Okay, so good morning everybody. Let's get started. So, Tadashi will continue with his third lecture. Good morning everybody. So, I'd like to now go on the topic of holographic calculation of entanglement entropy, namely, holographic entanglement entropy. And in my first lecture today, I'm going to give some basics about holographic entanglement entropy and some recent developments with some properties of this entropy. And in my second lecture, I'd like to give some recent applications which we are working quite recently. So, this is section three, the holographic entanglement entropy. So, we just simply call HEE, Holographic Entanglement Entropy. But before that, I just want to give some short summary of ADS safety, because that's quite useful for my second lecture today. So, we want to specify a basic coordinate system. This is ADS safety, or discard by Maruda Sena, 1997. And so, the claim is just, as you know, it's gravity, or maybe string theory. It's originally derived in string theory on anti-Doshita space. And let's call this as ADS D plus 2. So, this is my convention. Maybe people usually use D plus 1, but this is quite useful, because in this case, ADS safety argues. So, it's like a homomorphic theory. Yeah, so it's a simple case. It's like R D plus 1. So, D plus 1 dimensional homomorphic theory. In some case, we consider R times S D, the sphere. But anyway, D plus 1 dimensional homomorphic theory is dual to gravity in D plus 2 dimension, 1 dimension higher, because this is so-called holographic principle. And this has a negative cosmological constant, namely, anti-Doshita space. So, this is a basic claim of ADS safety. And so, typically, let's call this as some manifold M. And typically, this CFT is defined on this boundary of the spacetime. So, if we have some bulk space M, then boundary, we have some holographic dual. So, here, we have gravity, but as we can see from this Peckenshtein-Holkenholmerer entropy, the degree of freedom in gravity somehow looks like one dimension lower. That means just the degree of freedom is proportional to area, not to the volume. Entropy is not proportional to volume, but it's proportional to area. So, that suggests that it's... Gravity theory is equivalent to some non-gravitational theory. Non-gravitational theory is like counter-fuse theory or some quantum mechanics, many more quantum mechanics, which live on one dimension lower space. And ADS safety can be expressly understood in terms of the string theory, even though rigorous proof is still missing. This is a very important future problem. And so, here, if we want to get some classical gravity limits, namely some generativity or supergravity, then we have to take a particular limit of quantum-fuse theory, so which is a large N, N is the degree of freedom for the SUN gauge group. Some gauge theory, we have typically this CFT, the gauge theory, and this is the rank of gauge group, and the large N limit and the strongly coupled. And in my talk, so I'm basically assuming this condition, but we can also talk about some one-over-n collection and coupling constant, strong coupling collections in a perturbative way also. And sometimes I have also mentioned that. But so anyway, so this anti-Doshita space, we are going to focus on two different anti-Doshita space. It's the most typical one. First one is so-called global ADS, and second one is called Po-ankal ADS. And we take hypersurface definition of anti-Doshita space. So in my convention, I take this way, D plus two, equal to some hypersurface, one square, and blah, blah, blah, X plus D plus one in some two-time space, right? R to D. So there are two-time directions and these spatial directions. So metric looks like this. These two guys have a negative, so time-like, two-time, and other guys are positive. So this is the definition of anti-Doshita space, and obviously this has a symmetry. This has a symmetry, S-O, oh, maybe I got it here. S-O. So you have two? Time two? No? S-O, S-O, S-O. You're right. Thanks a lot. Yes. I should put it R-square, so this is very important. And which is identified as this regroup, identified as conformal. Conformal symmetry in CFD, and which lives on D plus one. And then, so we introduce basic coordinate. Yeah, so it's good to put D plus two. That's D plus one. So these are, okay, so it's, anyway, yeah. So it's like R cos rho and cosine tau, and R also cos, and sine tau. And other guys are proportional to R, sine hyperbolic, rho, and some spherical coordinate, some polar coordinate. It's called omega one, and it's like similar way. Then that's D plus one. So these are, guys, two equal one. And then, so we can write metric, so just induce from this metric, so we can just reduce this metric on this hyper surface. So this is a quite well known metric. It looks like this. And this omega state, the omega state is just metric of S, S-T. So this is D plus two dimension. This is one radial direction and one time. And you can write this picture. It's quite standard picture. So we have a low direction. Ah, sorry. We have tau direction. This is a time direction. And we have some radial direction. Here it's a low. And this spherical direction, we'll write it omega i. So it looks like this. And we see this boundary of this, this is called global radius. So this global means it covers whole part of space time. And this is quite important later. Discussion of local excitation, which I am. But anyway, this is global ADS-3. So this is called global ADS-3. And this boundary is, we can see that low goes to infinity. So the boundary is here. So that means we have tau direction and omega direction. So that means r cross S-D. And then, so this is related to this ADS-T correspondence. And it's bulk theory, but gravity is dual to boundary theory, which we have conform of your theory. And the second coordinate is a Poincare ADS. So this transformation is quite important for my later discussions. Poincare ADS-D plus 2. So this is called global ADS. So for this, we somehow rewrite these coordinates. These are basic coordinates. And in terms of different parameterization. So these are one parameterization rotor. This is very beautiful parameterization, but there are another beautiful parameterization. So we combine this in the right corner. And we call this z plus z. X mu is some low-rentian coordinate. So mu takes a value. It's 0, 1, 2, and d minus 1. Sorry, 0 minus 2, up to d. So this d plus 1 dimensional performance theory appears here. And if we take difference, then r is the ADS radius. So this is the ADS radius. So it's obvious, because it's like all metrics go with proportional to r squared. This measures size of anti-Doshita space. And also there are other components. d plus 2 looks like rx0. This is the time direction, z. And xi, which means i to 1 to d, 1 to d, they look like rxi and z. And it is very easy to confirm this constraint. This is the way to solve this constraint. And this guy gives very beautiful metric, very simple metric, which is known to be Poincare ADS. So here, good thing is that we have this Minkowski space here, standard flat Minkowski space. So it's like r1d. This is the radial direction, z is the radial direction. So if we write picture, we find this. And this is the z direction. And this means we are squeezing. If we go to the large z, that means that squeeze the space time, metric of space time. It's proportional to always 1 over z square. And it's get divergent at some boundary. So also the same thing is true for as log of infinity is a boundary, but it's there where we have divergence of metric. And this is identified with uv divergence of conformal fuselage. In quantum fuselage, as we know, we have ultravalve divergence. And that's also essential in the computation of entanglement entropy. So at z equals 0, it's metric is divergent. So we put some, normally put some cutoff here. Option is very small quantity, but I'm going to mention this more later. But anyway, so this is a time direction x0 and this is a space direction xi here. And the z direction is warped. There are some warped dimensions. And boundary is here. So boundary is here. This is a boundary. So in this case, one of these Poincare ADS U plus 1, 2 is obviously R1D. So this is R1D. These two guys are basic setup. Of course there are many others, but this is quite relevant also my discussion later. But at the same time, we should ask what's the connection between this two space. This should be the same, because it's come from the same definition. ADS covers only part of the space time. And if we look, so this global space, global ADS covers everything. So we can embed this Poincare patch into this global part. So that is given by, maybe like this way. This way, and we write some wedge here. Global ADS is of course extended infinitely. So we are particularly focusing on this wedge. So this is, we cut along this line. This is just null direction. And this part is like tau is half of pi. And here it's like tau is minus half of pi. And we look this region. So this shaded region is correspond to full region of Poincare ADS. And the, for example, one good pro is some particle. We can imagine some particle is passing through the center. And the center of global ADS, that means just rho equals zero. Just rho equals zero. So particle, this static particle, just trajectory of static particle. This particle don't have any motion in this space. But we can map this trajectory here. This is very easy, because we can regard this rho equals zero condition. It just means all of these coordinates are zero. So that means, for example, this guy is zero.  So that means these two guys are same. Sorry, we set these two guys are same. So that gives d square and xx mu equal to r square. But also this guy is zero. So that means this guy is zero. That means we cut it out x i equal to zero. Then this just gives t squared. And this means that z equals to square root of t squared and r squared. So this is a trajectory like some moving particle. So it's like a falling particle. So this is a kind of horizon. It's called black brain. So there are heavy objects here. So that means the particle are attracted by strong gravitational force. And even if you start with some particle state here, it's pulled by gravitational force and it's falling into the horizon. So it looks like this, but however, this trajectory goes to minus infinity to plus infinity of time of the observer who lives on the boundary of one credit. But in this coordinate, you just see it's only part of trajectory. The observer really sits on this particle. It looks like more global motion. This global motion is covered only partially here. So this issue is quite important in later argument. Also many parts of this area is safety. So I just want to also mention about UV cut-off. So this is also very essential in the computation entanglement entropy. So we basically in ADSFT, the z direction, so you can see some nice symmetry. You can rescale z goes to lambda z, some scaling. But at the same time, x mu goes to lambda x mu, the metric is invariant. So that means this is a kind of scale transformation and this scale transformation is somewhat equivalent to this shift of z. So because of that, z is identified as some length scale in CFT. So this is basically, this is called UVIR relation because this here is a metric divergent in this limit. That means it's quite an infrared in gravity viewpoint, but this infinite metric actually corresponds to the UV divergence in conformity, I should say. This tells us basically, this z direction is a length scale and this is kind of a renormalization group flow. So this is trivial renormalization group flow because we are talking about conformity theory. But if you have some mass deformation, then you see non-trivial renormalization group flow and if you have a mass gap, end up with just some capital geometry, nothing here. So that means degree of freedom in large z is missing. That means because of mass gap, no degree of freedom in the infrared. So that way, this is quite useful information. And at the same time, we don't write, we don't want metric divergent. So we put some cut-off. We put cut-off here. It's a geometrical cut-off in ADS viewpoint, ADS gravity. But however, this is duality because of ADS CFT, duality, so this is actually UV cut-off CFT. And in that sense, epsilon is regarded as a lattice constant in lattice regularization. Or a momentum cut-off is like one over epsilon. So this is a basic issue when we play with ADS CFT. And also, basic principle, this is a more very, very important thing, is that bulk to boundary relation. We're going to use this later to derive holographic entanglement entropy. And so this is worked out by a famous work, Gav Zakhryov-Vitain, 1998. And this says that's a very simple thing. So if we compute partial function in gravity, then this is equivalent to partial function in CFT. From here, you can say also entropy in gravity is equal to entropy in CFT, free energy in gravity is equal to free energy in CFT. And also you can add some external fields, like some source or some magnetic field, as I mean, electric field, magnetic field and also gravitational field. Then you can take derivative about external fields and then you also find the correspondence of this correlation function and so on. So I'm not going to tell you this quite, I mean, in some sense, classical, classic well-known facts, so I'm not going to detail, so partial function is equivalent. So these are basic preparation for this next topic of this holographic entanglement entropy. So yeah, so now we're going to, next topic which is a holographic entanglement entropy. So I would like to explain this. First I give some, especially how I'd like to give how we can formulate calculation of entanglement entropy in CFT in terms of gravity and give some quick derivation later. But it is good to start with a simpler situation, namely, if we have some static system, this is a holographic entanglement entropy for static space time, static background. So this case, point is that you can also do some Euclidean analytical continuation without any problem. So Euclidean space, Euclidean space, equally. And this is first formed by me and Ryu, 2006. And I just first give some basic calculation. So you can imagine this ADS CFT setup. I write it here again. So it is easier to do it in Poincaré, but you can do it on any different coordinate system. But if you remember the definition of entanglement entropy in quantum field theory, basically, so let's take some time slash t equals zero to specify the Hilbert space, some state. And we decompose Hilbert space into two parts, right? Always bipartite A region and B region. Maybe you can also flip B and A. This is fine, like this. And once you decompose space into two parts, then you can define entanglement entropy, which we wrote SA, right? And in this case, maybe this is a pure state, like I said. But for mixed state, this is no longer true. And so this point is that this is a quantum mechanically impressive define, but in the ADS CFT gives some quite geometric calculations.  That is given by area of black hole horizon. So the same thing happens for this holographic entanglement entropy. So the idea, so we have some extra dimension, which is z direction already introduced there. So we take some surface which covers region B. Anyway, this boundary is very important. This is obvious. We explained something called area law and so on. It's always proportional to boundary area and so on. So reading the divergence should be proportional to area. And anyway, so we pick up some surface which called gamma A. This surface, you can call also gamma B, but in this case. But let's call it gamma A, which means that, so this gamma A satisfies the condition that boundary of gamma A is boundary of A. Well, maybe in this pure state, but let's not talk on this. We can talk about also mixed state case. Yesterday I explained that why entanglement entropy is not so good quantity to characterize quantum entanglement for mixed state. But nevertheless, we can define entanglement entropy and actually in a holographic set up that's actually quite nice quantity. But though it's not count number of EPR pairs and so on. So this we impose this condition. And we also need to impose some topology condition. Like these two guys are like, you can imagine this A surface. Maybe it is good to think A, but in this case you can flip this because of pure state. So A region is homologous to each other, to the gamma A. So this is topological condition. But anyway, so up to this condition, we find that this entanglement entropy is in CFT actually equal to some geometrical quantity which is like minimum area surface. So we compute area of this gamma A, I4G Newton. And we take all choice of gamma A, but gamma A satisfies these two conditions. Gamma A is same as boundary and gamma A is homologous to this homology condition. Not homotopy, homology, homology condition. And so we can compute. So this is a basic claim of holographic entanglement entropy. And then we can check various properties before we derive this formula. So first of all, we know the basic property of entanglement namely area law. So we should be able to reproduce area law. So this is very easy to see because you can compute this area of gamma A, which looks like anyway. So we have to take a minimization, but obviously the metric divergence here should be perpendicular. The surface should be perpendicular to the boundary. So that means if you integrate metric and if you remember this Poincare metric, which I write it here, so it looks like this. Some R, these are radius, radius, some power of D because always this is D dimension. So this is very important that this is D dimension and that means co-dimension too. Entropies always associated some co-dimension to surface because so that dimension cancels with Newton constant. So it's like this. I will be careless about numerical constant. And we take integral R of Z, but this we have Z here. And so we know we have cut-off. Right now this cut-off plays an important role. So in principle this metric divergence here so it gets just divergent. We put some cut-off here, epsilon here. So integrated epsilon to some value, which I don't know, some value, we don't care because we are interested in most reading contribution which is really localized as a boundary. Metric gets divergent here. And of course we have X integral. And this just gives an area of boundary of A, D minus 1. So in this way we find roughly speaking this guy and the integral of this gives some epsilon to D minus 1 power and the area of boundary of A. And some sub-reading terms. But this is exactly what we expect for area law. This is area law in the behavior. And this constant is actually even dimensional conformal feature, this is like central charge. It's quite natural. It's proportional to degree of freedom. And odd dimensional case also states some good quantity to characterize degree of freedom. And related to F-function and so on. So first test is somehow very easy. And now we go to another issue of mixed state. Modern issue in the mixed state versus a pure state. Yes? Do you really mean central charge or I mean in four dimensions for example? What do you mean? Is it roughly the central charge? Yeah. Do you mean A or C? Yeah. Because this is a leading order in a classical gravity limit. A and C is equal. I see, I see. Everything is degenerate. To see more details we need to take into account collections, higher derivative collections. And another issue is this one.   So just application generalization of ADS-FT tells us this is dual to finite temperature TFT. Temperature is the same. Just some black hole has a temperature, a Hawking temperature, and that temperature is dual to conformity temperature. And we can think about a situation. Now I switch to global ADS. So it's like round shape boundary. So we have black hole horizon here.  And we talk about entanglement entropy for particular region A. And let's take other region B. B is a complement. But however in this case, low AB is not pure. Not pure. Actually it's like low AB is equal to low AB is equal to canonical ensemble, beta H. So it's not mixed state. So that's case, something special happens. So here also this homology condition plays a very important role. So we can imagine there are actually two different minimal surfaces which covers A or B. So this is one surface which covers A, but we can have another surface which really ends on the same place like this way. But this homology condition tells us this surface should be dual to A and this surface should be related to B. So we call it gamma A and gamma B. They are different. In this zero temperature, this is a zero temperature, vacuum CFT is described by Poincare ADS. That's case, these two guys are same. But this is no longer. Levels, this region is A. This region B. Yeah, inside is B. So this region is B. So we take ADS-3 setup maybe for simplicity. And then time direction is this direction. And this is one circle direction and the spatial direction in CFT. And this is the radial direction. And these two guys are different. So entanglement between A is just computed by area of gamma A divided by 4D newton. And this is different from SB which is given by this area of gamma B. So this is very special. And indeed this is consistent with what we know. Only for pure state SA equals SB4s. But for this kind of setup, so state is not true. And the reason for why gamma B looks a little bit larger is just, it's also count number. It also has a contribution from Beckystein-Folkin formula. It's like almost wrapped. So that is actually very classical correlation. And it's not related to containment entanglement as also discussed yesterday. But that's the reason we have some extra control. But nevertheless, this is quite important quantity. And we can see some interesting transition behavior here already. I'll come back to this later. If we assume A is very small, A goes to very small. Then A is just this region. And the other is B. Then the surface is here. But you can imagine this kind of surface. Up to some region, this surface exists, but there are much smaller area because we always have to take a minimum. If there are several candidates which satisfy this condition, we have to pick up the minimum area one. So this here is the situation. There are these surfaces. But actually we should pick up another one which just, namely, it wraps here and also just pick up this guy. So let's call this a gamma black hole. So in this setup, this is a gamma A.  So if so, we will see that entanglement entropy for B minus entanglement entropy for A is same as black hole entropy, which is just area of black hole horizon and divided by 4G newt. This is the one expressed connection between black hole entropy and entanglement entropy. This is equal to thermal entropy, thermal dynamical entropy, thermal entropy. So this is one concrete way to say the deep relation between entanglement entropy and thermal dynamical entropy. So in the sense entanglement is a sort of generalization of the standard thermal entropy. But it's sort of a huge generalization. And this relation is always true if we take a limit but in holographic case there are some even though A is not completely shrink to zero size, it's some finite but it's very small already this transition happens. This is a very sharp transition and it's like sometime called phase transition. This is very specific to holographic theory, like some conformal few series dual to classical gravity limits of anti-dorshita space. I will come back to this issue later. Yeah, good question, but actually minimal stuff you don't get into the horizon. Yeah, but this is the reason that we are talking about static space.  And one more thing is some inequality. Like some strong stability which also we explained. This is very quickly, we can easily show this is let us remember strong sour activities like this, A, B, C. This means A union B union C, this B union C. So this is very easy to show and we can just schematically write it here. Everything just project down to two dimension, but you can imagine the same thing also to go for higher dimension. So we pick up some region A, B, C like this and then this guy, S, A, B is some minimal surface area of minimal surface here. S, B, C is the minimal surface here. But this is obviously so smaller than A, B, C. So we can imagine this surface, you can think pick up only this surface somehow pick up this surface. This is really artificial. There are even casps in reality, but there are actually much smaller surface. Area is smaller. Smooth surface. And also you can imagine this guy is like very funny surface, but there are obviously smooth and surface which are smaller area. So this guy is just this guy and this guy is just this guy. So obviously this inequality holds in holographic theories. And then one more test is 2D CFT. So yesterday we derived the formula, the famous formula. So of this entanglement entropy, 3, C and log L over epsilon.  There's a bias also cut off here. And we explained that. So we want to derive this in ADCFT, this holographic calculation, but this is very, also it varies. So we know actually first of all this length is let's take 2 over L and 2 over L. And this is a region A. This part is a region A. And then end point is here and we have to find some minimal surface, but this minimal surface is not surface, actually geodesic. It's always co-dimension 2 and here we have in mind area 3 divided to CFT 2. So it's like co-dimension 2 guys are lying, right? And we just want to think about geodesic links, geodesic line. So this geodesic line is actually turned out to be just a very beautiful one, just a half circle, semi-circle. So this is just described by so this is the z direction and this is the x direction and time is again fixed. And so this geodesic turned out to be z for L square and x x square. And in a Poincare metric, in Poincare metric it looks like this. And we fix time equals 0 so just 2 dimensional. It's Poincare risk. And then this guy, we can rewrite this into using this surface it's like this L square and z square and times d z square. So this is just induced metric on this geodesic. Then we integrate so area of this this geodesic gamma a gamma a is just integrate this metric. And z takes value from epsilon, we need a cut-off epsilon again and up to this L over 2. And we just integrate this guy. RL divided by z and L square for z square. And then this is very easy to do and then we have log formula. The reason we get log epsilon divergence is just here. So this is kind of constant when z is very small so we have d z integral anyway. So that gives precisely also no other term no other constant term. And then RL I thought you got a good point. Excellent. We have to do because this integral just computes one part of the contribution and we need one more contribution. Thank you for comments. And then so finally we take s a is like area of gamma a divided by epsilon which is looks like R over 2g newton and log of epsilon. But now we use the famous relation something called Brown-Eno relation between radius radius and central charge. And then this is just 3 over c and log L over epsilon. So this way we can reproduce what we know from CFT side. This is one of the simplest test check. So this is a story in static case. So now I also give some formula for more general case which is holographic entanglement entropy in time dependent time dependent setup time dependent space time. So this case one problem is that we cannot take a simple and a weak rotation into Euclidean space. If we do naively then we get valued metric which is not good. Also on this kind of low range and space time here we restrict everything down to time slice. So in that case we can have a nice minimal surface. But if you are thinking full low range and space if we go in narrow direction then area is just collapsed to zero. This minimization maybe just give this singular surface like narrow surface is not good actually. Doesn't do nothing related to entanglement. So we have to be very careful about the choice of some surface. We cannot just say minimum area surface. And instead correct formulation is this one. This is a formulation which I worked with Veronica Fubény and Mukund Rangamani and one year later than that one. And so this case is really kind of argument. First we do extramarization. Not necessarily minimum, not necessarily maximum. So we take area of same surface gamma a. This is the same condition. So here boundary of gamma a is boundary of a and gamma a is homologous to a. And we take divided by 4G newton the same as Beckenshe and Hokeyman again. We compute this. Anyway there are many several candidates for this guy. Then we pick up just minimum guy. Let's call this a solution. So there are some solutions. This is a kind of differential equation partial differential. We have to solve it. But you get some discrete number of solutions and we have to take a minimum among them. So this is a formulation. We cannot initially start with some minimum or something. So this is the extremar surface. This is called extramar surface. So that means just we compute area functional and just require its variation in 0. And the actually the reason why we have extramar surface is like this. So you have in mind some we have some Poincare metric. Let's imagine some area 3 for simplicity. We have some geodesic. In area 3 extramar surface is just geodesic. Space-like geodesic. Space-like geodesic. Space-like. So if we think about some kind of time slice, then if we move this way, then indeed this is a minimum surface. But if we move in time-like direction it's a Laurentian space, it's like metric is different. It's like this way. If we move in t-direction it's minus. So it's an area actually minimize. Actually area increases in this direction. But this direction increases. So that means we have to maximize in this direction and minimize in this special direction. So that's the reason we need an extramar condition. And this is quite manifest in another formalism, which is so this is t, there are equivalent but another formalism which is formed by example, which is another formulation. So it's different. So this is we call it also covalent holographic entanglement. Another covalent. This is equivalent from 2000. This is actually quite useful to prove strong survivability for time-dependent backgrounds. This formula is not, from this formula it's not easy to derive strong survivability like this because if we think about this two geodes equal to surface they are not always in the same time slice. But another formulation helps us to show this. So this SA maybe we put it for W. And this is another two-step computation but first we can do is minimization. So anyway we want something minimal surface. But we have actually a minimum of a particular time slice. So we have in mind we have some Poincaré, let's take Poincaré, but we can take some particular time slice. So which covers end on this boundary of A. Let's call this the A. This region is A. Some surface, you can choose many different surfaces. You can also choose this kind of surface but always end on A. You can choose if it remains. But let's fix one of the time slice. Then we can on this time slice we can talk about this kind of minimal surface. Minimal surface. So this is this condition. So we have some surface but which only always lives on some particular time slice. This sigma is time slice and compute and it's the same condition. So this is the same. So we go to gamma A. Homological condition. This is quite a stable calculation because always in a space like manifold we just minimize surface. And after that of course the result depends on the sigma. Choice of time slice and we take a maximumization about sigma. And this gives holographic entanglement between covariant and formulation. So these two guys are also proven equivalently. But the quick understanding is that you have to maximize here. This maximizes here. This sigma and the minimization is here. So the maximization of this guy by changing sigma time slice. And this guy is just fixed time slice. And we have a region A.  But this part tells us. And these two steps proceed here. And the reason why this is quite useful for, I mean, to prove strong flexibility is maybe I should like show this here. Yes. Sigma is any time slice which end on the region A. So we have some time slice. These are ADS space. But let's fix one of the time slice. Then on this time slice we can minimize the area. We can find minimal surface. But the problem is that result depends on the choice of time slice. And then finally take a maximum against any choice of sigma. Proof of SSA in covariant case. We can do this in the following way. Using this second formulation. This is also obtained by Aramor. And so we have some we can imagine some Poincare setup for anything you like actually. So as a boundary it's very easy. So we have some A, B, C. We have three region called A. A, B, C. End a little bit more. C and here. This is some time slice and we have A, B, C. But problem is so if we think real surface looks like this two guys that looks like this is gamma A, B and this is gamma B, C and they are not on the same time slice. It's not easy to not possible to find some slice which includes both of them. Because here it's in some sense they intersect not doesn't completely intersect. It's like a slightly separated. But the idea is to start the opposite way. So we start with the answer. The answer is this guy. Let's start with this guy. So anyway, this is something good. The reason is so you can find some surface of B and we can find some surface for A, B, C. But they don't intersect in some sense if we look from the top. So that means we can always find some time slice which includes both of them. So we can always, for formal proof of this, you can find some sigma which includes both of them. So sigma includes gamma B and gamma A, B, C. We'll be owing to that. So anyway, we compute area of gamma B plus area of gamma A, B, C. And on this sigma slice, we can easily prove this same as this static case. We can easily show A, B on this sigma and the area of this B, C on this sigma. This inquiry just saved us that one. We fix some spatial time slice. So we have some surface so we have some surface which looks like this and like this. So this is on the same surface sigma. So that's the reason I put sigma. But actually the real surface is different. The real surface is something similar but it's a little different. Maybe it's going this way and this is a real external surface. But nevertheless, because if we remember that formulation always correct one is a maximum against choice of sigma so that means correct one should be satisfied this thing quality. So this way, in the end anyway, we prove this strong quantity. So these are basic checks which we have to do to believe in this entanglement. This quantity is the entanglement. But next I'd like to give more direct derivation by using ADS-CFT. So this is the final C is some derivation holographic derivation this by Ruko Itzan and Mada Sena. But as there are some derivations which are pointed at a very good point just after our proposal. But this Ruko Itzan gives the most correct derivation. So here we just use this bulk to boundary relation. Partition function is equal to each other in CFT and holography. So we start this CFT partition function is equal to gravity and gravity looks like simple. That exponential minus action is gravity and action looks like I'm talking about Euclidean formulation. So we have minus sign and just G and R minus 2 cos constant and some maybe some time we need to include given but that doesn't contribute actually. So I don't write it. Also there are, you can assume scalar field or fermions but they don't contribute. Only metallic is important to compute this. This is also closely related to the fact that somehow only gravity theory if we think of a scalar field theory and fermion theory and maybe gauge theory. So there are no classical contribution to entropy but only at spin too. I mean gravity theory has kind of mysterious we have some classical contribution of entropy. This is a typical example of Beckenstein-Folkenhoemmler and more general consequence is holographic entanglement entropy. We just come from classical GR. So that is we can neglect also other contributions and then if we remember this replicatoric, so we are interested in this guy and take derivative N and this is we call ZN ZN and Z1 to N's power because of normalization. So we want to anyway compute this guy in CFT but this is equal to gravity. So let's do it. Let's compute this quantity. But this quantity, if we remember the basic picture, so we do some path integral calculation. Then we have some let's take a region A here so we have this path integral and region A is here like previous yesterday's computation and then idea is to put some negative deficit angle such that we have N seat angle is 2 pi N. So we have 2 pi N angle. A naive holographic dual is this is actually original argument by Fulsai but so we can just naively extend this deficit angle into the bulk and we can evaluate action in this pattern but this is not exactly correct because in general relativity we don't like this kind of singular geometry. There are actually actual solutions actually for any integer N there is some nice solution which is a smooth metric always there are such solutions. Actually we should use such a solution so we have some smooth solution smooth solution with 2 pi N periodicity on boundary, only on boundary not in the bulk there are some smooth solution let's call it so we have some but however this solution and this naive solution it's deficit angle solution there are some 2 pi N bulk maybe bulk deficit angle which is given by delta equal to 2 pi 1 minus N I mentioned this yesterday solution this is not exact good solution singular solution but naive we can come up with this but actually it's like conical singularity you can just write this way low square d theta but theta is periodicity is 2 pi N this we say it's like conical singularity but let's pretend that actually we get the correct answer the reason this difference is in some sense small so if we plug this solution in this action but we know so already at any there are no singular let's call this is solution let's call solution g this is metric let's call this g2 and g1 and g2 is of course coincide and also they are solution to Einstein equation so that means that means if we consider N greater than N different from 1 and achieving some analytical continuation we find this action gravity action gravity so let's gravity action with this g1 minus g2 is actually N minus 1 square order not there are no linear contribution the reason is that linear contribution cancels because of the solution to Einstein equation so you can imagine some perturbation of IZ but the leading term is delta g and Einstein equation and already 0th order satisfies Einstein equation this term is gone so always this delta g square so delta g is proportional to because of this argument N minus 1 so that way there are no linear contribution that is quite fortunate because only linear term contributes to entropy because we you remember this we have one first derivative of N and that N equals to 1 so this term only affects only affects linear entropy for Neumann entropy for Neumann entropy we can neglect the difference and of course we have to be more careful about this kind of argument but this for details you can look at but this is intuitively quite confusing and then so anyway we can just pretend that everything is fine for this naive solution and indeed this naive solution is used to derive holographic format by the side then this is very easy so for for this rectangle we are going in deficit angle delta equal to pi minus N fine rich scalar in some manifold this manifold with the deficit angle it's like always looks like for pi 1 minus N and delta function so let's call this surface as gamma digit angle surface gamma it's localized singularity is just localized on this surface so it looks like delta function but of course there are other contribution but they don't contribute to entropy and then we compute this gravity action for N seed case then we just put this factor then it's 4 pi so minus 4d newton that means 4g newton N minus 1 and area then we get area of gamma N because we have a curvature but this becomes 4 pi 1 minus N and delta function and so and then we can take derivative about N so this we just compute entropy is like derivative of N and log of the N the 1 to the N that means we can delta N and it's like minus so it's like let's put plus then iN minus N i1 but the i1 is trivial because it's just 0 so we get derivative and then 4g newton area is that appears but this is not the end of the story so next we have to say this is the minimal surface but that just come from Einstein equation you can compute it directly basically so you can regulate so this is a singular surface original surface like 2 pi N but you can slightly modify this part as some smooth function which looks like low square in a little bit larger region and it becomes okay so it's like low square in low is a little bit larger but it's epsilon then maybe N square low square you can choose such an interpolating function then there are no singularity and then just compute it then you get it but you can also understand it's kind of if you have some N copy so you can think that's kind of a lot of sphere if you have N copy of sphere and paste with each other and if you apply Gauss bonus theorem you can also derive this there are many ways to derive this form and yeah okay so it needs time but just okay starting out so mention one more yeah so let me mention holographic CFT just want to quickly finish so here we assume some classical gravity classical gravity gravity and dual for ADS in ADS and this is dual to something called holographic CFT so this is the name is large N large N or large central charge and strongly coupled so this is characterized by the spectrum as we often say there are some black hole in 2D CFT let's think of 2D CFT so above some energy scale then we have black hole states there are quite a lot of states these are black hole states but however for below the state there are some gap and below the gap so there are a number of space it's quite sparse sparse spectrum so this sparse spectrum characterizes this holographic CFT and there are now there are many many computations like Hedrick Hedrick's work 2010 and Hartman's result 2013 and there are many many works including ours so there are some using this characterization we can analytically compute reading contribution to entanglement entropy also as a quantity like partial function correlation in this large central charge CFT sparse spectrum I'm not going to detail but just want to summarize the consequence of this thing this is actually a phase transition actually I already mentioned so this phase transition phenomena simplest case happens when we have in mind is like when subsystem A consists of two intervals and in my lecture I always assumed that subsystem A is just one interval why not we can consider some disconnected union so two intervals so this case there are two contributions two possibilities so if they are far apart and if they are very close to each other A1 and A2 if they are far apart minimal surface looks like disconnected this is the gamma A1 gamma A2 in this case they are connected this is A1, A2 most union of these two and in this case mutual information A1 and A2 defined as SA1 plus SA2 SA1, A2 is actually zero because this guy this SA1 here we just show the computation of SA1, A2 and just disconnect the same as summation but here A1, A2 is non-trivial, non-zero it's positive, always it's positive because this guy is different from the other guy this guy is large and such a phase transition happens and this phase transition occurs because of large C large N limit so if you take a large N limit even originally smooth transition smooth crossover behavior becomes a very sharp phase transition and this is indeed this kind of a phenomenon doesn't happen for standard CFT but if you take large central charge CFT so you can derive these properties these are connected these works and one more thing is this in quality called monogamy of mutual information so I just finish with this one this is one characterization this is some similar argument similar to strong stability but strong stability known to be true for any quantum mechanics monogamy of MMI mutual information this is a mutual information so this is given this is done by Heidelich Hayden Heidelich and Maroni this is a very interesting result that we consider mutual information between ABC is always larger than mutual information AB and AC mutual information roughly measures the amount of correlation between two systems and this is basically related to correlation function between A1 and A2 universal way to formulate correlation function in quantum information language and this is always this is not necessarily true for any standard quantum state but this is always true in holographic CFT holographic entanglement and reading order as we can quickly show this so this is ABC and this basically says this summation is smaller than this guy it's very similar to strong stability proof A and C these guys obviously this surface cover CB so it's obviously this is smaller and this surface covers here very similar this is just equivalent this statement so definition of mutual information like this so this means SA plus SB plus C we write this in terms of entropy AB it's like similar to BC CA I think this is negative this is probably negative yeah this is non-positive so this is equivalent and this is a clear issue but if you see some particular states something called GATG state for part type GST that means square root of 2 and 0000 and 1111 and obviously you can see this is bioretic this state is opposite because everything is the same but log 2 positive sign is larger than negative sign so that way this is somehow good characterization of the quantum state which we realize in holographic some classical gravity limit of holography yeah okay so I just wanted to finish here continue next time


Hello everyone Okay, so there was there was once a little rat and this rat was running through a maze field and Maze stops are very tall and just could not find his way out And he kept running and he kept running and he didn't know how to get out And then he saw an owl on the tree and he looked up at the owl and he said Can you give me some advice? Can you tell me the way out of this maze? So the owl says I have an idea for you And a good strategy. Why don't you grow some wings like me? And then you can fly above the maze you can sport where you want to go and that's the solution So that's it. Oh, that's great. He stopped and he said wait a minute But how do I grow wings and the owl said I Only do strategy. I don't do detail So that's what we're gonna talk about today, my name's Phil Abernathy. I'm from Melbourne, Australia but Yeah, Bangalore was originally my home, so it's great to be here and I work with the number of organizations taking them on the R. I gel journey so I grew gray on waterfall and Then moved over to agile about 12 years ago. So the last two Having done a lot of my journey with the companies like Sun Corp and the others in Australia has been more focused at the top end and I'm going to share my experiences with you as to where agile is going in the next In the next let's say a few years So the journey that I'm going to look at is actually looking at what is the problem that? Organizations specifically large organizations medium to large actually face today What's the problems and we see it every day and it's the same problem by the way and then what's the impact? So what because if it's not an issue, let's just move on. We don't have to worry about it But this problem and this is This is something I noticed and I said this problem has been around for ages. It's not something new so what have we done about it to date and Has it solved the problem if it hasn't solved the problem? How come it hasn't solved the problem over the years It's the same problems and then what could we do and where could we go after that? So I'm going to run through it quite fast now if I look at the actual problems This problem and I can tell you 30 years ago when I was working for Shell these Exactly the problems we space how many of you face these problems in one way or another One or more of them. We've almost got a hundred percent going up there too much work pressure to deliver usual things mis-targets and it's just the pressure in there so If you put it more positively, so let's not be a negative. Let's be positive And you look at it. Yeah, we've got to do more with less. We've got to deliver better Faster deliver cheaper and create a great place to work up People say oh well the goalposts have moved over the years and things have changed technology has changed But these problems haven't changed. They're still the same problems that organizations are facing Agile or no agile and I'm talking about agile organizations facing these problems So what what's really what's really happening there? So let's just Would you say that we do have a problem? Would you agree there is a problem out there? That's why we're all here We're trying to solve this problem. So where do we go? So let's just look at so what? Yeah, is is maybe it isn't a problem? Yeah, maybe it's just a symptoms. We are feeling. Yeah, so let's just look at the problems. We've got things like Waste lower productivity high-cost low-moral mis-targets and most of all unhappy customers in many many cases and Of course lower profitability the number of companies that go bankrupt are tremendous In terms of percentage is about 70 percent of small and medium enterprises after two years. They're pretty much Yeah in trouble so we do have a problem and It's not a happy silly not a happy solution like the impact is quite strong So what have we done about it till now? Let's look at Bob. So I'm gonna play you a little video Yeah, because I think this video talks about one of the things that we have always done and Continue to do so you will recognize a bit of this. Yeah, I'm gonna blow it up a little bit and see if there's good audio coming across Yeah, I thought I thought that That really represented Some of the solutions that people take to this problem How many of you have more than one reorganization a year in your organizing? We've got more than half going up. It's a constant thing. It's a constant. Let's reorganize. Yeah So but there are a few other things that we do besides reorganization to address those problems Yeah, we've got new systems new tools. Oh, what about TQM? Let's put in TQM. You know, there's a total quality management system There's team building we go about and build bridges and do those nice things as of course a HR campaign and of course We implement agile and lead But the problem still remains I've been working in an agile organization For years that that's been very agile and not a very big company as well Do the same problem. So has it really helped has all these things? Well, it has improved Let's be honest If you go do a lot of the things work lean think about managing the funnel everything things the flood has improved But the problem still remains. Yeah, so How come? Oh? Well, actually one of the root causes is Prioritization and this has been there as you can see right from way back. Yeah, it's hard to prioritize So let's just look at that a little bit And there's so many oxymorons around the prioritization issue because we have this feeling that if we do more We're actually getting more done do more simultaneously But great people like Liebig and of course elia who gold rat have always said that You you do have to manage the scarcest resource You can only deliver as fast as your slowest bit. Yeah Hmm. Hmm. Okay. Okay, but I still need to do these things So they've been through all this they've been through all these trainings We looked at things like this saying oh the colors have gone on that but that's a pipeline in the middle and that's a pipeline in the middle there so You know same number of balls, but if you do more at the same time 100% utilization the number of balls that come out of the other end in the same amount of time It's going to be less than if you don't that if you leave some gaps Yeah, the whole highway scenario you pack your highway one little accident highways blocked So give it some space and you know like we do here and weave around on our scooters. Yeah. Yeah, you've been there You've been there. So, you know, you can find the way around and now even Bangalore, isn't it? It's full on a scooter. I'm in a traffic jam. So you think something, you know something has to change there So let's look at it. So we've got the portfolio the program and the project. Let's govern it So we say well, that's about doing the work right and That bit is about doing the right work Yeah, so you need both sides and this is what Governance is about managing the funnel. You've got to manage the top bit Doing the right work and the bottom bit once it's approved. So we've got a solution for that over the years We've mastered this solution and that is the solution that we have. Yeah, the PMO Yeah, let's bring in the PMO. So we've now got a PMO that manages this funnel And we've taken that to another level of the last two years. We've got the agile PMO This is people that work a bit faster Do things bit more and we talk about small batch size and we talk about doing things in a better way and I Implemented we went through with this one customer the small teams Agile at the team level went up further Teams are struggling agile teams are drowning because of the work being pushed up. So let's get the agile PMO So implemented the agile PMO Now we've got a team that meets that actually manages the funnel and schedule, but it's still it's still not working Yeah, there's something there, but it's still not solving the problem The PMOs are struggling because the boss comes through at the end and says I just want that done make sure you do it Yeah, yeah, but but you played the game the last time. It's very hard to say no just very hard to say no So there's one more thing in the pipeline just start we'll see about it And so it goes so we do have to go back to the route So we went back with this team one level further and said why is prioritization a problem? So let's go up to the route. What is above prioritization? What sits about that? What what y'all thinks it's above the prioritization layer corporate strategy? so They say yeah, what do you mean corporate strategy? I mean we have strategy of course We've got a strategy Yeah, and we then visited the strategic teams and I started working in this area about two years ago and What became apparent when I asked the question why why don't you have just two things you want to do in the next two months? Why are they always nine? Why Yeah, I've got one team that I work with they're around 60 people 40 projects in flight at the same point in some phase or the other and They're agile. They're very agile Yeah, sounds like your company Yes Correct, so something is not working. So yes, we have a strategy. Should we settle? What does your strategy look like? Let's bring it out. So Go into the draw and pull out the strategy document. That's been sitting there. You remember that one It's been sitting there for a while. It's got a little bit of Dust it open it right. So what have you got? We've got statements in there that are very very important statements You know, let's focus on quality. Let's go offshore. Let's be the best. That's a strategic choice. Yeah, let's yeah Haven't you seen this? How many have seen words like this in the strategy document? Look at this. Look at this amazing response Yeah, so this is what I found in the documents. This is the strategy that they put up there So I said so what is the problem? Okay, that's fine. Something is not working at the strategy level Obviously, so what can we do about it there? What can we do about so I said, what do you'll do for strategy? How do you do strategy? We use porters by forces and that's why this is called a sick. We use porters by forces it what do you mean and Porters by forces is a tool for analysis of the competitive marketplace. That's all it is that is not how you do strategy No, but we use porters by forces. Okay, so I've got it up there for you You can see what it looks like So let's just look at what the perfect strategy should be so This is another little video that I thought was quite quite impressive and I thought this hmm. This looks a lot like strategy in many places So isn't that how strategy sometimes let's just do something and first time it'll work I can guarantee you You know you'll get away with it once then next time you will definitely not get away with it Yeah, so very often it's like this You know just a short and hope that it works and pray and people do pray. I tell you in corporates. They do pray so Then there's we ask what's the problem? What is really the problem in this product issue? These are the answers I got and these are real answers from the teams Yeah, the leaders are pulling in different directions because they've been bonus differently Yeah, of course you want to get your job done because your bonus depends on it And if you don't get the project in you won't sell more etc The strategic choice do I do project a or product a in the market or product B is not made at that top level The actual choice is not made Yeah, the people at the lower level are unable to link work to strategy. Yeah, then you've got yeah We don't really know exactly which way we're going is it that hill or is it that hill but we are going that way Yeah, so there's a bit of ambiguity there Of course, there's no buying with people involved in the strategy a lack of smart goals or specific measurable Attainable realistic and timely not be the best. That's an example of a goal. Yeah be number one Yeah, so nobody really knows and there's communication Yeah, and Disconnected from the budget process. This was very very interesting. We found that people had a strategy cycle That did not link with the budget cycle, which was run by finance Yeah, and of course you've got a nice strategy here, but the budget is not there to do it Yeah, because you did the budget before the strategy Yeah, so all sorts of dysfunctions going on there Now you look at what's come out. What's published by Howard? So I went back to MBA material. I looked at Stanford. I looked at Howard I look at insid and said what are these people teaching? Yeah in in how to run strategy forget about agile. Yeah So this was from the 2010 Harvard review. You cannot separate The formulation and the execution. Yeah, if you don't yeah, you'll get what is called a disengaged doer You know if you don't involve people if you do not involve the entire company But strategy is only for the boss. I'm just a little you know hamster somewhere there I don't really know about this strategy thing. I just do what I'm told so I've got a little video here from Michael Jarrett now he's he's a head in insid that's really at the pinnacle of MBA work and strategy work in that area and this is not a funny one. So He really talks about what strategy is so so let's just look at it and see what they're teaching in these big schools The good news is that strategy isn't doomed to failure if you take some basic steps The first key to success is asking a question is so basic that many companies never ask Do you have the right strategy? To answer this question you have to break it down into tangible elements Can you clearly define the strategic goal and the targets market or products? Are your companies internal structure activities and commitments aligned to support your strategies goal? If you answer no, you need to rethink its plan It's the foundation upon which everything is built. So you have to get it right Your strategy should be created with a fair and open process Otherwise you risk the situation that Air France faced Senior executives announced to its unionized workforce that to save the airline it would have to lay off 2000 people Institute a pay freeze The unions went on strike and general mayhem ensued But when the company sent a middle-ranking civil servant to poll the same union members and what they thought should be done surprisingly workers laid off 3000 instituted a longer pay freeze and boosted productivity the changes passed a union vote What this illustrates is once a problem is identified a solution created and vetted through a fair process It is more likely to get by in once you've got the strategy right and the people on board Your project management techniques need to be rolled out to make it work Don't leave it to executives throughout your company to create their own implementation plan Set up cross-functional project teams Create actionable milestones and key performance indicators Track your progress against them issue reports to key stakeholders and hold people accountable to sticking to a plan If you don't treat strategy execution as a real initiative Your company won't take it seriously enough to make the changes and sacrifices required in some Strategies don't form or implement themselves People will resist change But by embracing these ideas you have a much better chance of making your strategy work so You recognize some of the common teams there so the collaboration getting people involved Executing it like a project and these just don't happen in companies at all So when we looked at it again, we said there's definitely a problem in the strategy space Okay, so now let's ask one more. Why? So why is there a problem in strategy space? So if you ask that question you land up with leadership Leadership is at the heart of most of these issues and in particular strategic leadership So what are they doing about it? So I asked this question in the workshops that I run What percentage of leaders time and I'm talking first-line leader middle management and executive leaders Do you spend on strategy? What do you think the percentage was on average on average more than 30 percent? In the region of less than 30 percent was spent on strategy And this is even at the executive level. Yeah, so I said hmm So another HPR review People say that there's an invisible line these people work on strategy and the rest of the management and the team and the people They're not involved in strategy. They just have to do what is told. Yeah, something is really not working So we looked at strategic leadership and said what's happening here and now what can we do about it? So what is strategic leadership? So strategy has two parts to it formulation and execution and You have to address both a leader can't say well I'm in this side of the fence and I don't have to worry about execution because I'm high up and The one down below can't say I'm down here and I don't have to worry about formulation I just have to execute what they decide. It doesn't work that way. Yeah, I'm going to explain why so let's drill down a bit More so to get good strategy and this is reading Good strategic materials seeing what's out there pulling back on experience that I've had you come up with this list Yeah, so iterative flexible adaptive focus. What does this look like? So wait a minute Those are very much agile and lean principles in there. So let's look at the next half Let's look at strategy execution. What's needed in there? You need buy-in. You need shared understanding You heard the professor from INSEAD. You need an inclusive system You need to execute it like a program of work feedback measured focused. What does that look like? so Why aren't we using agile in this space and How can we use agile in this space because you can't go to them and say now get agile for your strategy They'll kick you out most probably yeah, so the agile practitioners again, not very many of them Gray or bald yes, so you need a certain amount of age maturity to work at the Exec level and they don't allow you in unless you've actually been working in some role there So it's very hard to get in there, but once you do get in you're able to look at them and say There are some things that need to be done in The strategy world that we can put a little framework around it, so I did not mention the a word or the L word Yeah, don't mention it because immediately you get tired with a brush and you're put in the corner So let's just look at strategy and see how we can improve it. So There are five steps you need in the formulation process. What's the purpose? So that has to be number one Why do we exist yeah as a company is a department whatever where are our goals? What are the drivers and I'll talk about drivers? How do we do it and the plan and then we've got to measure monitor adapt? Very fast and feed back into that. So it's a continuous loop Starting to look a bit familiar isn't it so we put a little bit of a framework around it Again, don't want to use the a word or the L word. Let's say let's paint the future. Yeah called it prep Let's build a vision mission goals drivers. Let's look at retro swats and challenges for the reality What's the current phase? Let's evaluate the strategic options. Yeah, and let's look at Planning and scheduling the resources at a strategic level and let's do it this way So we'll get some cross-functional teams. Let's workshop it a little bit Let's start using some sticky notes during the workshop. So we get the wisdom of the crowd Let's have a FedEx day for innovating key problems How many of you are familiar with the FedEx day? Couple of them so FedEx deliver or at least promise to the we aren't allowed to use this word by the way because they They raised a bit of a stink but who cares so They deliver in one day so the idea is to get a team together Give them one day and give them a problem or let them select a problem and by the end of the evening they have to have a solution and It works wonders because they get really creative so iterative loops for validating the hypothesis of the strategy use a lot of facts in preparation and Let's make some decisions there without coming out when we want to be the best. That's not good enough here So we also had to understand drivers So I use a technique called a hundred dollar revenue Driver which is key and once you create this it goes all the way down to the teams So here's the example The whole purpose of strategy in a company that's for profit or even not for profit because they have to balance the book is to raise Your revenue and reduce your cost. What's the gap in between? Revenue and cost your profit. Yeah, you've got to increase these two So let's look at revenue. You've got a hundred dollars of revenue coming in This is an insurance model. They're slightly slightly changed numbers So out of that hundred dollars, you spend thirty two dollars on paying claims 28 on commissions to sell the insurance and there's market costs as operations and that's your operating profit Now on the other side the team marks. What are the things they can change? High means I that's got a high impact if I change it low means There's a low probability of changing it the claims cost over the last 30 years has been in the average of 32% So that's not going to change too much So then we said, okay, what if we can we reduce that by 3% yeah by $1 Okay, what about reducing commissions by $1? What about market and sales by $1? $3 operating costs. So now we've got a $7 operating profit link and let's increase our revenue by 30% You're starting to see the Linkages between the two and this is done with a cross-functional team right down to team level in different groups in the departments Yeah, now here's one for telco So they'll have marketing billing admin just to give you an example that it works in any industry including the software industry So let's look at the drivers for claims. So what's behind claims? You have to take it down a level. So The drivers behind reducing claims is your reinsurance cost Your claims management cost your incidents and leakage leakage is fraud Yeah, that's what claims is made up of so we broke that apart and we said we need to get 3.1% Yeah, how do we okay? We can reduce that by 2% that by 1% Fraud is a bit difficult. It happens all the time. It's there. So now we said how can you change that? So let's renegotiate the contract for reinsurance Let's create a single set claims process and system because we've now got three systems and the claims cost is high and Let's put on some private detectives to save the 1% there. Yeah Now these are turning into Your your actual strategic or you can't read that very well But what it says at the top there is those are the strategic initiatives You're slowly turning your strategy into tangible initiatives. Let's do that So now in the claims management cost 200,000 is that 1% Right. So if you can save 200,000, how much would you be willing to pay? If I can if I tell you you can get 200,000, how much would you be willing to pay for that? 50% yeah, 100,000 you see our gut works very well. What is this really called? This is your cost appetite your framework your envelope for spend without doing any big feasibility Studying on how much your project can cost you are not going to pay more than 50% Because there's a chance of it going wrong Yeah, so you're already deciding your feasible envelope for your expenditure for that project Don't come back with a project of half a million dollars. Yeah, so you do the same for revenue drivers Online sales. Oh, we need a full service media. We need new agents in Perth and We're going to have an a new product. So just examples again There are some what is called must win battles and voila Let's put the whole list together. What have you got here? Do you recognize this? This is your list of projects This is what the PMO has been working for years trying to prioritize and all of a sudden You've got your priority because you've got your cost appetite You didn't have to do any benefit studies and feasibilities for it. You know approximately how much you're willing to spend Yeah, you know Approximately the benefits and you know how important it is to your business. So you're starting to get the first funnels These are done by the executive teams by the leaders top down with the team So they've got representatives from the teams below. Yeah, so that's the top bit now You've got to execute it. So because that's only one part of the funnel So on the execution side as I said you measure you adapt you prioritize and you steer So let's use the drivers and blockers little technique again an agile technique to see what's working Let's fine-tune adjust Lean startup practices every two weeks. The strategy is reviewed. Where are we now? Where are we now? Review are we on track? Have we met the measures? Let's go forward You prioritize or reprioritize and you steer so the pieces are broken up now So if you look at it that group that leadership group The strategic leadership group the executives plus people from the lower teams They're the ones who are actually driving governments not some PMO Yeah, and they're the ones who are actually assigning the monies and the budgets to this group Now let's say I've made an estimate that that project on the claims system was 200,000 You're willing to spend 100,000 now. Is that right? You may you don't know if it's right So what you do is you do an agile concept some call it inception some call it discovery Which is the first little agile loop five-day workshop on using agile for the concept If it passes you're actually feeding that information back Into the strategy group and you say oh my god actually to change this is going to cost us $300,000 Stop it. Stop it immediately. All you spend is five days on it and put it back into the funnel and have the strategy Conversation say we can't change this. That's a wrong strategy. So you've tested it In a small little loop if you need to do a spike go down one step further And break it up into smaller pieces. Can we do just apart? So we're coming back to small batch size Driving it. Let's look at a two-month window and see what are the three things we can do for two months Yeah, so you're starting to pull it down, but it all happens not from the PMO bottom-up level, but from the top-down level if they're not on board you will not get this very very hard so Execute your strategy like an agile project So we've got the teams to put up the strategy cards in eight weeks So that's iterations of two weeks each. Yeah for two months on The strategy wall and move the cards through They've got big visual charts just to give you an example This is drawn and they've got measures to see the actual smart goals changing They've converted. Oh, this is terrible picture here They've converted the entire strategy into a graphic that covers They've got an artist in to draw it together with the team and then what they did. This is amazing I hope this is better. Ah, this is better so that's the picture that you saw previously they had a competition for every child in the department and a coloring competition for the strategy picture and they told them color it and we'll we'll have a winner and We'll award a prize and there were around 40 kids almost everyone has some kids and there was one guy who didn't read the email and he did the coloring himself and Sent it in and he didn't win the prize Of course, but as you can see you get everybody involved because you now have to explain that picture to your children Your wife's going to ask you. What's that darling and well all your husband? Yeah So it does get it does get everybody involved in it and you get the feedback as you do this And just saying oh well, we had a great strategy, but execution was a problem is really not on You have to take care of execution Now I come to the most important part of it So that's all great, but everyone is still saying yeah, but I'm I'm so small I'm in the organization. I'm really small. I don't have the power to for strategy But that's not really true because that this picture and again, I'm sorry about the lines and the colors is very very important because Strategy works at every level and there's a link between the level. So here's the link The strategy from the level above Becomes the goal for the level below Then you work out the strategy for that the strategy for that level becomes the goal for the level below and so on and so forth So let's take an example We need to improve and increase our revenue in Selling insurance. Yeah, we've got to increase the insurance market. So that's the Strategy there that they talk about and they say we are going to do that by targeting Which we did housewives So we're gonna come out with something new for housewives and see if we can have a product for them That becomes the goal of the business unit that's looking after new product development So they've got to come up now with a strategy for how to affect that goal So they do all the workshops and they do everything and they came out with we're gonna build this new product That looks like this and it needs by the way an IT system. So guess what happens there? That strategy has now become the goal of the IT department which says we have to build a system that has XYZ for housewives and if they fall and break your leg you can get an insurance that somebody you'll come and clean your house. Oh It's a nice product. How do you build that? So they have a strategy the IT team with everyone else for building that product That little strategy then goes to the web design team who now have a goal to build the front end for that product And they execute the strategy so you can see the linkage strategy is not something no matter How big your company that you can do at one level there is a cascading link and it's not just here's the strategy So there was a story about the CEO in In the northern part of Australia that said we want to go to Western Australia And it's a great idea and we're gonna just roll out this new product there And the message went down to Western Australia and they said the ground level that's real bullshit They told their boss that and that's how they talk as well.   So he went up to his boss and said well, there's a lot of manure in this Yeah, so it's really a bit. Yeah a bit smelly and it's not good So the VP who took it up the president took it up to the next person and said well, you know There's a lot of manure there and yeah, there's potential for growth So the it was fed back to the to the group board that it's a very productive area that things can grow So the same message twisted along the line nice little thing and it gets back up Haven't you heard this before nicely twisted and you know like Chinese whispers so this model and this is not My model or someone's model. This has been there and MBA books for the last 15 to 20 years But how many MBAs are in today's business a few how many actually practice it The things they've learned so it's our time now to bring it in in a stealth form without using the a and the L word Into models to actually start collaboratively Linking these pictures in so no matter at which level of the organization you are you are doing strategy You're doing strategy at every single level down to the smallest team and executing it I'm gonna skip that one. So I Believe that strategic leadership, and I've used the sixth force analogy After porters five forces really can make a huge difference to organizations as a whole and this morning I was just sitting there and there was Jeff talking about the improvement cutter Have a look at this improvement cutter. What do you think it is? understand the direction Yeah, your vision your mission your goals Where are we now current position? Establish the most specific smart goals and then plan do check act plan do check act the small iterative tight loops reflect persevere or pivot So these cartas have been around in successful companies like Toyota and the others that went from the last the lowest possible Automated company to beating General Motors and being number one. So What does it take? 1555 how do you double the value of a Toyota? You put a full tank of gas in it So the products coming out of Japan were really crap and they focused and it's a journey and they're now the number one Due to processes like this. This is not something that has been there overnight So set your smart goal and let tell the teams go figure at the level down Here's your goal go and find the strategy then they go down a level and measure Did you do is it moving the goal? Yes or no? If it's working continue if it's not hey, you better do something about it measure and then move the goal further out But we cannot do what we're doing today, which is actually delegate prioritization to PMO's Or to someone else and just say, you know, well, we've made it Go and prioritize So we do have an issue there with strategic leadership and Traditionally in summary if you look at the way we've done it, you know, it's top-down It's I've been out. I've actually been guilty of facilitating strategy days And I'm sure many of you even as agile coaches have done that and it will work Fantastically and the last two hours when you really have to talk about some decisions Yeah, it's very rushed and somebody's got the bag and they're off for the plane ride You know the plane is there and they're off and the whole meeting just disintegrates and there's decisions are not made so actually doing Doing it in one workshop the annual strategy off-site. How many of you have heard of that?  We're going for the off-site They're away for two days You never hear anything and then they come back and each leader Gives you the message in a different way so and you get this, you know They're they're looking through some glass and they've got some carrots there some bonuses and you have to pull the cart It's just not working. It's dysfunctional And I think using some of the principles that we have learned that we know in agile and mean just I mean Gembootsu for example, just go see the real thing Rather than sitting in the ivory tower and saying, you know, this will work in Perth Just go to Perth and talk to the people Let the leaders Go and see the thing as opposed to passing the messages down Another thing that I've noticed is and coming back to the all and the rat story agile actually exposes The culture of agile and lean exposes the real problem that in itself is one step in the right direction towards that so Doing the right work if you look at portfolio governance and PMOs, I really think that should be replaced with strategic leadership and that's where the key lies that I would say is the sixth force That's my last call to action So let's formulate a strategy together as we go in our little teams and people say to me Well, you know, I'm not senior enough to make this change. You don't have to be just do it at your level Ask your boss. What's their strategy document for the division above? They'll give you something from there and Start it start the process have call them in call them down and start using the techniques that you know At the strategy level and then take it down a level now whenever you're executing it Just put it up on a wall put the strategy cards up on a wall and Executed like an agile project, which is what they teach at Harvard at Insead and at the London Business School executed like an initiative with that. I'd like to end. Thank you very much So, yeah, I think I have time for a few questions. Yeah Having measurements like burn downs and all is is okay What the thing that has worked the most at the end of the day you want that smart goal remember the 2% change in claims cost From that you have to break that down to the level that makes sense and have a measure so let us say you've got 50% less defects is what we need well measure your defects or we need to increase our Sales people contacting new customers have that as a target and then measure that so you see those realistic things M&A we're going for merger and acquisition. Okay You have to make their own goals and targets So take it down to them tell them go and figure out how to do this and then they have to have their own measures They have to measure it. It's not Measure top down. So you have to break down your measures right down to the level of execution I think just common sense and having the measures in there as well. I don't know. What is the? Culture of measurement I can tell you one thing and the people in the audience from Australia helped me here We don't really have a culture of measurement Yeah, would you agree? Yeah, so it's it's just something and in other countries I've worked in Holland a bit and they had really measure measure measure measure, but it takes to the other extreme So you have to find the balance. Yeah So I think I think the balance scorecard is nothing but one of the technique like Porter's techniques For identifying your smart goals. So the balance four card scorecard has four aspects. It's got financial It's got customer. It's got process and it's got people to keep it simple And you you set yourself smart goals on all four aspects so that you don't forget one And that's just a tool a framework that you can use in your workshops to develop strategy Balance scorecard by itself is not a strategic to just a little frame that will help you tactical Yes, you've got BAU so the systems have to run so what we have is in the budgets They've said 30% is BAU budget and there's a Kanban system for identifying what has to be done there now Let's talk about the 70% yeah, that's 70% is Strategic now the tactical Tactical operational split has historically been purely a matter of time So tactical is like nine months operational is like two months and strategic is about three years But that vision is going away and saying ever there is no such thing as operational tactical strategic Unless you consider BAU fires, which we all have to put out. Yeah as operational Tactical and strategic is is just a simple loop of strategic strategic strategic, but in small pieces You can go bottom up or top down as such in in a hierarchical organization and we had a beautiful talk this afternoon about socio what was it called Sociology and the other sort of forms of companies and they will come may come. Let's talk about hierarchical organizations in a hierarchical organization The hierarchy the drive will come from the top, but the top should not decide how the website should look at the bottom Or the top should not decide how the product is going to be rolled out in Western Australia Yeah, that has to be left to the level low up now The way we do it is we include and Fiona was included in some of these teams as well The team that is let's say the executive team is having representatives from the two layers down So the next layers got representatives from one layer up and two layers down and the layer down is one layer up So that's a cross-functional team. So you're actually got representatives from right down from the working-flow level You cannot involve everyone so that won't work because then you'll be there forever Well, that's it. Thank you very much and hope you enjoyed