to me and asked, Frederick, how should we do? You have to decide. You have to decide this and that. And if I went there, everything stopped. And nowadays, it just flows. That's the flow picture we showed. I don't get questions anymore, basically. People do. And if they do too much, I can tell them, OK, next time, perhaps. I don't tell them to ask, but you have to think more if it doesn't go well. But I still encourage them to try, because that's what I want them to do, think by themselves. It's better if we have 45 thinkers than just one thinker. We produce so much more, I think. And we have more fun, too. Now the sprint is finished. OK, questions, non-serves. We have a question.  So when we talk about this goal, so do you guys define the goals per sprint? And are these driven by the requirements, or what is your major drive behind getting these goals? I didn't forget. He was asking about the goal. How do we define the goals? Maybe that was the question. Where do we get it from? Is it requirement-driven? No, the goals live longer than so. I mean, we have a picture here where we have our updated goals, so you can see them. So these are the goals that we have decided within the project team. And we have asked our customers and our organization and also ourselves, what do we want to achieve? And what do we think is the best goals for us? So we put up these short-term goals and the long-term goals. We had this workshop session for a half day, maybe, where we worked with these together. And this was the goals that we ended up with. And we have put them up on the wall so we can see them all the time. And then when we had these project goals, each team worked with them and tried to understand them. And from these goals, they put up their own goals to be able to reach these ones. And actually, we had the meeting after all the team had gathered and selected up on their own goals. And they told everyone that these are our goals. And they were different for each group or each team. But that doesn't matter as long as this is our vision or the goal we strive for together. It doesn't matter which part we take because we are different as humans. We don't think the same way. So if one team wants to do it in one way and another team wants to do it another way, it doesn't really matter for me as long as we strive for this. And that's when we can trust the teams. I know they are working towards this. So some guy and a developer he asked, why don't we strive to work faster, produce more? And I said, that's okay. You can do it in your team as long as we keep high quality because that's what our customer asks for. They never ask for efficiency in a way of working fast. They always ask for quality. They want high quality. And the thing is when we have high quality, we can produce so much more. So actually, since we started this, we have reduced the workforce by half. So just half of us are left. We haven't said that, but it's because we are doing so much, things so much better. So we started to work, but the other ones are not, they are still working with us, but they're doing other stuff instead. So it's been really good. We have another question here. Wait for the mic.  Yeah. The whole project? Yeah. Or one team? Yeah, okay. Whatever is your span of your team size, whatever this is applicable for. How much is that? How many people are there? In total, when we started, we were like 45 people. 45 people. Yeah, and then we had five teams. But now we're down to three teams. So how do you, see, the key to success of any of these initiatives is the trust, okay? So how do you keep this sustained? See, people are together, and I think probably it's about three years, okay? And probably, I don't think you keep adding, and moving people from the team, right? So how do you sustain this? One of the things that you said, one team will cook further there, or something like that. Okay, I heard that. Yo, how do you do that? Yeah, nothing wrong? Well, one of the things we do, we have those feedback loops. We have structured the way we give feedback. So four times a year, our scrum masters give feedback to the team members, and then we have structured the way the questions that we form them. So we have, basically we ask questions about the project goal and the team goals. So we give feedback and also take feedback back from the members. So that's how we can know how our team members are, if they are happy, if they are working towards the goal, or if they're not. And we are working a lot with finding everyone's driving force, basically. And when we work like this, I think it makes it easier for us. We talk a lot with our coworkers, and we ask them, what would you like to do if you could choose? You can choose immediately, but when we're working like this, it has made it possible for us to, or given us the opportunities to let our coworkers choose what they would like to do. And yeah, that way I think we can produce so much more. So they are free and they can select what they want to do within the constraints we have put up. I think time is up, is it so? Time is up, yeah. Thanks for us. Thank you. Please give us, you can always come up to us and give us feedback. We really would enjoy that. Yes. Thank you.


So I think I've got like 25 minutes, so I'm going to try to get to the how-to of each of these because we can do that, we don't have to do martial arts. Martial arts is one of the best ways to develop this but we have to do something physical. And I think everybody here, almost everybody here is in the health and fitness. So there's some form of exercise that you can do to help develop this. You can't develop it to the degree that I'm telling you without something physical. It's impossible. A lot of this is mental but it's the physicality that will bring it out of you. Doing something physical in conjunction with all these. So let's look at the focus. This is just an exercise in widening our focus using our peripheral vision and narrowing it. So all we have to do is something physical. When we are assessing the room, look at my posture, I'm looking up and I'm using my peripheral vision and I'm using this anchor, this kinesthetic anchor to look around. So you can literally walk around and practice your focus but what happens when we want to zero in on something? What do we do? Physically with our eyes.  See me, when I'm talking to somebody, especially like Steve, I look at his nose, I'm thinking about...  But that's, you know, it's that feeling but the squinting. See when we focus in on something. So you want to practice oscillating between the extremes and each one of these, that's the secret. When you oscillate between the extremes and you can do it at will, you don't need a cue. You don't need to get pumped up, it just happens. And you'll see with fighters, you know, they have to get to a certain state before they do that, before they get in their fight. That's something a little bit different, okay? And they have the luxury of time. See, an MMA fight or a cage fight is not a street fight. And so we don't have the luxury of preparing for it other than our training outside of it but when it happens, it's going to happen. It never does but if it's going to and it happens, we have to have the ability to respond instantly to it. Otherwise, you're fucked, right? If somebody jumps out from a bush and is intent on attacking you and you don't have that in your mind and no training, you will have some fight or flight but most of the chances, if you don't have that ability to, you know, if a guy actually physically grabs you and throws you and you can't kick into that, it's going to be a tough night for you, okay? But you don't even need it for that but it's that ability to go from 0 to 100 that is the secret, okay? So we want to oscillate back and forth from wide to this. So you can just pick one thing out in the room, look at it and go wide and look at it, right? And it's going to be used in seduction. Actually, I told Steve a long time ago because I occasionally look at some of the stuff. I'm married now but I occasionally look at some of his stuff, right? And when he does his rapport cycling, what is that? That's like a fractionation. Anybody familiar with his rapport cycling? So what he's doing is he's taking the state from a light open playful and then he's turning up the intensity and he's focusing and then you go back and it fractionates the subject. See, so this phenomena exists in everything, right? So our focus, we want to go from wide to narrow. So our intent, our thought process. Remember, we want to have as little internal dialogue as possible. We want to turn it down because we don't want to get caught up in the subjective mind. We don't want to get caught up with what's in here, of what we think should be out there because we need to assess.   You need to open your awareness. So we need to have a type of, this type of, hey look at that, hey look at that, hey look at that. We take the peripheral and we're pointing it out to ourselves. It's a mental and like nice blue shirt, nice light that lights bright. You know, things that we're observing, right to me, that are in our peripheral. And then we want to focus in on one thing and just that's the one thing that exists. So candy, right? But it's oscillation. So we want to do this as an exercise focus, exercise focus, exercise focus, right? We want it like that. That's a simple way and that's something you can do without the martial arts. But I'm going to put this all together for you in a physical activity that will elicit this out of you.  So that's what we want. We don't want to look too crazy, but we want to be able to be crazy when we want to. So our actions, if you're talking about footwork, side to side, right? So I can just literally jump rope and then when I go to this, sprint forward and go back to jumping rope. Sprint forward, back. Emotions. So once we get all these things in sync, because we want to shift our focus, our intent and our actions all at the same time, our emotions have to go with it. So what's one way to start to control emotions? Observe them. Breathing. Breathing. And you will observe them. You will. You'll feel the initial and then you'll observe where they go through your body. Breathing. So when we're here, easiest way is to breathe from your diaphragm. Just that. Remind yourself, breathe from your diaphragm more often. Because we carry our emotions to a large extent up here, especially when it's life or death. So we can purposely guide our emotions up here. I always like to make that like it goes up your thing because it comes from our base from here to here. And usually when you're exerting yourself, you're going to breathe from there anyway. If it's 100%, if it's a sprint, a burpee, something like that. Where you're going 100%, you're going to breathe from up here. So what's an exercise where we can use all these that I can give you guys? Well, one thing I'll suggest, and I think hitting stuff is one of the best ways. But since some of you guys probably won't do that. Hitting other human beings is even better. It's probably the best thing. But what we'll do is we have our focus. So what is your focus? One of the best things, very simple, easy. I'm going to just write this down. Tabata rounds. Who knows what tabata rounds are? Anybody. What's a tabata round? Right. So 20 seconds. So you pick an exercise. It can be squats. It can be whatever. What are these types of squats called? Yeah. Jump squats. No. Never mind. You can do jump squats, but whatever. So whatever your exercise, it can be push-ups, it can be burpees, whatever it is. But in my opinion, it's got to be something where you're exerting yourself. Where your whole body's involved almost. But we want tabata rounds. You said it was 20 seconds on of intense exercise with 10 seconds off. So we change this and say tabata rounds with random intervals. But your exertion interval doesn't exceed the 20 seconds.


Every single lady is your user powers of engineering and more to search on digikey.com Take a digikey for the parts that you're looking for. This is a great search lady. What are you looking for this week? A common request. We have people who have emailed us multiple times and they said, I want to pick up a low cost oscilloscope. My first oscilloscope. And they want some suggestions and I was like, oh, I don't really have a good suggestion. I haven't looked at what's available in the market. I thought I would use that for the great search to check out digikey, see if there's a couple of good options available and also talk about some of the tradeoffs. Basically, if you have infinite money, you can get the best scope in the world. But if you don't have infinite money, let's say your budget is like $500, which I think is pretty fair for a good desktop scope. You do have to trade off what you're willing to spend money on and what you're willing to let go of in order to get other specs that are better because it's all going to be, all the specs are going to be, they're going to affect the price. The more bandwidth, the more expensive, the more channels, the more expensive, the bigger screen, the more expensive. So what's important to you? So it's a tradeoff. Again, if you have $5,000, you probably don't have to trade off any of these things. You get exactly what you want. But for $500, let's see what's available. So let me go to, yeah, I was going to do a great search about IMUs, but there are no IMUs, so it was like, it was a total downer. Maybe, maybe when there's more available. Okay, so we're at DigiKeys, it's got a computer. And we're going to type in a oscilloscope, which is tough to spell, but they do have them. I think I got my first oscilloscope from DigiKeys as well. So there's a couple scopes.  Now, I'm biased. You will get a higher spectoscope if you don't have a screen, but I really, really, really like the benchtop ones with the screen. I don't, there's some people who can do the USB ones. I just don't like them. It's personal. I just don't like them. Other people can do a video where they say how much they love them. I really like to have the knob. I like to be able to see the waveform and I'm twisting the knob at the same time. I don't necessarily like computer style. So that said, let's just do basic. First off, I want benchtype. I want it to be active. And I'm only going to look at ones that are in stock right now because I'm not going to suggest a scope that you can't get. So again, there's going to be a lot of trade-offs. So the things that I find most important in an oscilloscope is number one, the number of channels, because there's no upgrading. You know, it's like once you get the channels, that's fixed. You pay more for more channels. There's basically either two channel or four channel. Those are your options. Now, I have four channel scope and I've always kind of purchased four channel scopes, but I'll say, you know, 99% of the time, I don't use four channels. I use two channels. There's a trigger and there's a response, especially if you're doing analog, but even with digital, because instead you'd get a logic analyzer that you would use for your digital signals. And part of the reason for that, of course, is digital signals are usually much, much faster than analog signals, like ironically. It's not unusual to have a microcontroller that is running the SPI line at 60 megahertz, 80 megahertz. ESP32 can do that. The Raspberry Pi can do that. Sometimes you're looking at a crystal, but usually crystals aren't that fast. Usually crystals are like, if you're looking at oscillation on your analog scope, it's going to be 12 or 24 megahertz. So, you know, if you have a logic analyzer, you can get away with a two channel scope. If you don't, there have been times where I'm like, I want to look at the chip select line, the data clock line, and, you know, whatever, some other line. It's possible. Or I want to look at the power supply voltage while I'm also looking at, you know, I squared C. So, it is possible that you'll need four. I'm going to assume, however, that you're going to want two. But you definitely want not one. One channel is kind of useless, in my opinion. I think you really need two. So, let's look at the two channel scopes. Next step that I'm actually going to pay for is bandwidth. Bandwidth is kind of sort of the fastest signal you can look at. It's a little bit more complicated than that, because if you're looking at a square wave, you know, the square wave, you're like, oh, it's a 50 megahertz square wave. But the square wave has higher frequency components that will not come through. And so, you'll kind of get a sinusoid instead. You know, again, if you have a logic analyzer, you could probably get away with a slower scope. However, I really think that 100 megahertz is kind of the minimum. I did look at this, and there were scopes that I had a 60 megahertz bandwidth. I think if you want to last a couple of years, get 100. You know, it's not just how fast is the frequency of the thing. It's how good is it going to be at reproducing rise times. And if you're doing, you know, if you're looking at some digital signals, you might need to look at, you know, skew or slew rate. It's not a bad idea.  I'd say, you know, 70 plus is good. For beginner scope, you're probably going to get about, like, 100-ish. You know, my desktop scope here is, it's 5 gigahertz, 5 giga samples per second, 1 gigahertz bandwidth. But it's also a very fancy scope. So, you know, what you're going to do. But it wasn't my beginner scope. My beginner scope was 100 megahertz bandwidth. It was a TDS, Tektronix TDS 2014, I think, which was 100 megahertz four-channel color scope. The good news is that pretty much every scope is LCD. So that's nice. They're going to be lightweight. You're going to be able to carry it, put it on your desk. You can't search by price, but you can sort by price. Since we have a budget of about $500, I did that. And there are a couple good options.  You know, here's another thing, you know, in addition to bandwidth, memory size. So, if you're zooming into or you want to scan through a waveform, memory size is going to be something that comes up. It seemed to me while looking at these options that there's kind of like either 20 kilopoints or like a mega point and higher. I actually kind of feel like you could save a lot of money on lower kilopoint memory, but I actually have been really annoyed. I remember once I used a scope with very low kilopoint memory and it was really annoying because I couldn't trigger something and look later at the signal. It was like you couldn't zoom in.  You trigger on the longer signal and you zoomed in.  I don't care about the interface as much. I've never used Ethernet or USB or Wi-Fi. At the most, I've used like grab a screenshot, but everything has a screenshot capability these days. That's not a big deal. And of course phones are really good and with an LCD, you can just take a photo with your phone. You know, it's, I know it's a little tacky, but there's no real reason. So there were a couple options here and I didn't look at, you know, why the, you know, the why and which, they're all kind of the same family, these Ohan SDS7 series. It looked like what you're paying for basically is bandwidth at this point because, you know, we selected a range. So 170, 70 and 100, 200. You know, if you're, if you're, if you're really up to about 500 bucks, you know, this 200 megahertz, 10 mega point one is, is pretty good.  It's only two channel, but it is under, you know, you'll get it for 500 bucks and it's got a giga sample per second and 200 megahertz. That'll last you quite a bit. You know, you get this in college or something and you'll be using it, you know, easily for five, six years. And I've seen people use these scopes. You're the only other thing that you don't really get to know from specs just purchasing and why it's good if you can find someone with the same family of scope or the same model is how good it is at triggering. I've always liked the tech scope triggering. I found it's really solid. It's very reliable. I remember a long time ago. Wiggle scopes did not have very good triggering, but I think that's probably improved. That was like 10 years ago. I think probably it's a lot better. But if you do have somebody with these scopes, you'll put on a signal where you want to trigger on something and look at, is it stable or is it kind of like freaky? Can you do a single shot? And like, it'll actually get the single shot. But as for actual capabilities, pretty much every scope has the same capabilities these days. You could always, you know, have triggers and you can have, you know, measurements on screen and you can do math and you can do FFT. That's super, super standard. So this would be, I think, a good two-channel scope for beginner under 500 bucks. And then they also have a four-channel one. It's like 650. I think if you can spare the extra 200, go for the four-channel. It'll definitely make you very happy, but I think this two-channel scope is a good beginner scope that will also take you pretty far. So, you know, assuming you are, you continue to be interested in electronics, you'll be able to use this for almost everything. All right, that's a great church.