Today in lecture 12 will be discussing the static characteristic of feedback system. So let us see what we have done in the lecture 11 previous lecture we had considered the basic aspect of negative feedback and positive feedback in the last year last lecture. What is the major advantage of negative feedback in systems that is desensitization of the active device parameter in the performance factors of the feedback system. And the second important function is to generate an inverse function okay given a specific function it may be a non-linear function right. So to generate an inverse function right we put it in a feedback loop okay and that can facilitate generation of inverse function. So these two are the main advantages of negative feedback and a variety of applications emerge out of it. Feedback output follows the feedback output follows the input that is the basic idea that we get when the loop gain is very large compared to one. So this is an important basic principle that the feedback output always follows the input in any feedback negative feedback system with loop gain much greater than one. That means error at the point of determination of the error okay in a feedback system the error tends to 0 as loop gain tends to infinity. The resultant effect we have voltage follower application in electrical engineering current follower or these are called buffer stages acting as power amplifiers. So whose performance in terms of transfer parameter since it is equal to 1 is independent of all the parameters used in the loop okay. So frequency follower phase follower so these are the variety of applications we have discussed in the previous class right. This is in what is called encoder decoder kind of loop that we have formulated which is very useful in again a variety of applications in communications. Square router from a square FM detector from an FM generator D to A converter from A to D converters are the resulting functions in signal processing that emerge out of feedback negative feedback. So today we will be discussing the effect of offset in feedback systems. Let us say G1 represents the sensitivity factor of a block that we are considering or G1 is the transfer function of the system. So X naught is equal to G1 into XES that is if we have a block that is made up of G1 this is what we are considering G2 is the feedback system this is X naught this is XI XES. So this is the error so we have seen that this G1 block has its output which is nothing but XES times G1 if there is an offset what happens is X naught is not equal to just this into the input plus some factor which is independent of the input okay this factor which is independent of input in this case XES okay is called an offset this can arise in any system okay. So it is still a linear system so in a linear system if the output is having a factor which is independent of input it is called offset okay and what happens to the offset that is introduced at the output okay to the system. So we are now having this system XI is the same input okay XF is the feedback output which is X naught times G2 let us consider this is also linear like this okay but does not have any offset here so offset is present only in this we are considering that is considered as an additive okay signal at the output this is the XO offset. So we have here this output now coming as X offset plus the output of the ideal block without any offset. So XES into G1 emerges here so this is XES into G1 so this X offset gets added here okay so this X naught is going to be XES into G1 plus X offset so that is what is written so we have here XI minus G2 into X naught okay so we have input to this as XI minus X naught G2 into G1 that is what is emerging here plus X offset okay is equal to X naught. So what happens X naught now becomes equal to G1 into XI by 1 plus G1 G2 this is the result of negative feedback now so we can see here that we got back the original relationship for the transfer so XI is G1 into 1 plus G1 G2 so if G1 G2 is much greater than 1 this is nothing but XI by G2 this is the inverse function okay plus X offset and if G1 G2 is very large this gets reduced to 0 this tends to 0 that means offset at the output okay of a feedback system is the original offset okay transfer feedback divided by the loop gain roughly so this is what we can now understand in terms of offset getting reduced considerably so this can be thought of as another input coming there so whatever input comes even if it is noise for example that gets reduced by loop gain so offset is a sort of component which can create noise because offset if it is a constant value independent of time okay can always be subtracted whereas what happens is the offset is dependent upon temperature and time etc so it drifts it changes with respect to time and that gets confused with the signal that comes into the picture right. So it gets added to the signal and therefore it might cause the effect of low frequency noise very low frequency noise okay so this is also getting eliminated in a negative feedback system by loop gain by a factor of loop gain okay now nonlinearity you are supposed to have a linear system okay and what happens to the nonlinearity with practically is there in most of the systems right so the nonlinear effect can also be thought of as an effect that is introducing noise okay unwanted component at the output you can treat it this way also right so it also gets reduced that is in principle what happens in negative feedback but we will mathematically establish this nonlinearity and particularly the most important nonlinearity that we have to understand in system design first okay is the saturation analytic most of the systems okay maybe linear up to a certain range okay of input and thereafter the output gets saturated what is the saturation saturation simply means there is no change in output in that region for a change in input no change in input for further changes okay no change in output okay for further changes in input that means delta X naught by delta XES for example okay is going to no change in output for further changes in input that is called saturation input output relationship of G1 and G2 can be nonlinear therefore so how do we tackle this system in terms of linear analysis so we have to make what is called a piecewise linear approximation to nonlinearity so in general G1 is going to be a function of the input itself okay or G2 is going to be a function of its own input which may be X naught in this case so that is what is meant by nonlinearity most common nonlinearity saturation and it is the odd symmetric saturation effect that we are considering that means a thing goes into saturation it may be linear here okay on either side okay in a symmetric manner let us consider that kind of nonlinearity okay output is saturated the feedback loop gets broken now when any of the blocks inside a feedback system go to saturation then the loop gain goes to 0 so in saturation state the loop gain goes to 0 so what happens is that the feedback gets broken the dynamic range of the input signal over which the feedback effect exists is what is called the lock range of the feedback loop okay where for example output of the feedback okay tracks with the input that happens only as long as the thing is within the limits of saturation that we call as may be lock range of the feedback this is an important concept that we have to understand in feedback so saturation nonlinearity for small changes around a cohescent value now cohescent becomes important that means operating point at which the system is functioning is an important aspect of nonlinear systems that we have to consider and then assume it to be linear only over a small range around the operating point the for a path gain now the gain function may be approximated as this also called sensitivity around that point okay operating point so this sensitivity so output parameter may be different from the input parameter so that is why we have instead of gain function we call it a sensitivity factor in general when the output is of a different parameter compared to input saturation may be modeled as normally hyperbolic tan function so that is when XI is large it saturates okay positive it saturates at a positive level and negative it saturates at a negative level okay so X naught therefore is modeled as G 1 0 that strictly speaking the factor which is linear this is the linear term output is linearly related to input then the nonlinear terms so they are there is no square okay because it is all symmetric so cube minus right so what happens is that it is linear over a certain range around 0 and then the first thing that comes into picture is the cubic term contribution then the fifth order so as you go further and further in XES magnitude the higher and higher all the contributions become more and more dominant and that is how the output saturates so delta X naught by delta XS itself that is the slope itself is a function of its input so this is odd symmetric this will be even symmetric okay that is what is happening the slope is even symmetric that is modeled here this is the hyperbolic tan function saturating okay at this point and this point okay on the other side and this is this slope of this okay from a maximum value at X equal to 0 okay it is going to 0 on either side symmetrically so this is the typical nature of most of the blocks that are used in systems so study of saturation can be done by making use of for example the hyperbolic tan function in general we can study it using piecewise linear approximation to nonlinearity negative feedback system and saturation that is consider this it is assumed that G2 is linear and there is no output offset okay if saturation is simplified to include only the third order term now okay that means you are having a mild amount of saturation coming about only due to the first nonlinearity that is the third order term in saturation symmetric saturation so X naught therefore is equal to G10 into XI minus G2 into X naught that is XCS okay into 1 by factorial 3 which is 6 G10 into XCS cube so X naught now is equal to G10 XI by 1 plus G10 G2 this what is already known to us and what happens here you can see G10 by 1 plus G10 G2 into XCS cube so when the cubic nonlinearity has small contribution to this linearity then we can assume that rest of the higher order terms go faster to 0 okay so XCS cube is nothing but XI by G10 G2 whole cube that means G10 G2 the loop gain when it is large the error due to the nonlinearity goes to 0 very fast because of the loop gain being very high compared to 1 that the cubic of that loop gain is going to be huge quantity that means it becomes almost linear because you can neglect the contribution due to this nonlinearity so that is what is mentioned in this slide so that is demonstrated very clearly by the macro model now the significance of macro model is understood by you here we had already discussed how the nonlinearity can be modelled as piecewise linear approximation so here we have G1 stage which is V in voltage amplifier okay which is 100 times V in as the voltage source here voltage control voltage source with gain equal to 100 and then we have a voltage limitation at the output caused by a macro model so the power supply limitation okay of an actual amplifier brings about this limitation and you see how that has been brought about here artificially in the model okay using devices which may not be there in the actual amplifier at all this limitation comes about due to power supply so that has been modelled as a diode in series with 10 volts supply here this has been modelled at the output with a diode in the reverse direction and the minus 10 volts here okay so what happens with this effect right we have a gain of 100 for this stage which is coming about as a linear relationship that means slope is 100 this is the output of the amplifier and this is the input and then it goes abruptly to saturation okay at 10 volts positive on that side and minus 10 volts negative on this side that has been modelled then we have put another voltage control voltage source with gain equal to 1 so that this becomes a voltage control voltage source which is simulating a characteristic of an amplifier with gain linear in this range okay that means it is linear all the way up to okay this 20 volts okay this 10 volts by 100 here which is okay 0.1 volt is minus 0.1 volt 10 volts by 100 110.1 so that is the linear range of the amplifier that I am using in a feedback loop so this feedback loop has G2 equal to 1 by 10 what is 1 by 1 plus 9 1 by 10 so there is G1 equal to 100 okay G2 equal to G10 equal to 100 G2 equal to 1 over 10 so the actual gain of the amplifier because this output the input follows the I mean output follows the input so this voltage is also VI and this voltage automatically becomes 10 times VI because of the attenuation factor here 1 by 10. So actually it has been designed for an amplifier of gain 10 and the system saturates at plus minus 10 volts that is what is depicted here and you can see what is called the static characteristic of the feedback amplifier so the feedback amplifier also goes to saturation at the same point as 10 volts and 10 volts however the voltage range over which it is linear now is going to be this change which is 20 volts okay 20 volts divided by 10 okay that is 2 volts that is 1 plus minus 1 volt this is the range so this is what happens this range minus 1 this range is plus 1 so within this range it is going to be linear perfectly linear so you can see here the input limit to saturation that is the lock range of my stage the range of input okay is going to be plus minus 1 volt within which it is going to be linear. So this is demonstrated by applying a signal low frequency 1000 hertz okay to the amplifier and you will notice that it has gone into saturation as plus 10 volts and this is at minus 10 volts so the output does not change as the input is changing so it is getting distorted okay because of saturation limits so we should confine our input to plus minus 1 volt in order to avoid this okay. Now feedback system within offset so what I have done is that I have made the limit of saturation change from symmetric value of plus minus 10 volts to 0 to 20 volts so this is bringing about the saturation at 0 and the other one is at 20 volts so obviously the operating point of this at the input should now change from 0 to an offset voltage of about 1 volt so we have to have a 1 volt operating point around which the signal can equally swing on either side so that is the effect of offset in a system that is input itself should be offset suitably in order to gain advantage of the maximum dynamic range of the feedback system okay. So the dynamic range has remain the same as before that is 20 volts peak to peak however in order to gain advantage of the dynamic range of 20 volts one has to operate the system at an input voltage of 1 volt or the output cohescent of 1 into 10 that is 10 volts. So the input should have a cohescent of 1 volt output will then have a cohescent of 10 volts so you can symmetrically swing on either side of the cohescent for this particular system. So you can see the piece wise linear approximation now to non-linear systems what is done is G2 is taken in this example as 1 G1 is as before 100 over a range of input which is plus minus 50 millivolts from 50 millivolts to 550 millivolts it has a gain of 10 that means the gain is changing instead of continuously changing we are changing it piece wise okay. Then for a range of 550 and above it has gone to saturation gain is 0. So the slope is 0 so the slope is 100 initially changes to 10 and slowly changes to 0 there beyond this point and what happens to this kind of non-linearity which is an approximation to hyperbolic 10 non-linearity and that is modeled now again you have a voltage control voltage source with gain equal to 100 and then you have put an attenuator here okay so the attenuation is going to be initially 1K okay none of this diodes conduct okay initially okay and therefore the output is open so gain of 100 appears at the odd then this 100 is simply transferred to this as 100 because we are using a buffer stage here of in the gain. So the model is now depicting a non-linearity which is we can be drawn here gain of 100 then gain of 10 then gain of 0 right. So this is the model the voltage control voltage source is having okay that is simulated by these piece wise linear approximations the diode resistor scheme that is put in full feedback output is completely feedback that means feedback amplifier gain is 1 because output is fully feedback. So V naught by VI is 1 so what happens now this is the transfer characteristic of the feedback amplifier now you can see that it is almost linear okay fully right all the way up to saturation point okay the error is extremely small you can not visibly see this actual characteristic of output versus input of the voltage control voltage source okay is given here this is gain of 100 is gain of 10 and 0 so it is actually non-linear over the entire region okay. So this is its input and that is the output and that input in a feedback is almost not visible at all as far as the transfer characteristic is concerned that is how it gets the attribute of reducing distortion in feedback. So this is what is the input signal now is applied okay 1000 hertz as before okay this is the input and it is 10 times the input is going almost all the way up to 10 volts and is perfectly linear right now input is changed over to value such that output goes to saturation so output is getting saturated at plus 10 volts and this is at minus 10 volts but before that it is still almost faithfully reproducing the sine wave that means in spite of the change in gain from 0 to 500 5 to 10 it is 10 okay we have a almost faithful reproduction of the signal but of course since the gain goes to 0 here there is distortion appearing there. Now let us consider the lock range of a system with multiplier put in feedback of an amplifier. So G2 in this case is nothing but this V naught is getting multiplied by VC by 10 here so the transfer function of this multiplier under this case when VC is the control voltage so this is acting as a voltage controlled amplifier the gain is directly proportional to the control voltage here so VC by 10 so multiplier in the feedback path causes it to become a divider and therefore what happens here this is VC V naught by 10 multiplication so VI becomes equal to VC V naught by 10 output follows the input okay feedback output follows the input so we have V naught equal to 10 VI by VC this is valid along as VC is positive VC has to be positive because there should be no change of sign here because change of sign is here so that overall lip gain is negative and it is negative feedback okay that means VC should be from 0 and above. However okay up to 10 volts the multiplier function thereafter multiplier saturates that means this whole thing has its transfer parameter going to 0 of beyond any of these 2 inputs going to 10 volts so the limitation is put by the multiplier for its input as VC from 0 to 10 volts okay so 0 to 10 volts is the range for VC within which it can function okay that is corresponding to the lock range here and corresponding to which what is the range of VI for which this can function okay obviously range for VI is such that output of the multiplier can go to plus minus 10 volts okay and therefore VI range is still equal to plus minus 10 volts however VC range here okay is 0 to 10 volts so the lock range will be corresponding to VC being 0 to 10 volts again at 0 output goes to infinity so it should be above 0 okay it can be equal to 10 volts at which point full output is fed back to the input it is acting as a voltage follower otherwise it will be acting as a non-inverting amplifier which is greater than 1 it gain greater than 1 square rotor now in feedback so we have now VI equal to V naught squared by 10 here so VI is equal to V naught squared by 10 so because of the squaring operation here right there is no meaning to the sign here therefore it is always going to be positive voltage here okay so that means actually VI has to be always greater than 0 for this to be satisfied because V naught squared is always positive V naught squared by 10 is always positive VI has to be restricted to okay should be greater than 0 obviously since this is the output of the multiplier it should be less than 10 volts so VI limit now comes as the lock range comes as 0 to 10 volts for VI for this loop to function properly with the loop gain becoming greater than much greater than 1 so then only it can function and then only it can function as a square root so now this is a DC feedback loop here and it has a DC limit on the VI as lock range we have now consider this this is nothing but a comparator for DC here so V reference if it is applied here and this is R minus V reference is what should be developed here because this is at 0 this should be at 0 this is the current comparator okay of DC so output will be inverse of input that means if this is V ref minus V reference this will be positive V reference because you are putting a square here this has to remain positive okay DC because of the square operation in the feedback loop okay so this will be a square rooting operation here if you consider V reference in relation to this output but it is a DC to AC converter here this DC is converted to AC here okay this is a DC to AC converter and AC to DC converter okay in loop okay so we have a DC to AC converter in loop with AC to DC converter so we have a DC controlling the magnitude of AC here peak magnitude of AC because this is VP sin omega T this is VC so this will be VC by 10 VP sin omega T so V naught is equal to VPO and VPO is controlled by this VC so that is why I say that this is a DC to AC converter okay and this AC is converted by squaring operation to a DC and filtering okay so this is a AC to DC converter so this is the DC gain stage okay this is G1 okay so what happens if this DC remains constant then this should remain constant okay positive it should be same as V reference here this should reproduce V reference here if it is working satisfactorily and that is equal to VPO squared by 20 because VPO squared by 10 into sin squared omega T is VPO squared by 10 into 1 minus cos 2 omega T so this gets removed by the filter and the DC corresponds to VPO squared by 20 okay so that is how we get this so VPO gets of this AC gets fixed as square root of V reference into 20 so this is the result of this kind of feedback loop so where does it function satisfactorily that is what we are going to discuss so the lock range therefore is going to be a range where you can look at it here this is a multiplier so when this is VC the gain of this stage is this VC by 10 VC can be at most equal to 10 volts VC max so if you are expecting an output corresponding to let us say VP sin omega T and this VP sin omega T can only be attenuated by VC becoming less than 10 volts because VP equal to 10 volts VC equal to 10 volts corresponding to gain of 1 so this particular multiplier can only give you again which is less than 1 and VC cannot be negative because then the feedback loop will be positive feedback so in order to make the feedback loop gain negative okay we have to maintain VC positive throughout so that 0 to 10 volts is the range over which VC can change okay what is the result of this that means you cannot expect an output okay which is greater than 10 volts to be obtained here so when VP is 0 for example when VP is 0 nothing appears at the output as far as this is concerned so at that point of time what happens to this this is 0 this is 0 and minus V reference is applied this simply goes to saturation it is a high gain stage the feedback loop is broken because the gain function of this is 0 so this minus V reference brings about a negative voltage here which forces this output to go to positive saturation right so may be plus 10 volts let us say so this gain is initially at 1 value so output simply gets reproduced at the input until this DC voltage becomes equal to V reference this is what is going to happen because this is going to have a negative voltage all the time here maintaining it in saturation so that is what is seen in this characteristic so let us say we have made V reference equal to 0.8 initially corresponding to which the square root of 20 times V reference is going to be 4 volts so that is the magnitude at which the output of the multiplier is going to remain okay is going to remain constant at 4 volts until the voltage at the output of the squaring device goes to this value okay the control voltage is going to be remaining at 10 volts and therefore the gain of the multiplier is going to be 1 so output follows the input okay and thereafter output remains constant at 4 volts all the way up to 10 volts because that is the limitation by the multiplier so multiplier cannot have anything operating beyond 10 volts it goes to saturation. So this is the range of locking of this AGC system or ABC system okay this is where output voltage of the AC remains constant at 4 volts it begins at 4 volts okay and then goes on remaining constant at 4 volts up to VP of 10 volts from 4 volts to 10 volts is the lock range if you make square root of 20 times V reference equal to for example 2 volts right so that is if you put V reference of 0.2 square root of this VPO becomes equal to 2 volts so this whole thing remains the multiplier gain remains constant at 1 all the way up to this 2 volts thereafter it remains constant at 2 volts for higher voltage again lock range becomes smaller okay so this is demonstrated clearly by this experiment here so this is corresponding to VP equal to 8 volts so output can be now 4 volts okay because maximum gain of the multiplier is 1 so it has to only attenuate so it will maintain it easily at 4 volts you can see that 8 volts is the input and 4 volts is the output and control voltage is at 5 volts so this is the simulation result now VP is same to 10 volts again the control voltage is brought to 4 volts automatically okay you can see it is at 4 volts and the peak value of output of the multiplier remains at 4 volts so exactly it is followed okay the theory is followed exactly by the practical simulation now VP is made less than 4 volts it has to function at the maximum gain multiplier at is 1 so you can see that output is very nearly equal to the input this gone slightly that is control voltage now goes to the saturation so you can see it has gone slightly above 10 volts okay about 12.6 volts so that is why the gain is slightly greater than 1 okay multiplier is an ideal multiplier that is no limitation on the multiplier that has been put in the model so it has gone slightly above 1 gain of 1 so that is what has been reproduced and the DC voltage has gone to saturation as far as the up amp is concerned so this is demonstrating clearly that it is working outside the lock range now we can consider a trans resistance amplifier cascaded to a trans conductance amplifier resulting in a current controlled current up amp with gain equal to 1000 let us say so we have taken a trans resistance amplifier of 100 K trans resistance and 10 millisiemens is the trans conductance resultant effect is the gain okay initially is 1000 into 10 and it is made to go to saturation the trans resistance amplifier since output is voltage is made to go to saturation at plus minus 10 volts what is the resultant effect of this on the lock range of the system and this is a current follower so the full current is fed back to the input this output current is fed back this is the load let us say so output current is fed back so what happens this voltage gets limited to 10 volts and that 10 volts get transmitted to the output as 10 millisiemens times 10 volts okay which is 100 milli sort of amperes so the limitation of this is for currents plus minus 100 milli amperes okay is the lock range. So this is a place where voltage gets converted to current and current gets converted back to voltage so voltage to current converter current voltage converter the lock range becomes that of current okay so it is demonstrated here the transfer characteristic of output current and input current so you can see that it has gone to saturation okay at about 100 milli amperes this is the top dotted thing is 120 so 100 milli amperes is limiting range on this side also minus 100 milli amperes because the voltage limitation has been set at plus minus 10 volts so this is the voltage limitation V3 is plotted there and this is the current limitation at the input so this is the lock range. So that is demonstrated in the simulation as shown in figure so you can see what is applied is 12 milli ampere sin omega 3 is applied obviously it is going beyond saturation so it gets limited by saturation you can see some voltage is getting limited at 10 volts and current is getting limited at 100 milli amperes in the operation. So we have an F2 V converter and VTF converter earlier we had seen now voltage to current to voltage okay converter and C and D limitation on lock range here F2 V and VTF for the lock range okay is coming about because of voltages okay going to some saturation states in terms of input frequency input frequency lock range okay comes about. So because of again the limitation of the blocks within the loop they are going to have saturation a multiplier we had seen if you make it as a face detector the face detector has this kind of characteristic we had seen if this is VPI sin omega IT okay this is VP naught okay this is going to be sin omega naught okay which is going to be equal to omega IT plus phi okay. So that is a phase shift okay frequency locking occurs output frequency follows the input frequency that we have already established because voltage loop okay within the system so voltage loop within the system okay acts as a voltage follower there okay V delta V naught by delta VI is same as delta phi naught by delta PI okay is going to be the same as delta phi naught by delta T is omega naught by omega I so any phase lock loop the frequency is locked okay output frequency same as input frequency okay once the frequency are same then there can be a phase time dependent phase also here so this is a phase detector and we have established that the phase detector output average corresponds to VP I VP naught by 20 cos phi there will be another term which is cos 2 omega IT plus phi which is a high frequency term which gets eliminated by the low pass filter only the average term gets selected. So what is the nature of this phi versus the average will be a sort of cosine waveform that means it is going to 0 on either side of this pi by 2 and we have established earlier that when this BC is 0 okay when this incoming frequency is same as 10000 hertz that is the output frequency the phase shift gets adjusted cos phi gets adjusted so that cos phi is 0 that means phi is pi by 2 this is where the locking occurs when the incoming frequency is same as free running frequency of the system okay corresponding to VC equal to 0 in this case. So the characteristic of phase detector is that it goes to saturation gradually it is maximum at pi by 2 the sensitivity this if you call as sensitivity of the phase detector KBD what is it delta V average by delta phi is equal to KPD that in this case is nothing but VP I VP O by 20 sin phi and value of this is okay equal to VP I VP O by 20 okay cos sin phi at omega I is same as omega naught Q. So this is the sensitivity maximum sensitivity at this point it gradually goes to 0 okay as it goes to 0 phase and pi phase. So that means the lock range is this particular thing within which the phase can vary from pi by 2 to pi by 2 on this side and pi by 2 on it cannot almost go to pi by 2 because it is gradually approaching 0 sensitivity. So that is the limit of saturation here so that comes as a lock range limit within the phase lock loop okay. So that will be nothing but pi by 2 in a linear phase lock loop it is going to be the maximum DC here where in your eye that into okay KVCO okay is the limit. So maximum DC that this can give as average okay that into KVCO is the lock range. So pi by in a linear VCO and a linear phase detector it will be KPD into pi by 2 maximum voltage into KVCO is the lock range. If you put an amplifier with gain A naught that A naught also comes in the picture here. So the lock range of this systems is dependent upon okay the saturation range of each one of the blocks whichever is lower is the one that limits the lock range okay that is the conclusion that we can make in this gain distortion effect will be considering perhaps as quantity effect so we can put Xi as sine omega t and see how different from sine wave it is going to be at the output in terms of distortion factor this particular thing will be discussing in the next class right. So noise we have already discussed is an additional input at the output okay just like offset and that also gets reduced because of feedback by loop gain. So this is the conclusion that we have made okay static characteristic of negative feedback system has been discussed distortion in terms of distortion reduction linearity noise reduction effect of saturation dynamic range of the system where it works as proper feedback system called lock range dynamic characteristic of feedback loop will be the topic of next lecture.


Question is from Jules Tealman. Are squats and lunges bad for your knees? That depends. Depends on, a lot of it depends on your form and your technique and your muscle activation and control and stability. And some of it depends on your knees. Now for most people, this is based on my own experience, I'd love to hear you guys' input, I would say probably no joke, 90% of the time squats and lunges bothered a client's knees. It had to do with muscle imbalances, form, stability, control.  Well, you know, this is where the box squats came in and we talked about the other day. You know, this is a lot of times when you show like a client how to squat and they don't know how to squat and they just try and mimic what you did.  They're not had no hip involvement. Yeah, very, very little bit of the hip hinging back and so they feel all the stress in their knees. So, yeah, no, of course, you take that ankle mobility to its end range of motion and then the stress runs right up into the patella and that's why they feel that. So that's where the box squat came out as a really good tool, not just for power lifters who are trying to increase their squat, but also for trainers trying to teach good mechanics to a client that feels squats in their knees. Also, to that point, reverse lunges is what I teach for people that feel stress in their knees from lunging because when you lunge forward, the same thing happens. You take a step forward. Get that forward travel. Yeah, that forward travel, they push, they have their weight traveling over the top of their knee, then their knee goes over their toe and then again, it goes right to that end range of ankle mobility and then it feels like also you feel the stress in the knee and you take somebody and you tell them to stand upright and then step back into a reverse lunge. You're going the opposite direction that causes that and then all of a sudden they have no pain in their knee. So it's not squatting or lunging is what causes you to have bad knees or you have bad knees because of those things or they're bad for your knees. It's that your mechanics are off and we need to work on that. Even speaking to that 1% because I have had a client that didn't have ligaments, tore their ACL, was completely devoid of stability in that direction, but in terms of everyday functional activities and doing things, tell me a situation where you're not going to have to squat down or get up from a chair or toilet, split your stance and drop down a little bit, pick things up. It is to their benefit to still try to pursue certain ranges of motion so they can have an able lifestyle. I think that this whole red taping over a lot of exercises like that is such bad information to then push on to the patients. Squats and so this was prevalent for a while. I don't know if you guys remember. I was guilty of this. I was guilty of avoiding lunges and squats to clients.   That's what I was going to say. It was not that long ago that it was actually a widespread myth that lunges and squats were bad for you. You'd actually hear trainers say that. Now here's the deal. Bad squats and bad lunges are bad for your knees. They're also bad for your hips and ankles and back. Good squats and good lunges are not just not bad for your knees. They're amazing for your knees. If you want knees that'll last you for the rest of your life with good mobility, stability, and strength, with much, much lower risks of injury, do good squats and good lunges and do them forever. Well, because you train the muscles that are supporting those joints. Activating the muscles and getting them involved so it disperses the force so it doesn't just stop there. Well, you get an example. I remember when I tore my MCL and ACL and when I was doing rehab, they're so blown away on the stability that I still had in my knee. They said that was due to all the muscle that I had built around. I built so much muscle around my knees from training squats and all the major exercises that when I even lost my ligaments that I was still very supported. And we know that the knee is like floating and it's mostly getting its support from those ligaments. You lose those ligaments and you'd be all over the place unless you've done a really good job of building a lot of muscle around there to help support and aid that. Well, we need to get away from the notion that the joints of the body are like a machine that you would have. For example, if you look at your shocks on your car or you look at a joint on a door, the more you move it, the more it wears down and eventually over time. If you keep doing that, it'll degrade. The body isn't like that. The body adapts. It actually gets stronger through use. Not only does it regenerate, but it adapts to become stronger. So if you want bad knees, which one would cause worse knees? Not moving at all and just laying down. That's it. Or doing good squats, laying down. Laying down would cause terrible degeneration of the joints. You would actually lose function within a very short period of time if you did that. So the human body's not like everyday machines and moving parts on certain things. As you move things the right way, the body adapts and actually makes it stronger and able to move better and move more. The example that I talked about at the beginning of the episode of Jane Fonda, when you watch her on TV at 82 years old squatting, walking, moving, good posture, it's not because she didn't squat and didn't lunge. It's not because she sat down and let her joints stay fresh and didn't move them. It's because she moved them, the body adapted by making them stronger, producing more fluid in between the joints, strengthening cartilage, strengthening legaments and the joints themselves. Movement is good for you. It's good movement that you need to focus on. So if your knees hurt you from doing squats and lunges, it's probably not because you have bad knees. It's probably because you can't squat and lunge properly. But a good regression for trainers that are listening to this, for clients that don't have the mechanics yet or still working on it, that's where the box squat and the reverse lunge I think are very valuable. So day one you're trying to teach those movements, clients, ah, my knees, I can't do those. Okay, we'll try a reverse lunge, try a box squat.  They can go down. The problem is when you ask them to do it in the gym setting, their mechanics are awful. And one of the things that will help them with their squatting will be the box squats and that will help them with their lunging is a reverse lunge instead of a forward lunge.


So let's see now our local voice intent demonstrations. So we're having the mask for these, let's say, circumstances. Our demo is based on STM32 MP1 evaluation board, on which we have added two microphone MEMS extension. This will allow us to run audio front end and to remove the ambient noise and to resist and to be able to issue comments at a far field distance. So we'll move outside, let's say, the scene. So you will discover our studio to issue the comments at a distance of three or four meters. You will see the application reacting to my comments on the screen on which we have a graphic user interface demo running. I will also issue from my PC an ambient noise. So it will be a classical cafeteria or coffee shop noise. Let's see the demo now in action. I will put my mic on the table so that you can get the real sound of the demonstration. I will start playing the ambient noise from my PC, put the volume louder, and I will be at a distance of three meters from the mics. I will issue three different comments, all of them containing the same few words. And you will see how our software will be able to distinguish between them. My mask and accent are adding some difficulties to the demonstration. So let's start. Hey Barista! Cafe Americano sugar free. Cancel. Hey Barista! Cafe Americano with sugar. Cancel. Hey Barista! Cafe Americano with cream and sugar. Confirm.


ed explosive device which was made from the ammonium nitrate and I was very impressed when one of the presenters here touched on the control of ammonium nitrate in this country the chemical safety and security program that we are putting in place with our counterparts the IWCWS are going to look forward to having legislations for the purposes of controlling materials which are very much in the Kenyan market and one of them is ammonium nitrate. Kenya is a country which is largely agricultural and ammonium nitrate is a very common constituent of the fertilizer used in our country but I would tell you that currently there are no legislative measures nor controls for the purposes of managing ammonium nitrate and that it's not something which is far-fetched to go to some of the very agricultural areas in Kenya and see ammonium nitrate being stored without any security at all even the supply chain areas they don't have inventories so that they can monitor on who is acquiring some of these materials which are of dual use ammonium nitrate in Kenya can be acquired by any person for any purpose and tracking who has acquired what is very difficult the Kenyan program is going to look into areas where audit trail and monitoring of these dual use chemicals will be one of its main objective the Kenyan program on chemical safety and security has been there for the last two years and it tries a lot to respond to these challenges that I have put forward it is an important project to the Kenyan population and the Kenyan government and it has the support of the Kenyan government and we are preparing to have a forum which has been approved by our cabinet secretary in the minister of health so that we can discuss with the key stakeholders in the country on areas of interest on how we can entrench matters of chemical safety and security in the country we are also trying to look at ways of promoting regional and international security so that we can support the national implementation of the chemical weapons convention and also the implementation of the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1540 this program actually was preceded by a deep analysis on baseline study on the current activities, plans procedures which are already in place in Kenya on preventing and responding to attacks involving CBRN materials the Kenyan and international stakeholders in collaboration of course with the International Center for Chemical Safety and Security in Warsaw have examined the feasibility study of the Kenyan program and the existing emergency response capabilities of the country Kenya including the legal frameworks standard operation procedures practices and important procedures concerning chemicals in Kenya the study confirmed that there is need to improve border controls over the transit of toxic chemicals and related materials there is urgent need to improve the Kenyan national capacities in the area of prevention preparedness and response to possible terrorist attacks with chemical biological, radiological and nuclear weapons the leading objective of the Kenyan stakeholders within the Kenyan program is to create an effective safety and security system for transit and transportation of toxic chemicals this is the first main thematic area of the implementation of the Kenya safety and chemical safety and security program we have had some trainings that we have undertaken at the Mombasa based Kenya school of revenue and administration this is a world customs organization institution that trains regionally all custom officers within the region through this program, that is the Kenya program we have managed to train border security custom officers we have managed to train the mainstream police forces especially in areas of commodity identification training we have realized that our border security and also border the border security and the mainstream police officers they cannot or they are not able to identify positively what is brought into the country and the main method that is being used is using the HS code and we are looking to ways of entrenching cross referencing systems so that they can be able to positively identify some of these materials which are coming into the country the impact of the Kenyan program activities goes beyond the expected reduction of illegal cross border movement of chemicals and related materials to Kenya it relates to security economy and environmental management a broad participation of the relevant Kenyan agencies and our international partners facilitates covering the terrorism threads in a broader CBRN spectrum threads associated with organized crime and as well as risks associated with industrial transportation accidents environmental accidents and incidents that may potentially threaten the lives of people in Kenya I also wish to stress that the work we have been doing with the international center for chemical safety and security has been very beneficial to Kenya the approach which is based on cooperation and which concentrates on operationalizing and the existing best practices and capacity building is well received and supported in the country it opens the opportunities for cooperation in security economic and development areas and also it actively support the preparations of oncoming global chemical safety which will be held in Poland in the year 2016 in that summit the African forum of chemical safety and security will be organized within the summit and it will offer practical avenue for enhancing chemical safety and security in our region and Africa at large let me finish by saying that the introduction of this program in my country and in Africa will be a process of national capacity building best practices information exchange cooperation among professionals from the government, industry, academia science, the civil organizations and we have just started this process and hope to achieve a final objective which will assist in mitigating threats to promote peaceful uses of chemistry economy and trade cooperation thank you very much Ali, thank you so much we are out of time for questions but I think we could probably take two if you have a burning question please identify yourself yes Deborah please make it very short one comment and one question earlier this month I'm Deborah Decker with the Stimson Center invited up to the UN Security Council to present on some ideas we had on 1540 including leveraging the private sector to help and we have a roster of lawyers who are willing to work pro bono to help countries so just want to put that out there and we're looking now we did it as a pilot last year and we're looking to institutionalize it and we're thinking so if you all engage with you separately on that but for questions ASTM is an international certification body for laboratory accreditation and this is how you know that what you're testing in a lab is correct have you looked into the possibility of using that type of standards development organization to provide a security function also and then using governments to say we're not going to buy chemicals and governments purchase a lot of chemicals themselves unless you are an accredited body that not only meets the ASTM certifications for being an accurate lab but also a secure lab interesting question do you want to take that first? your last question is very interesting and to some self-explanatory but what I try to explain we as the center take new regulations we believe that there is enough best practices and existing procedures which could be internationalized and operationalized therefore but with regard to laboratories and we strongly believe that laboratories should be under very strict controls especially development of new chemicals but again I would like to avoid entering into debate what type of what kind of controls is needed because we have also no much expertise with regard to laboratories I know that in the developing countries there is much need to introduce well established good practices Ali is that something that Kenya might consider in the for future? in my country we have established the pharmacy and poisons control act which tends to control the acquisition of laboratory chemicals but it happens that not all the laboratories some of them are not registered and that's the problem at times we are having in that when you have laboratories operating without clear approval from the board they are bound to infringe on some of the regulations there is express regulation to the extent that whoever is procuring any controlled item should also be having the end user certificates and all that but again you would find that enforcement the issue of enforcement comes into question when the enforcement is not 100% there are always areas which can be flouted and we are looking at developing the strategic management control board there is a board which will be in charge of ensuring that all control items there is an inventory of who is acquiring what for purposes of doing that audit control but still the problem of laboratories sincerely acquiring some of these items from unscrupulous dealers out there in Kenya is still there did you have anything you wanted to add to that? I think in your presentation you made the point that laboratories is one thing but it is all along the chain of custody including transportation storage sites we looked at this in terms of uranium how you look at security of uranium from the start to finish but I thought Deborah was going to ask a different question which had to do with incentives and you had mentioned that you wanted to create a global market for chemical security my question goes back to insurance practices and is there a link between insurance and not just chemical safety but chemical security is that something you are working on and can everything that Bonnie is doing to support or promote chemical security culture can you feed that back into that insurance link? Thank you for this question in Poland we work with the biggest Polish company the two Polish insurance companies the fact insurer on a special program which would engage facilities to audit through which they can insure they receive lower insurance this exactly I know that such program exists also among companies I realize that but we are now working exactly in such a very simple way we simply say go safer go cheaper that's very simple go safer go cheaper and this is linked to social responsibility of business insurance companies should not only get money for private insurance insurance companies begin to understand they are part of safety and security system therefore I am very proud working at the centers we are pioneering all national program we would like to present this program worldwide at the summit we would introduce several new programs please join us you would see what we would introduce there exactly in such a way that insurance companies begin to understand that by auditing chemical plant through experts they can improve the safety security you know we have here Dr Andrzej Kozak from our Warsaw office and he can say that he has examples of few dollars leak leakage you know led to millions of losses therefore we believe again strongly that this is linked to insurance from very passive way that only get money for insurance to proactive way assisting chemical plant or chemical activity to get safer to get more security to go cheaper thank you Bonnie I think the important word that you said was incentives and I am not an expert on insurance company but I think the common ideal that we are talking about is incentives to want to practice chemical safety and security and whether that incentive is because of insurance or because it is a real understanding through security culture that it makes sense to do it and it is worth to do it we need to create that incentive a lot of its education and we understand that we have challenges when it comes to small and medium companies because as was said earlier a lot of times it is the bottom line and it costs to do this we talked a lot to Dow but of course Dow is large it is a large company but they do a lot in terms of security and we are talking to them about how do we try to promote incentives and small and medium companies to want to do this if there is ways to help reduce costs somehow that would be helpful but a lot of its education, culture helping them to understand and getting the government involved I think you talked a lot about how the Kenyan government is getting more and more involved in the chemical security and safety issue and I think that when you have the government involved to develop regulations I think the more you can do that the more you have some top down you still need the government involved and you can have that involved and you can start doing more things that you are seeing DHS is trying to do here but you don't always have that in some countries so its incentives its getting countries involved governments involved as future Dr. Gokwally has said but the bottom line is they have to understand why its important this is why you should do it this is the incentive to do it governments however you do it you have to understand why its important to be involved in this Ali do you have any comments on that Kenya we managed to get the political goodwill from the government in that our committee, the national committee which I coordinate on CBRN we managed to develop a cabinet memorandum which we pushed through government so that it can be fully involved and support the activities of the CBRN and chemical safety and security and Ali in March this year the cabinet did approve the establishment of the national committee and the CBRN reference centre so that it can be championing and spearheading the issues of chemical CBRN safety and security so as ambassador is putting it the government is fully involved it brings a lot of controls and even other parties can be reined in to ensure that they do the right things thank you I would like to invite our panels if you have anything else to add any urgent message for our audience here I have a message I believe that with chemical safety and security we should go global and this is the only way to meet threats we need to meet the toxic chemicals which is becoming a real threat and if you see the recent cases like Syria like attack in France like situation in Ukraine when chemical plants are abandoned or even some place attack you see the scale of threats therefore we believe that our vision to go non-political to modernize the methodology and to go global is the right way and I'm very thankful when I'm coming to the United States when I see such overwhelming support from the industry, from government from NGOs that we built here really truly multilateral and truly multi stakeholder approach therefore again I thank you very much for giving us opportunity to promote in this global and I know that you also were webcasts and I hope that this message will be also sent to well by community thank you thank you, Bunny I guess my final remark would be that there are activities going on I think what I tried to outline in my slides is the different entities and different parts of government, international organizations NGOs, industry individuals who are in this space and trying to promote this issue and developing a coordinated process both through the global partnership through this Berlin group we established through these kind of meetings we talked about developing an international grouping of folks, we already have quite a few right now in different entities who are focusing on this issue so it's a growing area, I mean DHS talked about how the work that they're doing in chemical security is still relatively new it's still a new area of chemical security in many ways and so I think we should continue to focus on this globally as you said and try to promote the importance of chemical security worldwide thank you and Ali, any final comments? that's good enough well one thing this panel has convinced me of is that we needed more than an hour to talk about this topic so I hope that we will reconvene at some point in the future and give the set of topics the time that it's due but please now join me in thanking our panelists


Bloodier battles begin in Bakhmut. Kiev's forces in the embattled city of Bakhmut are allegedly considering a strategic retreat claimed economic advisor to Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky, Alexander Rodniansky, in an interview with CNN. In his words, Russia is currently trying to encircle Bakhmut using the best troops of the Wagner Private Military Company. He told that Kiev forces would retreat or strategically give up the city if they believe the costs of holding it outweigh the benefits. Rodniansky added that the Ukrainian military is obviously going to weigh all the options. So far they've held the city, but if need be they will strategically pull back because we're not going to sacrifice all of our people just for nothing. The presidential advisor added, noting that it was up to the military to ultimately decide when and if a withdrawal is required. Rodniansky also stated that the region west of the city had been fortified and that if Kiev's forces pulled out of Artyomovs, the Russian army wouldn't be able to advance quickly. Make no mistake, our counter-offensives will be around the corner soon, he proclaimed. Bakhmut is part of a 70 kilometre Ukrainian defence line created since Kiev initiated the fighting in Donbas in 2014. In a months-long campaign, Russian forces, primarily Wagner members, have systematically captured settlements around the city and now have Bakhmut surrounded from the north, south and east. CNN also spoke to a Ukrainian soldier that wished to remain anonymous, who described the situation in Bakhmut as much worse than officially reported. We should add another 100% difficulty to the official reports in all directions, especially in the northern direction where the Russians have made the biggest advance, he said. Nevertheless, Ukrainian Deputy Defence Minister Hannah Malia stated that more reinforcements are being sent to the strategically vital city. This was confirmed by the head of the Russian Wagner Private Military Company, Yegevny Prigozhin. According to him, Kiev has sent tens of thousands of its best fighters to Bakhmut. They are putting up fierce resistance. The bloodshed of the battles is increasing every day, Prigozhin said. Meanwhile, Kiev's Western backers reportedly called on Zelensky to cut his losses and withdraw.


On the night of December 15th, 2006, an unlisted lost episode of Family Die aired on Fox. It was originally produced the same year as a Halloween special in Season 5, but it was cancelled and shelved because Fox thought it was too disturbing and frightening. They were right. No one outside of the production crew of Family Die knew this episode existed until it aired. The reason for why it randomly aired unannounced isn't known. It was rumored to have been a complete accident. The episode was entirely in black and white, had terrible quality, extremely bad audio, and the animation was done horribly. When it came on, the Family Die theme song didn't appear, instead just a black screen and awkward silence. Then after about 30 seconds a random beeping noise started, and soon a message appeared that said, September 8th, 2006. Family Die Episode X, The Black Dawn. The first shot showed the griffin's kitchen. Lois had finished making breakfast and she told Peter to call the kids. Chris and Stewie came downstairs but not Meg. In his scene, everyone seemed either very depressed or angry, except for Brian, though he oddly sat in the corner of the living room and didn't talk. When Peter went upstairs to get Meg, he saw her naked, cutting herself and drinking her own blood. He called her name, and she started running towards him and slit his throat.  The family heard Peter fall to the floor and rush to see what happened.  Lois asked what happened to her and then Peter fell out of the closet because Meg didn't do a good job putting him in there. The family was in shock and Lois started heavily sobbing. Meg then grabbed an axe hidden under her bed and chopped Lois' head off. She took a bite out of her head. Finally and Chris ran downstairs to escape. They tried to warn Brian who was still sitting in the corner of the living room. He just ignored them. When they called him again, his head turned all the way around and he had a very creepy smile on his face. He looked possessed. He then tried to attack them. He chased them to the kitchen where Stewie grabs a knife and stabs him in the heart. Chris appeared to be upset about what Stewie did, but he told him he had no choice and quickly forgave him. Meg comes downstairs and chased them outside and are forced to hide in the Swanson's house. They told Joe about the situation. He then tried to deal with her but Meg chopped him with her axe and did the same to Bonnie. Chris and Stewie escaped to the Swanson's basement. A few days later, they came out and saw that merely everything had been destroyed. They found a newspaper and found out that a virus broke out and the zombie apocalypse came. They stood in the middle of the road where there was nothing but dead silence. They then saw Meg and several other zombies including Peter and Brian and the neighbors charging toward them. They found a chain saw lying on their front lawn. Stewie grabbed it and started killing zombies with it. Meg was the only one left still alive, but Stewie saw that Chris was killed by the zombies with his face eaten off. Stewie got distracted by this and then gets killed by Meg. At this point, the quality got even worse. Then took her axe and accidentally chopped her own head off. Then the scene cuts to static and the episode ends.


Welcome everyone to the session by Terry. The session says is agile transformation or just another restructure. A quick introduction about Terry. So Terry is an international author, speaker, award-winning coach, mentor, conference host, and a leader in agile community with more than 30 years of experience in leading major projects and agile transformation for some of the largest and the most significant organization in the world. Terry's personal mission is to help people see differently so that they can find the joint joy. So without much delay, I'll hand over it to Terry. Over to you, Terry. Thank you, Karthik, for that lovely introduction and thank you to all of you for investing your time in learning and being part of a community today. It is an honor and a pleasure to be with you today. As Karthik mentioned, I'm going to talk to you today about agile transformation or just another restructure. And I've subtitled it transform your transformation. This is important because a lot of organizations are going through these kinds of transformations at the moment. And what I'm seeing is some of them, it just seems like another restructure. So maybe it's time for us to have a conversation about that. So as Karthik said, I'm an author, host, speaker, coach, consultant, all the things he said there. And the important thing there is my personal mission to help people see differently so they find joy. And I'm blessed to be in a role and in an organization where I get to express that mission every day. It's why I'm speaking to you today. It's why I wrote my book. If we can see the world a little differently and it brings us joy, then we've achieved something together. So let's have a look at how we usually go about these agile transformations. And this isn't going to be exactly the same everywhere. This is like a common scenario. And if you find that some of these items don't necessarily apply to you, that's okay. But if half or more of them do apply to you, then maybe there is an opportunity to do things a little differently. So when we approach an agile transformation, we usually start by engaging consultants. So you have a group of leaders who have heard about all this agile stuff, but they really don't know how to go about it. Rather than retaining accountability for the outcomes, they'll go and engage consultants. So they can effectively divorce themselves of accountability, but also because they believe the consultants have the answers. And depending on who they get, those consultants can come along and say, here you go. Here's the perfect answer to everything that you're facing, even though it's not necessarily relating to the context of the organization. When we've got the consultants engaged, we create plans. The biggest problem with the plans that we created this stage is that we're doing them behind closed doors. We're doing them where consultants are engaging with leaders, but not with the organization. They're not engaging with the coaches that are already there. They're not engaging with the people on the teams. They're not actually understanding the context. So those plans that they create don't necessarily align with what's really happening on the ground in that organization. When we've got some idea of a plan together and a lot more will continue to be invested in that plan as time goes on, we start to create documents. The big thing that's happening recently is we're calling those documents playbooks as if they're not documents, they're something else. When we think about all of the documents that are created along the journey to getting our plan set up, there's actually an enormous investment in documents before we've actually done anything, before we've actually tested something and seen how it fits in our context or learned. When we've got some of those documents together and we're along the lines of creating our plan, we're still working on the plan, we start to design the structure. And the big problem I see with this is that the structure for an agile transformation seems to be an exercise where leaders are shuffling people around in boxes. They've got the idea of a team. Sometimes we're going to call that a squad because that makes an enormous difference and we're putting names in boxes. As if the ideal structure is going to solve all our problems and as if the people who are very senior in that organization can understand the context well enough to know who should be working with who and on what. When we've got a little bit of structure together, that then necessitates redefining roles. We decide then that project managers are now scrum masters, which may or may not be a good idea, but we're making those decisions again behind closed doors. And sometimes those project managers don't want to be scrum masters. Sometimes those project managers are perfectly happy being project managers. Sometimes they're not too keen to have their role changed in a meeting that they're not attending. We decide that certain BAs are going to become product owners. We change all these roles. I've seen transformations where we decide that the coaches are going to only be working with the teams. They're not working with the leaders anymore and the coaches don't really want to do that. We often sideline those with context at this stage. So while we're redefining the roles, the coaches in the organization or maybe certain people in the L&D space in HR get sidelined. The consultants don't really very often want to adapt the plan that they've brought.  And then we define ways of working as if we can have one way of working across an entire organization. Very often there will be a particular framework that's chosen and the one I see all the time is scrum. So all of these ways of working definitions get into the playbooks around scrum. Which is fine for teams that can do scrum and are happy to do scrum and want to do scrum. It's not so good for the others. And in some organizations you do have people who are providing things other than software where maybe they don't have the kind of a backlog of work that they can plan in sprints. Some people can and certainly as we go outside of software you're thinking marketing teams potentially could do scrum if they want to. Legal teams maybe can. Customer service teams maybe not. Maybe it's very hard for them to know what they're doing 2pm tomorrow let alone two weeks from now. So defining ways of working is very, very complex if you want to include the whole organization. But it tends to be follow one framework or another. And then we make announcements and I'm sure you've seen this. We have town halls. We have leadership announcements. We have email going out and comms and there may well be posters put up on the walls and slides put up on screens. And it's a big razzmatazz and yes we're going to do this great transformation. It's going to change the world. Everybody's going to love it. And yeah we kind of let everyone know that this is happening with a great deal of positivity and panache and make out that it's a really wonderful thing. And people hear that and they come along with it and we start to apply change management. And this is kind of where the roller coaster comes along. We have at some point let it out of the bag that this is happening. Especially as we started to sideline those with context and roles discussions were coming up. So people actually have heard that this is coming even before we make the announcements. So change management can be quite a roller coaster of people going through literally emotional highs and lows. As a change they don't understand, don't see how it's valuable, don't particularly want is inflicted upon them. And then we conduct training and we sort of think that the bulk of the work has been done and now it's kind of in an adoption phase and people are ready to take it all on. Now I don't know about you, but if we're doing our planning up front and we're creating lots of documents, getting to effectively a go-no-go decision when we make announcements, which is kind of like a big bang release, having change management after the release, sounds to me like that's actually a little bit waterfall. It sounds to me like we're not being very agile about our agile transformation. Big upfront plans, heavy documentation, big bang release, change management all sounds a little bit waterfall. This is a picture of Niagara Falls that I took a couple of years ago when we could still travel. So what's wrong with having a waterfall approach to an agile transformation I hear you ask? Well, there's a number of things wrong with it. Firstly, we're doing all our thinking at the beginning. We actually think we can define the perfect plan. We create our plan without any of the things we're going to learn along the way. Now, if the consultants we engaged had done this many times within our organization, not just similar organizations, but our organization, then maybe there'd be a chance. If we've done this many times in our own organization, it should be getting repeatable. But this is the first time we've done this in our organization. So it's not something that's ready to be repeatable. So doing all the thinking at the beginning, not such a good idea. We also end up with meaningless measurement. One transformation I saw was all about speed, as if speed is the only important thing. I don't know about you, but if I am going in the wrong direction, then I don't particularly want to go faster. You better off actually to pause and find out what is the right direction. So speed is not necessarily the most important thing. But then, in that same transformation, the word velocity was used. And there were actually commitments made that we were going to double our velocity, except we didn't know our velocity. So I don't know how we're going to make any meaning out of a measurement that we can't measure. And if you can't measure it, you can't manage it. So because we've done the planning up front, and because consultants who don't know our context are helping us to create that plan, they decide on measures that we either can't deliver or they don't have a lot of meaning for us. So speed is the perfect example. We've made all our decisions divorced of the context, especially that moving people around into their different boxes. We don't know if they want to work with the people we've put them in boxes with. We don't know, other than their sort of title, what is the right reason for them to move? We're just rebuilding a structure, and hence the title for this talk. Is it really a transformation or just a restructure? When we put so much effort up front into what the structure will be, we effectively turn it into a restructure, even if that's not the intent. The other problem with creating a big plan at the beginning is that we get emotionally attached to it. And then rather than being open to change, anything that proves that the original plan wasn't so good becomes a bit of a challenge. We actually need to prove that it's a good plan, otherwise it will become visible that we're not especially good at planning. So when we invest too much in the plan up front, then we become emotionally attached. And when we're emotionally attached to the plan, then we resist change, and that's not very agile. And the other thing that comes into it, especially when the decisions are being made by leaders, when they're being made up front, and when they're being made behind closed doors, is politics comes into it. So we see leaders clinging to the space that they lead and trying to actually create a bigger space. And I have seen politics be quite destructive at this stage of a transformation. So what we end up with is a whole lot of effort before we can get going. And then at some point, we're going to ask someone to sign off on it. Someone, the most senior person in the room is going to have to sign off. Now, if we go to the Agile Manifesto, it tells us customer collaboration over contract negotiation. And anytime we have a sign off, we're creating a contract. So our leaders have created a contract that impacts the people in the system and quite often without talking to the people in the system. So that's what's wrong with that. But even if we take those things into account, if we've got the right people driving this forward, what could possibly go wrong? Well, the people that we are announcing this to when we do our Big Bang release have heard it all before. We had a structure a few years ago, a restructure, and turns out it was just a way to let 200 people go. So 200 people were made redundant. And then we had another restructure a couple of years later, and that one was all about breaking down silos and increasing the speed at which we could get things done. Turns out another couple of hundred people lost their jobs. It didn't actually break down silos, and it didn't help us go any faster. So people start rolling their eyes, heard it all before, been there, done that. And even if we tell them it's not a restructure, it's like, yeah, well, we've heard that before too. I've seen this directly, especially when we're changing people's roles. It creates an awful lot of worry and anxiety. One organization I was engaged with, a huge number of people actually resigned, even before the change was announced. Because they had seen it happening in another part of the organization, and they worried about their livelihoods. They have a responsibility to their family. They need their income to continue. So they started looking elsewhere. That's going to happen if we allow the worry and anxiety of not talking to them while we're doing all these plans, making all these decisions behind closed doors. Fear, uncertainty, and doubt. Even those people who aren't necessarily worried about their position don't know what's happening. There is fear from uncertainty. They don't know that this change is going to impact them negatively or not. They doubt the intentions of those people who are leading the change because they've heard it all before. And that's another key to what makes things go wrong. And the reason I put smileys here is because the thing to remember is everything we're doing in an agile transformation is about people. So when we don't include those people in our thinking, we don't include those people in how we're going about it. We suboptimize. That would be like designing your product without talking to the customer. If we're going to be agile about this, we want to talk to the customer about the product. And the customer of our transformation is the people that it impacts. So why are we making all those decisions without talking to them? The other thing is the people who are on the teams that are going to be called squads and that are being moved around as names in boxes and having their roles changed have no accountability for the outcome. They weren't part of the plan. They didn't actually buy into any of the decisions that were made because they weren't at the table. So they have no accountability for making it work. And the last point here is we still need escalation. When it comes to the transformation and something emerges, we still need to escalate to the leaders because they have signed off on it. Any change to what we're doing has to align to what they want and what they're expecting. So we have a lot of things that need to be escalated. That means we can't be as quick or as nimble or as agile when we're actually helping the organization to transform. So there's a lot that can go wrong when we make all our plans up front. When we do make decisions behind closed doors, when we create big documents, when we get emotionally attached to the plan, there's a lot that can go wrong. And the biggest thing I think that can go wrong is that we believe we've created certainty. So the plan bringing in the best consultants we can, the documents, the structure that we designed, the Big Bang release and all the announcements are perfectly planned and scripted and even the emails have been pre-written. The training is in place. And we feel that that is the effort needed to transform. But at the point where we think we can see the light at the end of the tunnel, we may actually be looking at an oncoming train. So let's talk about how can you transform your transformation. This is really the happy part of this talk because it's not just about the things that can go wrong when you have a big upfront plan, when you engage consultants from outside the organization, when you have a Big Bang release, those things are one aspect of it.  So the first thing is clarity on why. Make the why front and center. If it's not absolutely clear why this transformation is happening, then people just aren't going to buy into it. Make sure the why makes sense to a sane thinking intelligent person. Don't make it some motherhood statement that doesn't relate. The other thing is don't make it speed because why do you want to go faster? And can we go faster at the expense of other things? It's actually normally not about speed. It's about the outcomes that speed creates for us. And make sure people know also that even if we are talking about going faster, that doesn't mean we can deliver shoddy work or take risks or ignore our customers or any of those other things. So it's not just about speed. It never is just about speed. But even if it is, make that very clear. And when we've got a clear why, think about what that means for a vision. And just like with a product vision, that helps us to see where we're going so that we can decide what we want to do. We can decide priorities amongst all the things we want to do. And it even helps us to know how to go about what we want to do. For a transformation, our vision is about who we will become. Who do we want to be in the future? What is it about being an agile organization and being transformed that's appealing? And what is it about that that's appealing to everyone? Starting from our customers and next with the people who directly serve our customers and sort of moving back through the organization and up the hierarchy after that. If this is first about customers and equally then about the people who do things for our customers, you'll have a much more compelling vision than simply talking about we need to go faster. And with a vision of who we want to become, we can break our vision down into agility streams. Don't treat it as one great big bucket of stuff. It's not just transformation. And by that I mean think about business agility. How effectively are your business teams working with your technical teams or your operations teams or support teams? Think about your technical agility. Have you separated deployment from release? How effective are your DevOps practices? How mature are your delivery pipelines? It's also about delivery agility. How effective are you at delivering and delivering at reasonable speed, high quality, well-scoped pieces of valuable customer outcomes? Think about leadership agility. How quickly can your leaders respond to the system? How readily can something be escalated, resolved and back again? Think about the learning culture. Think about lean portfolio management. Funding agility, that's a really important one. HR agility. So you've got all these different areas to consider. Thinking about your vision and what needs to happen in these different areas will help you to think about the transformation differently and help you to approach it differently. Help you to also approach it from the idea of proximity-based planning. So rather than a great big plan, we have a vision. We break that down into smaller pieces and we only get the great detail on the things we're doing next because they have proximity. Those things we're not doing for a while. We don't need as much detail on because too much will change before we get there. When you've got your vision, you've broken it down into some agility streams. Start to make your customer value streams visible. So these aren't necessarily the steps a customer goes through to achieve value. So that's one way of looking at a customer value stream which might involve multiple teams and multiple systems. But think more about the sort of the subsets of that so that you get reasonable size spaces because you might think, for example, a customer achieving a certain thing involves the whole organization. So try to think of discrete and specific value streams that you can then think about who is in this in total. Not just the technical teams, but the customer service teams or operations or support start to bring those people together. You don't need to restructure to make a customer value stream visible. You don't need to restructure to start establishing collaboration amongst the people in those value streams. The next thing I'd suggest to you to transform your transformation is to involve all the people in all the discussions. Now maybe as an organization, you've decided to pilot in one small area or to roll out in different areas rather than all at once. Involve all the people in that area which you've got a value stream that's visible include the support teams, the customer service teams, the operations teams, the business teams, the marketing teams, the HR people. Include them all because they all bring a context. When the time comes to actually do something your change management is a piece of cake because everyone is across what's happening. They may still need some training or some other support, but change management gets a whole lot easier when people are involved in the discussions about why we're doing this and when things are happening and how they're happening, they feel involved. They're also because they've been heard and it's their space, they're much more accountable. So with that, start to break it down into small bite-sized outcomes. Not deliverables but outcomes. We know who we want to become. We've thought about the different agility streams. We've spoken to all the people that are impacted. Let's together break down that vision. So how do we become those people that we defined in our vision? That organization that we defined in our vision. How do we break... How do we get there is to break it down into smaller outcomes and then have everyone on the journey of, like, which is the first? What's the priority? Just like with any kind of product delivery, we don't try and do it all at once. We don't want a big bang release with high risk. We'd rather smaller bite-sized deliverables that we iteratively and incrementally build up to create massive customer value rather than, you know, big bang release. That's kind of how we operate with an agile project or product. It doesn't tend to be how we operate with agile transformations though. And my suggestion is it should be. Once you've broken it down, just like with your product delivery, prioritize and do the smallest, most impactful thing. You can use weighted shortest job first. You can use a pick model. You can use a whole bunch of different priority techniques and get on with the smallest thing. Whatever is the easiest to deliver and has the biggest benefit, that's the thing to do first. With a prioritized backlog, you're in a great position to get on with it, but be agile as you get on with it. Again, we don't want a big bang release. We don't want a wholesale structure change and turning the whole thing just into a restructure. We just want to be moving towards an agile transformation. And measure, measure, measure. If you do decide that your agile transformation is going to be about speed, how are you going to measure that speed? You certainly don't want to be using velocity or something that teams use for something else. If we take a measure and use it as a target, you won't be able to use it as a measure anymore. So velocity is not a good example. Maybe it's revenue. Maybe it's happiness. That's one of my favourites. If you measure happiness, that will give you a good indication that this is actually working for the people who are doing the work. But then once you decide how you're going to measure, make sure you can measure it. If you don't currently measure it, you might need to do some work to start measuring it. But whatever it is, start it, baseline it, and then keep measuring it. The other thing we don't tend to do in the classic transformation is review, learn, adapt and improve. And in this case, as you see from the image, small change. So we don't seem to be able to allow small change to trickle in because we've done so much upfront planning, we've done so much upfront documentation because it's been signed off by someone very senior. Any change needs to go back up to that senior person for sign-off. So reviewing, learning, adapting and improving and changing are very, very difficult when we approach our agile transformation as just another restructure. So my suggestion to you is step back from all those big upfront things and make sure you're ready to accept small changes. And when you're in that position, you're now in a series of iterations. You've done the smallest thing. You have observed, listened, learned, taken on change. You are talking to the customers of this change or those colleagues of yours that are impacted. And you're ready to do the next, smallest, most impactful thing. Always reviewing that backlog, always going back to your vision. Is this still the most impactful thing that gets us closer to our vision? Rather than again having that big upfront plan and just barreling it out, you need to start operating in those iterations. Small impactful things that you deliver incrementally and iteratively with a learning loop so that you can continue to get better. And at that point, it's a matter of rinse and repeat. Once you've done a couple, you'll be surprised how quickly the changes start to mount up. You may not have restructured, but you've created a lot of positive change. And at the point where you get ready to restructure, the structure will be obvious. Because you made the value streams visible, you involved the people in the conversation. You iteratively and incrementally made small changes that got you closer to your vision. The people who belong in that value stream are already working together. It's really simple and obvious at that point what the structure should be. Designing the structure upfront, that's really hard. Allowing a series of small incremental improvements to help bring together the people in that value stream makes it really, really easy to know who belongs there.  There's an awful lot written on high-performing teams and agile organizations. But I wrote this book to help people understand that it's actually about individuals. And if we can uplift the agility of all the individuals in an organization, then we've uplifted the agility of that organization. Thank you. So, Kartik, could we move to the questions? Sure, Teri. So I see a couple of questions for you. So the first question for you, Teri, is that can you talk about the development manager role? The attendee find it a bit strange as the role is responsible for people. But without involving in today's execution, it is difficult for this role to coach people without engaging himself into an execution of PI is the first question for you. Thanks, Kartik. And thank you very much to whoever asked the question. I'm very, very grateful. It does take some courage to actually ask what's on your mind. So I'm very grateful that you've done that. Sorry, but you're not going to like my answer because this is a perfect example of a role that was created without talking to the people who are doing the work. This is a perfect example of an upfront transformation. If we have a role called, was it delivery manager? And it's not all that clear to the people around that role, what that role does or how it operates or how it is valuable. Then it's probably something designed by the consultant who took out of his pocket is the perfect plan. And in our plan, we don't have project managers. We have delivery managers and we have scrum masters. Do you know what I mean? So it really depends on what's been defined by your organization. Possibly the delivery manager is some kind of a partial project manager with line management. So I have seen that before. I've also seen delivery manager as something of a pseudo scrum master because they didn't like the word master. So they had to call it something else. I've seen that as iteration manager as well. But it's a difficult question to answer as far as what happens in your organization. But I have seen that as another example of building the structure up front, deciding the roles up front. And then when it comes to implementing them, we're like, I don't really know what that means. So I hope that answers your question. Thank you. Thank you so much, Terry. The second question for you, Terry, is that can you elaborate more on business agility and HR agility stream? Sure, sure. So it's probably a deeper dive than we have time for today. But do some Googling on that. So business agility, there's a group of people called the Business Agility Institute. And they have published an awful lot of material about how to be agile as a business. The idea really, if we just sort of put some high level sort of headlines out, is that agility is not just about the team who are building the software. Let's say, for example, a team is building software for a call center. So you've got people in the call center answering customer calls and they use a piece of software. We've kind of thought in the past of agility being something that belongs to this software team. But business agility actually brings those people together. And it effectively says the quality of our customer service is not just having great software. It's not just having great people answering the phone. It's actually the two of them together. And when we sort of get further down that track, we bring more and more people together. It's actually about bringing people together so they can collaborate and share a context.  I've seen large, complex things become an awful lot simpler because people can see how each other works. I've seen teams themselves bring enormously valuable changes because they were talking to each other rather than just delivering a project. So that's kind of a big headline. If you look at the Business Agility Institute's material on transformations, they actually say as well, change structure last. So are there more questions? Yes, we have two more minutes. I'll take one more. So one of the attendees, Siddharth, asked that how HR and leadership management will fit here. What would be the outcome for them? Okay. I may not be entirely understanding, but we're saying from a leader's point of view and from HR, what's good for them out of this? So it does involve a different way of thinking. So as HR, your traditional HR department is more about how do we shuffle people out of the organization without getting sued for wrongful dismissal? HR hasn't always been thinking of the betterment of the people in the organization. And we see that just in the fact that they call people resources as if we can just trade them. We can get rid of 200 people today and hire another 200 people at the beginning of the financial year and it will be the same. Well, it's not the same. It has massive negative impact. We see people in HR defining KPIs for people that have them competing with each other instead of collaborating. We see this all the time amongst leaders who have got KPIs that conflict. So we wonder then why we have these silos when the very leaders KPIs create the silos. So there is a change in thinking. But that change, when we can change the way we think and operate from the perspective of service then it actually creates a lot of joy and it does help leaders to get an enormous performance uplift. It does help HR to get enormous engagement uplift which I guess leaders care about too. But there are enormous outcomes for HR and leaders but it does mean they need to think a little bit differently. So yeah, thank you so much, Terry for sharing your experience with us today. It was indeed a great session. Everyone has really appreciated the talk that you have given to all the attendees. Sorry if I'm not able to take all the questions but yeah, Terry would be available on the Hangout Area for next 20 minutes.


Hello from Joint Expeditionary Base Little Creek, Virginia. I'm your Admiral Brian Bracky, Commander Navy Expeditionary Combat Command, Commander Navy Expeditionary Combat Command Pacific. NECC will celebrate the 75th anniversary of the CBs next year. Before we do, we must accomplish one goal, Navy Beat Army. Let's make it 15 in a row this year. CBs around the world. Let's show our support. Thanks Admiral Bracky. Great throw, shipmate. I'm Senior Chief Matt Dooley, stationed at Gulfport, Mississippi. And on Game Day, our Navy team is going to roll right over the competition. Hurrah! I'm Petty Officer Karen, and I'm stationed in Guam where America's Day begins. Just like in 2002, let's win again in 2016. Go Navy! Beat Army! Hi, my name is Petty Officer Third Class Channel. Deployed to Okinawa, Japan with the CBs and NMCB-5. Out here, we represent two services, one country, but out on the field, we have one goal. Go Navy! Beat Army! CBs. Can't do since 1942. Go Navy! Beat Army! Hi, I'm Seaman James Fison. I'm stationed in Poroanime, California. Navy, let's go for a 15 when we take on the Army this year. I'm Petty Officer Alparado, stationed at O'ahu, Hawaii, and Navy Expeditionary Combat Command Pacific. And we are engineering for our victory over our Army when Navy takes to the field on December 10th. I'm Petty Officer Derek Hale, deployed in Rota Spain. While the U.S. Navy protects our seas, the CBs build and fight for freedom. And our Navy football team will run toward the goal line on game day. Go Navy! Beat Army! Go Long, Admiral! I'm Rear Admiral Brett Meilenberg, Commander of NAFAC, Chief of Civil Engineers, and proud Naval Academy graduate. To all our CBs out there, I wish you an early 75th birthday. To all my Army friends out there, Go Navy! Beat Army! For the 15th straight time.


This study examined the effectiveness of under-preparation of implant insertion sites in improving primary stability. The study used three different types of implants, 3.3 mm x 13 mm, for by 13 mm, in two different polyurethane blocks, 10 and 20 PCF density, within without a cortical sheet, D1, D2, D3. The study found that under-preparation of the implant insertion sites resulted in higher insertion torques, IT, and resonance frequencies, RFA, when compared to non-under-prepped sites. Additionally, the study found that the 3.3 mm x 13 mm implant had better primary stability than the 4 x 13 mm implant when under-prepped. This article was authored by Luca Camuzzi, Margarita Tomodai, Hugo Cavani, and others.