y same powr structures except on the blockchain. Not any single one of you is going to be the revolution that you are all hailing to be either, but maybe if you work together you could. At the moment it's great because a lot of the ideas that we're having, are being swallowed up by big publishers. Like, you know, keep things private, because Elsevier, Wiley, Telefwilers, they have millions and millions of dollars of resources in Mamper that they can stick behind your ideas and implement them faster. Which is why maybe doing an approach like building it and then talking about it, like Artifacts did, is much smarter than talking about it, waiting for your movement to be co-opted and then wondering why that happened. But the rewards, so I'll try to get a positive note, but if you all work together and identify common standards and communities and processes that you can leverage to your strategic advantage and work in sort of like a step-wise way, then you might actually be able to combat basically the present system. To do this you actually need some sort of actual community governance structure and agreed upon by the people in this room. And ultimately, I guess what you want to do is create something so superior, like using web-nated technology, that we wonder why Elsevier, Wiley, Telefwilers, and journals and articles all existed in the first place, because we're still operating on like 17th century communication norms at the moment and failing to embrace the power of the web completely. People in this room are the ones who agree on how to change that, I feel. So, for me, the ultimate goal of blockchain for science and what you're all doing is to pull knowledge and resources to create a decentralized scholarly infrastructure. And by infrastructure, I mean building something that researchers won't know exists until it starts to break, until it doesn't work. So, for example, when a researcher joins a new institute, they're given a desk, a computer, an email address, a mobile phone, and they're told, like, this is where we publish, this is where your data goes, this is where your code goes, blah blah blah blah blah, and all of that can be backed up onto the blockchain, but they just don't realise it. And it's all taken away from publishers, and community, government, maybe at an institutional level or at a disciplinary level, whatever. But then you can actually adhere to these open science principles that we talked about before. You can have reclusivity, equality, accountability, freedom, fairness, all of these things that this wider open science movement is fighting for, rather than just recreating like a dozen different silos, all trying to compete with each other to be the new blockchain for science open scholarly publishing initiative. So, yeah, like, this is an idea I was going to flip by you. So, what, this is organised by blockchain for science. If you want to run an SDM association, they're basically like a pseudo governing body for the scholarly publishing industry. They dictate the future of the businesses, they have sponsored policy documents. There's a governance structure in place there. Why does blockchain for science become that? Yeah. You know, people have been saying that the open science movement lacks governance, and this is why a lot of the aspects of the wider open science movement are failing, and publishers still retain a lot of control. But why not actually create some sort of governance structure equivalent to what makes the scholarly publishing industry so successful from all of you? One of the people I didn't ask you to like give it like this. No, but I want to surprise you. Why not? Very good. Okay. You know, I think most of you recognize the logo on this, but you can do that. Address the real issue, which we're all trying to solve, and maybe haven't realised yet, which is control and governance of public research. Because like a lot of people have said, your question only looks brilliant by that. It's like, why are the contracts not available for publicly funded institutes with publishers?  Publishers currently maintain a tax on public education to make sure that their CEOs get new beach houses every year. And that is up to the detriment, to the control and freedom of scholarly research. And you can all help to fix that, I think. Thank you. Well, it was not straight. It was not straight. And I think we can go for beer now, yeah? Everything is there. No, no, very nice. Thank you very much, thank you guys. You didn't make a thesis like this. Yeah, yeah, yeah. Okay, I'll take some questions, but I have a better answer. I would like to, maybe before the questions, to say that the whole reason we're here today is not to have just a one-sided conference or on conference, but really to tackle the issue you just addressed. Is to go out of this conference together and join forces and try and really come up with good solutions and they will not only be technical, we will need to do a lot of marketing for our cause. And we need more transparency for what is actually going wrong because we know this within the scientific community. But a lot of people out there don't know the numbers of how much are we paying, our library paying, et cetera. I just want to add something at this point because it fits so well. So, Lamberd already said this and I discussed this course about these things yesterday. So, this is a slide that I got somewhere, from somewhere, okay? It is a picture that was taken of a slide in 2008 when there was the idea that there could be social networking for science, right? And when social network, there was a studio set in Germany and social networking was to show pictures, you being drunk, opening an internet, or your holiday picture, or you enter the group, the full focal fact didn't fit, sure. Or what's the matter, right? And it was insane to think of the use of social networking for science, right? And then there were people that came up with, well, let's build a social network for science. And people really got into it. And this was an analysis of the competition situation of Research Gate in the year of 2008. And we see, like, how many, we can count them together. It's like low resolution, but they are like 30, 30, even Springer Nature Networks was there. And they had like 10 times the amount of members at Research Gate at this time. You know, Mendeley is there, and what else is there? I like the academia and studio. You know, they're the ones, okay? And now the question is, like, these guys had to centralize and at some point cash out on the attention economy and build a silo in the container, right? And the question that we should ask us today is, is the blockchain economy world different and can be, like, built a system that the more people like working on the system, the more value a token or the system gets, without building a container and a silo on data. Like, the more people work with the serum, the more valuable the serum gets, the easier it gets, okay? If you can, like, have this blockchain economy idea, make working for science, then we have, like, really open science, okay? Okay. Yeah, is that okay? Okay. Now, now, now, John, John's, John's, I mean, both things are, like, open for discussion, yeah? And you, like, stay on the stage, okay? No, no, no, no, no. I mean, like, what do you say to this, like, notion or direction? Yeah. So, I'm really, really angry. I'm really, really angry, because I completely agree with what you said, and that makes me very frustrated. I like to disagree with people, particularly the conclusion, all right? The negativity and the critical aspects, okay, that's a kind of role. I think you are throwing a couple of things out with the buff, okay? So, one is a common misconception of blockchain. So, blockchain is just the tool that you can use. It's just, like, same database, so different, right? And when I use it, and we introduce DATs and the IDFS, and some of those double-buck, and all these other, sort of, protocols, that you can use, cryptography and the internet, if you like, to structure power relations between human beings. Yep. Now, when you structure power relations between human beings, you're doing a very different thing from just moving information around you, okay? That's why crypto-economics and everything comes into it, because you're basically immediately in the world of governance. So, using blockchain doesn't mean you've solved your problem. Oh, yeah. But it does mean that we can do very, very interesting things with precisely the governance structure that you set out in the role. You know, when you look at the open science community, it's like the open-source community, right? They hated blockchain when it turned out. I mean, I was trying to bring these guys together for 10 years, you know? It's like they really don't like each other, but if you bring them together in a convening like this, you can do amazing things when the values are up. So don't throw blockchain out as a really important governance tool. Mm-hmm. Okay. Yeah, it's like challenging us on this view. Yeah? It's just like, yeah, yeah, yeah. This was like... In other words, you can structure the structure that you put on the last slide, which we could have up again rather than this silly cartoon. Yeah, that one. And... This is just really... This one's right in the direct. ...in a sort of common governance structure to preserve the values of open science, okay? But it doesn't only have to be convened as a traditional legal structure like we might have done 10 years ago. Oh, I don't care about the legality. I just care about organisation. We should do it. Because like... Legality protects the soft culture. Look at open science, for example. People describe it as a movement, but like it's a movement without direction. And no one has... And no one has access to the likely governance. Yes. And because they haven't agreed on common standards, common goals, common pathways to get there, and you know, I know blockchain is still new, but these are the things you should be thinking about right from the beginning. That's what I'm talking about. Yes, which is all part of that. The governance dictates that it's... I'm not. I'm saying governance is critical. That's great. That's great. That's great. I think you're both completely agree. I think we're both... I don't see to be out. You agree. You both agree. I think we're both British. I'm just like... He's just took like a... I'm sorry, my point was that governance is critical. Yes. Absolutely. And I believe the lack of governance is why the open science movement, if you want to call it that, is largely failing. Yes, so let's use no and block chain for that. Absolutely. You've figured out right from the beginning. How that should look, which is what my little journal gave us. John, you gave a talk at blockchain for science for a living with talk that you talked about is the vocabulary, and you've taken open science so it's kind of strange for the blockchain to be stranger. I'm just wondering if you made progress yourself on simplifying the message in the vocabulary that you used as a comment. For open science or for blockchain? Over your community. Phew. Around open science. Well, we tried to fix it like four years ago by creating an open science ontology. That sort of worked. You know, it's not something which you just instantly solve overnight. There's only so much communication people can do. Yeah, progress has started to be made. Like I would say that the vast majority of researchers now broadly understand what things like open access are. Some of them might even get a bit of a string green and gold.  Like there's still a general lack of training and education in these things, which is one of the reasons why I'm building the open science MOOC to make sure that this sort of education, people understand these critical concepts in research, are embedded right at the core of research and training at the beginning. A little bit of headway. Yeah, love it. Thank you for inspiring. I think one thing that I definitely take away from this is besides the fact that we agree on this ultimate goal of open science, I think that both of them are slightly mentioned. Yes, we should subscribe to this goal and adapt to this thing. I agree with that as well. Besides this, what I take away is that some kind of evangelism. This is the right word to pronounce it. So evangelism around a blockchain for science is maybe not... Yeah, how shall I put it? It's not somehow aligned to this ultimate goal, so to say, yes. But then again, I think that you also do not see it clearly at one or two slides how disruption on a technical level really happens, because when your argument is okay, you overestimate what you can expect from a researcher, then you seem to assume that to somehow subscribe to the concept of blockchain would be the necessary precondition to get something running. And this is not the case. I mean, look around. If you ask researchers, hey, are you an HTML enthusiast? You will hardly get people to say, oh yes, HTML, I'm completely in it. But still, all researchers today are very much users of HTML and producers, users and so on, as we all know, because it's boring. It's a kind of a technology that is built in a level that is hardly recognized anymore. And so saying this through maybe, maybe in one or two years or so, with some blockchain-based solutions. For instance, just imagine for a minute you could have something like research aid, but not as a web application, but as a protocol, yes. I mean, to have this user experience, but without having to rely on this single company and their contracts with Springer and so on. And this is very easy to grasp. If the user experience is otherwise the same as with research aid today, it's not hard to understand and to use it. And just imagine this. And we are, realistically speaking, just one or two years away of doing this. Yeah. I mean, again, I probably explain it better, but this is sort of what I meant by the scholarly infrastructure part. So the definition of infrastructure I use is Jeffrey Builders, where he says, you don't notice infrastructure until it stops working, like roads. And yes, so I fully agree with you that basically building it without them knowing is without researchers knowing. Because like then, you know, it's almost like, imagine like an analogy with the big deal, for example. People don't realize that they, the libraries pay millions and millions in subscription fees until for some reason they can't access the journals anymore. And then all of a sudden they're like, wait a minute, it's not working. Do you have the same thing? But you know, with the entire research process and just not with LCB. And Sid, do you want to write, we are maybe overselling it? Yes, it's true. I think it's totally fine, but like, you know, the risk is alienation. So when open access took off, you know, in Europe, five or six years ago, those who were open access evangelists got basically marginalized and threatened for it. Like Ross Mounds, for example, got blacklisted from the paleontology community for being too vocal in support of open access. It doesn't matter how right he was, he was just pissing off the wrong people. And I feel, if you go out waving your blockchain revolutionized science flags, people are just going to be put more off than they are attracted to it. No matter how well you describe how it's going to improve their lives and their research process. On that point. Can I go now? Thank you very much. And the research is also about research data. We have to switch from this big picture of you now to a very important challenge. Of course research is about data and James will talk a few minutes, right? Like how long, yeah, about like that, like how we share data, research data, maybe in a decentralized way and where we are, okay? And where we are heading to and what the challenges are at the moment. And then the, is it this one? And the, yeah. Okay, excellent. And then we'll have another coffee break. Okay, thank you very much. Thank you very much for that introduction. I'm going to be super quick. So I don't normally talk on this topic. There's two people called Dennis Burnoff and Owen O Carrigan, who we've done like a series of workshops of the last six months and they just can't be here today. I don't like good resilient peer-to-peer networks. Some peer stands up and fills the gap. So, the key thing of these workshops that were on conference last month in London was education, as John said. So if you didn't know I'd be a bass, that project, solid fare, we were providing a supportive infrastructure to get you going on these topics and then we're just at a stage where we're evolving some use cases, which we'll talk about. So, I wish I had your slide, John, because I was too lazy to go and map out our ecosystem, but this is the current one. And the thing about going to these events, I think myself and John has been there for three years now, is that it was at lunchtime with the Irish speaker today and last night we were currently at dinner. We've got all these tokens, we've got all these consensus mechanisms and all these new magic, pure view mechanisms. How are we going to get ourselves governed to do it? So our gambler for this Damhub project is let's do this for data and consensus around data structures and build up to these more exotic consensus mechanisms. So the first thought we should have is that anywhere projects have data, go and reach out to the other people who have got similar data and see whether you use the same standard, different standard, it's a different standard than how would you describe it. But the encouraging thing for me when I found out about the Damhub project was that Owen is a librarian at Cork University and he said, oh we've got these spare objects in open science and he's a big fan of semantic web, solid. And I said, yeah I've looked at all those but I don't think they're fit for the 21st century. He goes, well what else would you use? And I said, well we could use computational reference layers or computational scaffolding. He goes, I've never heard of those before. Yeah, you're right, I've just made them up in the last few years. So we're going to talk about the existing metadata world and also this new computational world that I foresee. So in London last month David talked about being open and transparent, I think six of you were at the event too. So you can, Owen goes into detail about what FAIR is and Matt from IPFS about these links being content addressable rather than URL addressable and all the videos are currently there. But our key focus right now is actually doing stuff. And so the first use case is can we take these existing metadata objects and have consensus over using them? So what is that consensus mechanism is still an open thing but I think it's a theme of these two conferences to build on that, to find them. And we are actually working every week to put forward ideas and so we'll share those. But ultimately thinking has to become deployed so we actually have a live test network at the moment. And so we're looking for other people to join that and bring their metadata or computational reference layers to the table. But I think you've heard this theme all day. It's that we've got David's minimum viable governance for a data standard. We've got Lambert talking about all these micro small data sets and all those need their own consensus mechanism. And we have to be better as John said. Not just being technically superior. It's actually more convenient in your day-to-day life as a researcher or in my case as a citizen scientist. So we've visited lots of data protocols sitting on this paradigm and it works for the old metadata ones and it also works for computational reference layers. So just to walk the talk, I have a citizen science heart rate project based on data coming from variables. So I've already set up our demo hub hub with our IPFS node behind it, it can be that. And every time we author our data to the network or scientific computations that are machine learning, you will see a list of all our work. So I encourage everyone to do that too. Right, the new stuff. So I'm not going to go through this today, I think we can talk about it tomorrow, but on this link here I've sort of thought, right, we're five years into the future, let's look back. And so that here is we have these science data chains and they allow us as a community to have consensus over the data portability and the description of the data. So regardless of our project, our peer review system, our token, we've all agreed that our data can be because data is the new order, right? So what's the difference between metadata and a computational reference layer? So our main use case for that is a thing called chemistry. So existing metadata standard for chemistry is driven by a non-profit called the Chemistry Institute of America, the CAS number. So we take caffeine. Caffeine can be marked up as a semantic language object, but in CAS's case it's just an abstract number that they've chosen for their database. And then you have to go and look up the subsequent science and experiments to get information about the structure of the molecule. So already in CAS we have things like an Inchi code and an Inchi code says, well, given the understanding of the laws of physics, we take the 3D structure of caffeine and we give out a cryptographic hash based on its 3D actual structure. And so that becomes the unique identity part. Well, the great thing about that, given there's one laws of physics, there is only one identity part for caffeine and so you simplify the metadata problem. So a chem chain in my project I'm a heart chain but that requires cells, cells requires DNA and eventually a cardiovascular chain. So all these systems will work together and tomorrow we can go through the demo. I'm not going to go through this in detail either but this is what our current thinking is for chem chains. We have all these users at the top, currently 200 million revenue, 130 million unique molecules in doing existence. And we're basically saying, let's make it a 20 million revenue market or a 2 million revenue market and we have this notion of a query exchanges and so we have Bitcoin exchanges but in the crypto storage mechanisms, you have things like Maze safe, foreign mega and you have IPFSs, space time concept and you also have all the debt project which is a pure reciprocal. So that idea here is that you can behind these storage circles say if you had unlimited capacity as a former on Maze safe, you would have the whole of the internet on your note, right? So they built into their mechanism a limit which may be 20 terabets and maybe I gave you whatever. So you can envisage that the query exchange, anyone is free to deliver the whole index of chemistry but you'll only get more in for say 5% of it or whatever the consensus mechanism is of the community. And John talked about blockchain but like John, it's a very broad route. This doesn't use blockchain at all in the sense of people work aluminium. Well it does in one sense is that I've proposed to these guardian networks, we use it as the last resort of imitability. But basically we have a model for saying that anyone is free to propose a new structure based on this inchy or inchy plus plus. And we've just said, when three other nodes in the network verify that you've made your molecule structure in accordance with this new way you format then you're up for grabs to be a candidate to the wider science community to provide evidence that this molecule actually exists. Of course that will come from all these cases because it's not a real chemical they will be using it. And so then we're going to harness all the data analytics to make a statement on whether the molecule actually really exists and what the community says about its properties. Yeah, so a very simple message. Community, let's start with micro little data projects and build up these more grand things. Start with the things we understand from the open science movement but I think there is potential on these computational ideas which we'll talk about later. But ultimately it's about governance and humans should be the centre of that governance then in our conclusion. And then we can put automation in. Here's what we've been doing as a community and you're all free to join us on a weekly basis. Thank you.  You said it's basically a physical loss but it depends on the pressure and what kind of structure might decide the area. One scientist measures it that way and the other one measures it that way. You have measurement uncertainty. How is this going to be exactly the result? So this doesn't exist today. The closest we've come as a community and I've just joined the project is Inchi codes but you're right. For polymers and more complex molecules there's clashes and it fails. My back is saying you don't have the best cryptographers from the DAP project from IPFS made safe and I think it's possible now. And I'm just saying we might not be perfect but if you get closer to that it's far better than some abstract monopoly on index number that's just picked out like a core registration number. But the big idea behind these computational reference numbers today with the proof of work algorithm. The proof of work algorithm is securing the ledger. Inchi can imagine as we've built all our peer review and AI systems on top of these data protocols that's computational proof that these things are really being used in the world unless we have the compute power world going for a scientific purpose around the abstract notion of securing artificial scarce money. I realise this was a very specific lecture that's already taught me words in my head. If I'm a big chemical company I had the same sort of issues in medicine like AI systems for diagnosis. If I'm a big chemical company and I want to use some non-increaser for chemical entities the reason that I would choose what's the name of the big company the not-for-profit CAS system that has a large turnover is because I consume not because of the reliability in the data. So if it was reliability in the data we could probably use weekly data towards us in the ground. So how, I mean, that's the sort of legal advice you get if you're born in a large company. Choose this entity that will back up this statement because if it goes wrong and you kill someone you can see that. How does blockchain or any of this help back? So maybe we told the backstrap to the chemchains. A chemchains were a thought experiment so where did it come from? It came from the Berlin on conference that we ran in November was the last year. So Marcus Rusyn who works for Elsevue, right? I didn't know at the time he was talking about Inchi codes and I said to him, what are you describing here? Because I claim that all science should be in computational form. And so part of his day-to-day job at Elsevue is going around all this industry. And so they've come back and said if you can give us some legal framework that shows that the community will own this we would be more than happy for the community to own it. But what that legal entity is in structure we're continually working every week to find the solution that works for you. But it seems to be of academia, corporate land or the open science. The corporate seem to be the ones that want to liberate the world as much for economic reasons. So but it's early days but we are looking at finding a mechanism that if they did put the resources behind it it can be taken away if the project got taken over like we've seen with other startups. But just a comment on that thing the lawyers always say we want someone to sue that's what they always say. But the trouble is again it hardly ever happens if someone gets sued. But also that's what you have insurance for as well I mean. So it's just a bit of a straw man. I haven't received anything to sue right now. What's that?  No I would say it never happens I said it hardly ever happens but the amount of things that don't go forward because I don't know how much you know about going to court or anything but it's incredibly expensive you never get back what it's doing it's often used as a weapon than anything else but if you've got a good insurance company and it's insurance yeah I just you know there's a small risk there is a real risk so that's why you have insurance. And on that point one of the key applications of blockchain is to provide community insurance isn't that sort of useful? But that's why if it's properly decentralized then there is no one to sue but the trouble is a lot of people have a company or a structure there so yes you've got people to go after and that's one of the reasons why Bitcoin was successful because other people tried stuff before and some of them ended up in prison so there was no one to go after with it so that's the other way of really stepping back because yeah you might make a bit more money but you're the ones that are in the garden basically It's not an interesting question You don't have to take it on a Bitcoin just to have a different direction No I'm just saying to really predict what happens Yeah so going strictly legal open data for most insurance policy but the community government no one is making too much money yet that's the way it's going but real governance and taking all serious advice Perfect So we'll have a break now for sure I just want to ask you one question first an announcement so a quarter to seven we'll meet here and go together to the Luftburg for the dinner we have a reservation there it's at the Prater it's a different place from yesterday so a quarter to seven we'll go from here together or we'll meet at the Luftburg I put the link in the Twitter ground channel and on the web page and now I have a question we'll have a break now for sure and Alex and Shanguin Shanguin from Pluto and Alex from DEIP agreed to give their presentation tomorrow early on if everybody is fresh or we can have them tonight and we have like two other talks so the question is whether we have like two more talks or four more talks what do you think like who wants to have two more talks who wants to have four more talks okay you'll talk tomorrow when everybody is fresh okay great so we have like is this a Luftburg with the... it's 10 minutes it's 10 minutes walk from here it's not far okay now we have like a 15 minute break then we have two more talks and then we'll meet at the Luftburg where we're here okay okay excellent


Hey everyone, Shaber1000 here. Today, we're going back here to a place called the Monkey Bar. Right over here is a little island.  Now, I'm probably not gonna, I'll be able to film it, but I'm not gonna be able to talk through it because they're playing music and they just started as soon as I kicked the camera on, of course. So anyway, hopefully this part won't get messed up, but anyway, let's go see the monkeys. This is the Yulee. That's Y-U-L-E-E. Sugar mill ruins. Historic State Park. And those are some big gears, guys. I know it doesn't look like it in the camera, but hopefully you guys like the monkeys too. Walk with you guys so you can see some of this. Sorry about the traffic noise. A lot of sugar mills and turpentine mills down here in Florida. That might give you a perspective. I don't know if I'm allowed, I don't think I'm allowed to cross this chain. There's a chain right here. I got you on the stand. So I don't, you know, I would go up there and show you that's probably a 20 foot wheel right there, that fly wheel and that gear, that half gear thing. It was probably, looks to be about like a 12 or 15 foot, but I guarantee you that's a 20 foot wheel right there. Mm-hmm. I don't know, I don't know why it would be. Because remember they said they moved apart and it was moved into a different part. Well, that's clear news from Erna. Yeah. So this is part of a steam engine. It's not all there. This is part of the steam engine there.  Can't see anything in there. This was, this came from New York, but down in the bottom of there, there's a clean out. So I'm guessing this may have been part of the boiler, but that's a big chimney over there. And these over here are some pots, big gigantic pots that they would have stuff in. I'm not sure exactly how it works, but I have a video of another sugar mill that is in, see here's more part of it. That is in New Smyrna where I talk more about it. So there's the SERP kettle. This was the battery kettle. This was the SERP kettle. Hang on, this thing's turning on me. This was the flumbo kettle. How do you pronounce that? Propriet kettle. And that one over there is the grande kettle, grande.  Yep. And again, over there's the big giant flywheel. So this had one heck of an engine on it. It was pretty cool. Yeah, we didn't know this was here. This was kind of bonus when we went to go see the monkeys. We've seen this. And monkey, this monkey here said, we need to stop and check it out on the way back. So that's what we did. More in a little bit guys. This is a lovely little park. Okay guys, so I hope you enjoyed the monkeys and everything. Sorry, I had to put music over it and I couldn't talk through it because the restaurant or pub or bar monkeys is the monkey bar. They were playing music, so copyrighted stuff. So it was good music though. But you head on over to monkey's channel and she'll have some of that on there for you too.  I'm going to throw them in at the end of this video. Some of the still images I took, hopefully enjoy them. And swing over to monkey's channel, give her a visit and tell her happy birthday it's her birthday. So monkey wanted to see the monkeys. So that's what we did. So happy birthday monkey, hope you had a great time. I had fun, really enjoyed it. So it was 95 today guys. So, oh man, he usually starts getting cooler around December, January, and then about February it starts warming up again. So anyway guys, thanks again for watching. Don't forget to check out monkey 1000 channel tell her happy birthday. Tell her she better have sent you. We'll see you guys soon. Enjoy the rest of your week and y'all be safe. Bye bye now and take care.


Welkom to this YouTube channel. We are talking about the latest development in the Gulf countries. We talk about the jobs, we talk about the trauma restrictions. We talk about all other updates and we talk about the latest updates that we have. In today's video, the child that was injured at the police we told passes away. Remember recently we had an accident that happened at the new mall in Qatar where a child of a national nationality fell from the top from up in the balcony. Until down and subs came with what we called injured. But according to the latest information that we have, the latest update right now is that the child that was injured at a Paris vendors passes away as the reports say and the social media reports remember. This child after he fall down from the higher roof which was newly opened from that mall, the Vendom palace that is in Olsay. The three are old, the child was from Jordan and it was called Khalid. Khalid Walid, he has passed on. That is according to the media reports that we have apparently that the child passed away after Sakami what we call injuries for a long period of time remember. It was alleged that the child fell from what we call a higher roof at a place Vendom mall in Olsay and sustained what we call what we call grace injuries. He was rushed to hospital at that time. That is according to the management. He was rushed to hospital because of those injuries. But however he has not been able to live on or to survive because of the scum injuries that we have. Because of the injuries that we got. You know you are going on. But however for the latest reports that we have is that the probe the authorities are still investigating if it was too likely fell from that area and how definitely he fall and actually it's still the probe is still on trying to investigate what happened and exactly where the instance or how the instance happened at that same moment of time. And according to the reports that we have according to the authorities they are still investigating that issue that happened at the new Vendom mall at Olsay at the same time. Then still also remember at the same time at the same time the management imagine a week before the management of the Vendom Paris mall in Olsay also gave its statement and it was like it was definitely informing people that it was still working with the management and the authorities in charge to exactly to investigate or to uncover the circumstances at which a child fell or how the child got to fell from the flow that it was talked about flow until he got down to get all the scum diseases. However for the same situation we shall always keep on waiting for all the updates that will be coming and the updates will be giving out before we can make our own conclusion because it so is very important for the authorities to give us those updates. However to the family and to the family and we so pity for the family we still take up prayers together with us. So that is the latest information the latest government that we have for so far and for those that can find out how this thing happened at the end of May it's your soldiers residence it's all in peace and well known so we are waiting to see what is going to come out and definitely the probe or what we call the investigation or what we call the information that will be coming out from the authorities. Thank you so much for coming back this semi I will always be updating you if I get something new and by the way don't forget to subscribe and don't forget to click to that notification bell to always give you an update or to always let you know whenever we upload a new video. Thank you so much see you again in the next video.


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