E133 – Business Reinvention Labs (w Perry Timms)

Hello. It's James, and this is Jane, and here we are again with another episode of The World of Work podcast. What are we speaking about today? Jane, today,

we are talking to friend of the show, Perry Tims, founder of pthr, and we're going to be talking all about their new approach to solving difficult problems, their business labs.

Okay, so here we are in the main body of today's podcast, and we've got a returning guest, which is always great, and we've got a friend of a show who we've really enjoyed speaking to in the past when we spoke about self managed teams. We're speaking to Perry Tims, who's the founder of pthr, and we're having him back today because we're going to be speaking about something a little bit different. We're going to be speaking about a lab approach, specifically looking at some business transformation labs that Perry's been rolling out in his organization, and trying to understand this approach to helping teams and individuals and organizations develop through labs before we get into that though, Perry, could you introduce yourself to the audience again and say a bit about yourself and your background, for those that don't know

you for sure. Thanks very much. Yeah, so I'm founder of people in transformational HR limited. There's 14 of us now. We operate 100% remote organization, and we are a four day week accredited living wage employer, and we are A B Corporation, pending employer too. We stand for better business, for a better world. James, that's

brilliant. And you never so much crossover between what you're trying to live and embody and what you're doing in the organization and the things we speak about on the show. So it's always a pleasure to get a chance to explore some of those things with you. Today, though, we're going to be speaking about these sort of business reinvention labs and the lab approach to helping people develop I guess. Can we just start with the basics? So I mean, you can probably explain better than I could what exactly is a business lab or a business where you mentioned that?

So this came during the pandemic last year, but it preceded that when I was working with a client in local authority who we had spent some time with creating a more agile, inclusive and passive, Pacey way of working, and they wanted something else, something additional. And we'd been looking, as a team, at design thinking, we'd been looking at impact mapping, we'd been looking at business partnering, and we thought maybe there's a way we can create a little package so they can choose how the order might be and the content. And as we started to explore it, they really liked it. But then the pandemic hit, so it took a couple of months, and then during the pandemic, when we lost a lot of work, we were thinking, what are we going to do now? And we thought, hang on, what about these labs that we'd started to develop? And so we built them in June and July of last year. But what they are is essentially a contained environment for a bit of immersive learning that isn't theoretical or even hypothetical, it's real work that comes into this space, and we use the space to then test some of the learning that we want people to acquire, but with a real piece of work, and we called it a lab, because it's a safe environment to experiment, because nobody's going To get harmed. You don't have to take it outside of the virtual room. But we thought, what better way to learn than actually with something real that you can continue after we've had half a day with people online to get them into the essence of something like design thinking as an example. And so we started to cast them, and then we started to promote them, and then we got clients interested in them. So yeah, since then, I would say probably about 60% of our work since June of last year has been delivering some form of lab environment for strategy, for teams, for performance enhancement and so on. So it's literally a way of saying, let's, let's reinvent a process, a system or something that is in need of attention.

That's brilliant, and that's a really good explanation. And we know that things like immersive learning, problem based learning all about, you know, learning by doing such a powerful way for people to connect. I was listening to somebody this morning. I morning, and they were quite ruthlessly saying, feedback. We're done with feedback. Nobody cares when you tell them what to do, right? That's not how people learn. So that chance to really learn by by doing and being involved in the activity seems really powerful in terms of what you're trying to achieve. You know, the shift. Is, what are some of the core things you're trying to achieve?

Yeah, so I think, I think we all know that businesses have not just a cluster of problems, but, you know, a multiple set of clusters of problems. And so often it's a case of, do they set up a project to tackle it? Well, our approach is yes, but maybe first bring some people together to learn a methodology and an approach with one of those clusters of problems, and then see how you go in sort of resetting, rather than just tinkering or restructuring, that you actually take an approach, which is, if we were going to design this from scratch, what would we do differently? So therefore, it isn't about just a sort of continuous improvement exercise. It literally is, let's massively pivot and really change the nature of what we want to do. So I think that safe space enables people to do that kind of draw a red line that they won't go back to. So that's why we called them reinvention labs. Because it's not about recovery or even resetting. It is more about reinventing, changing it for a virtual world, or, as we now talk about it, a lot of hybrid working world. And I think that essence probably sparked a lot of people to think differently about an approach. So talking to your points of problem solving, that's exactly what we wanted them to be, not theoretical, but a real problem to solve.

And you know, you talked about bringing this stuff out during COVID and during that disruption and and as you described it there, you know, you draw that line of the sand and move forward, but, but as a lot of people say, a big part of that type of change is letting go of the past, and it feels like there's probably some real benefit in in the time that you're doing this, when there is a fair bit of disruption, and we're already sort of unfreezing some other stuff around us, yeah, that's

absolutely right. I think the mood is such that experimentation is a little bit more acceptable to people,

yeah. And in terms of, like, knowing as an organization, when the right time for you to come and reinvent something. What are some of the signs that that might be the case? I mean, we've talked, I guess, or I alluded there, that at a societal level, things are changing, and maybe there's some sort of, you know, background noise that says this is a good time. But if you're in an organization, how do you know that it's right for you?

I think there's a couple of things. So something that's new obviously feels like it needs some special attention. So hybrid working is a classic one where that's a pretty new way of looking at things, but, but it's come from previous flexible and remote working. It's just on a bigger scale. So I think the clue to what needs reinventing is it's perhaps been one of those niggly problems that hasn't been solved, but now perhaps it's a little bit more amplified present. Maybe it's diversified a little bit. And so I think the triggers are that it's like, well, we've been trying to get collaborative, working going for ages. We've been trying to get more inclusive for ages. Is this a chance to do so? So I think it's that. I think it's almost like we have attempted in the past and unsuccessfully, not delivered, so therefore this is a chance to do that. So So I think it's almost like, well, this is the last roll of the dice. I suppose that

makes total sense. And I guess it then sort of prompts the fairly obvious question, which is, why hasn't things been working before? So you talked about last roll of the dice there. What is it that people are trying and why is that those more sort of traditional approaches to team and digital development not not working for people?

Yeah, a brilliant question. Jane, so I think if I, if I talk to some of the client work that's happened recently, so we did some work with the technology company in Eastern Europe, and they had a very strong reputation in the employer market, and they brought new, fresh talent into the organization quite readily, but they didn't stay very long because they were tempted by other offers, because they couldn't see a career path. So that that recognition, that actually they tried to increase the reward package, they tried to sort of get into the skin via exit surveys, but they hadn't been able to create the right kind of thing until the HR director there said, Well, why don't we get those people in a room and actually they create the pathway, the solution, the things they want to do. So we did, and we stitched together a few of these labs we had, we had a hackathon so that they could hack into the whole concept of career paths in this organization. We then turned that into a design thinking lab to perfect the solution. Then we turned it into an agile lab so they could activate it, and then they presented it to their board, and the board really liked a lot of the ideas and implemented them, so they felt like they had a shaping destiny for themselves, and it won an award in the Slovenian business year of the business project of the year last year. So we were really proud of it. But I think that's what was happening. It was, it was a cycle where people were trying to close off the the sort of the escape routes or the weaknesses in a system. But I. Actually the people in the system were probably the ones who should be closing it down.

Yeah. And that sounds like, even just you talking about that sounds really exciting and something very different from what i've what I've heard done before with a problem like that. And so I guess, like, if you were going to describe what you know, What the What's different about the lab approach? What does it feel like to be part of a Business Lab? Yeah.

So I'll use a recent client example, actually. So it's a team of business partners. They're very disparate and in different sites, but of course, everybody's remote, so it almost doesn't matter. But they have very different clients who they look after, and they found it really difficult to come together and almost strategize. So we worked with the sort of leadership team there to develop a lab around business partnering, almost to go back to the center of the gravitational force that is business partnering. But it wasn't just that. We wanted to give them some new tools. So we introduced problem statements. We got them into asking very intricately formed coaching questions so they could get different answers and responses from their clients. And they brought again real world problems in so they were working on real world problems, and they all went away enthused by the fact that they now had something to apply to their clients. But then we brought them back again for an impact lab where we talked about the impact of their work beyond things like financial recompense and so on and so forth. And we started to get into the realms of human value, social value, intellectual value. And again, they've started to now go out and look at the wider HR team and how they're not pulling together. They're not creating the right kind of value chain, I suppose. And so that that that example really gets to the heart of where people in immersive scenarios with real world problems actually can work together with just a couple of tools and go out with an enormous sense of energy and wherewithal and make a difference. So yeah, I mean that that that almost gives you the essence of how these things can be constructed.

That's brilliant. Thank you. And you said you, guys have been doing a lot of this over, over the recent, recent sort of year, year or so, what? What have you learned about, like, the core principles of what makes them work? What are you what are you learning about? Yeah, we get it that every time they go, Well, there's something here, there's this, there's that, yeah.

So I think the core thing that makes it work is where people have an intention to solve a problem. And I suppose that's the first thing. We don't want people to come into it with a sense of, oh, this is just another gimmicky, course it's not going to make a difference. So we genuinely want people who have got a curiosity peaked and a potential, sort of open mind to this being something that will be different. And I think we partly make sure that's the case by ensuring they have that real world feel that they bring in. So we invite people as part of the pre lab sort of assembly, I suppose of of them going out to say, Well, this has been taxing me for weeks and months, and this needs to be resolved, and so on and so forth. So So I think that gives them a different sense. It's not just a hypothetical example. So yeah, so I think with that in mind, I think we we get a different energy in the room. We deliberately use, whether it's teams or Zoom breakouts, so they're in small groups, and they can work quite intimately. And we give them enough time, and we sort of leave them alone as well. We don't interfere and overly facilitate, and then we do lots of plenary shares and captures. So I think we manage the energy of it being virtually, which is really important, because if it was in the real world, it might be a bit more energetic, because you've got people around you, but virtually, it could be a real lag and a real sort of drain of energy. So we split it little bit of prompt, little bit of plenary, little bit of breakout. Definitely have a break to hydrate and stretch legs, come back in again, another immersive exercise, lots of shares. That seems to work really well, and most people say Blimey. Three hours just flew by. So zoom, fatigue is not an issue.

Well, that's, that's, I would imagine, a hope for everybody listening that as a decent length session where you don't feel that Zoom 15 is an issue. That's a pretty positive thing to be thinking about. I want to ask you a little bit about what it's like to start your session in the right place. And so I guess what I'm really interested in is like, what's people's response and expectations been like, do you think? But also, how much work do you have to do with them to really get to grips with what the problem that you're trying to solve is, or is that part of the session?

So we do try and do some upfront discovery with either the commissioning client or a small group of people who are going to be actively involved in it. Because I think you're right, Jane, I think there's something about the relevance to it and a believability about three hours actually taking it as far as it can go, but really breaking the seal of something that's been stuck or blocked for quite some time. So we. Do do that and but that's only normally sort of like, you know, maybe one or two iterations of an hour conversation just to shape the essence of what's important and relevant to people. But again, I think what people like is the fact that it is so customized and relevant to them that it isn't like an off the shelf with just perhaps a little bit of tinkering in the in the scenario, or the, you know, the rehearsal or, I guess, the simulator that people find themselves in. So we do that, and then in the room, we find, actually, it's quite nice to react to other things, cool.

Okay, thanks. That's helpful. It's good to hear about that experience and what it's really like in the room. I know that you, as you've been speaking, have talked about several of the different types of labs that you've been doing, and you've used some of the sort of descriptive phrases. I understand that you've had about 10 of these, you know, 10 sort of focus areas that you work with clients on. Could you talk through what those are? Just to give us a sense of

Yeah. In fact, we've got 12 now. James, so we started out well, nine, and we've got 12, yeah. And that's really reflecting, I think, some of the changes. So the recent additions have been about hybrid by design, so how people can create a hybrid organization for in office or remote working. One is about energy at work, which has come from the book I wrote, The energized workplace. And then one actually that came from clients. So clients said we'd like these labs, but we really want to work on something that's to do with strategy, or people strategy, which one fits, and our existing nine didn't really fit, so we created one, so it's a strategy lab, and we've got a three hour version of helping people work through at least the early iterations of a strategy. So those are the three new ones, but the the other nine cover a number of different areas. So things that people might recognize are things like an agile lab, so that's working in sprints and iteratively. So the classic sort of stand up retrospective type agile Design Lab, which is all about design thinking, so lots of empathy led people centric problem solving. Then we've got an impact lab which looks at the impact mapping technique that's used in software industry, but we've changed it somewhat to work in more knowledge based and perhaps even HR and people and culture issues. And then there are a few that are HR specific. We've got one that helps HR teams transform. So if they're a little bit sort of traditional and a bit stuck in their administrative and employee relations and can't really get into org design and change as much as they like to, we have a transformational HR lab. And then the one I mentioned with the client just a few moments ago, the business partner in lab, because we recognize business partner, and it's got really complex in the world of HR, and we wanted to help people with some more skills and tools and techniques in that space. There's a hack lab where we want to just get innovation bursting at the scenes. There's a job crafting lab. We work with Rob Baker to help people craft their own jobs. There's a teams lab where we work with the game changer index to understand the good makeup of a team. And then the last one is perhaps our sort of most open source version. It's a learning lab where really what we want is a subject matter expert to work with us and create a scenario or a simulator for people to have a three hour immersive session on anything that's relevant, be it technical or interpersonal skills, but very contextualized to the organization, so it can be something like obscure maritime regulations and insurance and how people deal with claims to you know something about negotiating and influencing in contractual discussions? So learning labs can literally be anything. So that's the 12

brilliant that's a great range. And you know, we've done a podcast with Rob as well. So the whole job crafting thing would be really cool to see at some point. That sounds really fun. I bet it's got great impacts. I wanted to delve in a little bit more to one in particular, because it's one bit sort of of interest to me, and it's one that I don't really know much about, which is the impact lab. And you talked about, you know, drawing up some of the learnings from the IT world. Could you just elaborate a little bit on on what that looks like when you bring it? Yeah? Business model

very fresh, actually, because I ran one only last week. So, yeah, what we do is we bring people in and we talk about how they describe the impact of the work they do. And you know what, James, it's a really tough question, because people can actually, I don't really think about, I think about KPIs or statistics, but I don't really think about the impact I have. And so they'll then go into a thoughtful process and then start to share a few things about making a difference and so on. So we start with that, and then we go very quickly into the method from this Serbian programmers book on impact mapping, goico adzech and and so he, he did, he's developed a bit of a methodology where we we really talk about the goal. Of the thing that you're trying to impact assess. And so we really get people to start thinking, what is the point of, you know, an enterprise resource planning system or a new policy on well being? What's the goal you're after? Not just the high level, superficial thing you'll put in your internal comms channel, but really deeply think about that. So that's quite nice, because I don't think people do that enough. Then what we like to do is ask people to then start thinking about the process of how you achieve that goal. So who's involved in it, both who's the recipient of the product and who's the builder of the product. We then go through the process of what resources you need and time and effort to put that together, and from that, the sort of feature set that's going to deliver the value, and that starts to give them a sense of what they have to input to it and what they expect to get out of it. And it's at that point that we deviate from the original concept of impact mapping, because we've used it with the principles of value that come from a book by an Oxford say business management professor called Colin Mayer, called prosperity, and he talks about six value lenses, which are financial, obviously, but also material. So you create things that get reused. Intellectual so you learn something new, and it's a skill or a knowledge that you acquire. But then also the really interesting ones are natural value. So that's ecosystem, environment, green agenda, that kind of thing. Social value, so to the collective community and so on. And then human value. What does it mean to people? How does it make them feel. And what we found is those six value lenses really explode people's minds into thinking, oh my goodness, all I'm thinking about is speed or some kind of numeric measure, when really I could be thinking about, what shift Am I making to how people feel about their work, their colleagues, and so on. So that gets them into a really strong and rich way of mapping value. And then at the end of it, we sort of stitch it all together with, again, a problem and a thing they're going to impact map. And then people go away with a whole renewed sense of what needs to change in a product or service and so on. So we find it, it sparks people into all sorts of realms of wanting to improve and adapt systems and functions in a way that actually we're often quite surprised about. But yeah, that's really how an impact lab runs. Yeah,

that's really helpful, and it was great to hear you call out Colin Mayer work there. He's got some really interesting thoughts in this space when, when you're talking about the impact lab, it feels like this moves a little bit towards that conversation around responsible business within the framings of outputs of organizations. Is that intentional? Does that happen organically? I guess. Does an organization need to be interested in responsible business and moving in that direction to value this? Or is there something that emerges organically in those conversations? I

get the sense that practitioner level, you know, people who often come into our labs all are starting to think like that, and perhaps are a little bit frustrated that it's not as high on the management agenda or the leadership agenda as they feel it could be. So I think it's actually a really nice outlet for them, because I find a lot of people at practitioner level are really bothered about the environment and social cause and social justice and impact on the community. And perhaps higher up, they're still thinking about balance sheets and funding deficits and shareholder value and, you know, government scrutiny and so on. So I actually think at that level, it gives them a chance to go. I can use this to perhaps upwardly create that pressure to be more focused on being a responsible business. So I think it's sort of by accident we've discovered that, James, but I think it's tapping into a quite latent sense that people need an outlet for, and this gives them it. So if that happens, I'd be very happy, because the upward pressure, I think would meet then with the societal, I suppose expectations of more responsible businesses that we're starting to see with, like will Hutton's recent announcement and the Better Business Alliance and so on. So, yeah, I think it's of its time that's,

it's really, I guess, reassuring and exciting to hear that that's we're beginning to see that message or that narrative emerge from different places. So that's incredibly positive. We have a lot of listeners who are managers of small organizations or leaders in small organizations, and they'll be sitting there listening to this going core. This sounds exciting. This sounds really, really like something that could help us, but we're very limited in resources, and you know, I need to think carefully about my team. Is there anything that you could share in terms of what you've learned that would help them maybe implement some of the things you've learned around being a bit more creative in problem solving, and some of the principles of the labs that maybe they could at least try and apply to some of. There some of the ways they solve problems.

Jane, that's a brilliant point. I'm really glad you brought it in, because one of the ethos, or principles of this whole labs concept is we go in and say to people that once you've run one lab with us, we will give you materials, and if you feel comfortable enough, you can run as many of these as you want with your colleagues, because we don't want to be delivering 57 sessions around impact mapping, if they as a team would rather learn it and then proliferate it and create it as an almost like a new shift in the organization, instead of done to by an external consultant built with but delivered by their own people. So this is the kind of stuff where you can start really small, and that's, I think, really important. I first heard this phrase from you and Semple, the concept of a Trojan mouse. And it's quite literally, this is a tiny little infiltration into a new kind of system that feels like it's non threatening, contained, but quite powerful, if you can get it right in one small scale experiment and then use it to proliferate and roll out and get much more traction on so I think that's how I sort of suggest people look at this. It's just, quite literally a one off experimentation. If you want to get a bit of innovative thinking going run a hack lab, all you'll be doing is three hours of people enjoying themselves and coming up with some useful stuff if you want to then activate afterwards, that's up to you. So I think they're quite low risk. I think they're quite low friction, but high energy. And I think we need a lot more of that in the world of work. So I think starting with them is easy. Yeah, I would,

I would echo that. I would like lots left, lots less giant transformational projects that promise to change the world and then leave everyone feeling a little bit short changed. I'm going to reverse the question now. So imagine for a moment that there are some of the people listening who are like, this sounds brilliant, but I absolutely know I've got a very traditional senior management team, they're going to hear the phrase Business Lab, and they'll be like, Oh, I'm not sure about that. What? What have you? Have you seen resistance in organizations to this approach before and and, you know, what's your advice for people who are like, I think this is, you know, I love Trojan mouse, by the way. I think that's brilliant. How can people, you know, maybe loosen some of the sort of traditional, traditionalists in problem solving?

Yeah, so, I mean, there's a direct knock on the door of those skeptics to actually sort of say, You know what problem still keeps you awake at night. And we're doing this with some clients, actually, so we're not even construct in the lab until we know exactly what is really, really occupying their minds. And then we'll take that and we'll go, right, do you know what? We could run a three hour session where, if we can quite literally smash this one into a shape of a product or a program of change. That's not massive, but that will help solve that problem, we think that will switch them towards this being a much more proliferated view point that they can widen and spread out across the organization. So we'll do the direct knock on the door, if that's applicable, if that's not applicable, then the other approach we've taken is that we'll individually talk to people who, again, have got divisional responsibilities and so on, and start to get a sense of what's going on in their world. And then we'll look at the sort of duality of that, with very specific divisional problems, plus some that clearly map across the whole organization. And we'll pitch back and go look. You can tackle this one of two ways. We can do a nice divisional thing to enhance some divisional specific problems, or we can take some of these that are ring fenced around the whole organization and leave it for them to choose. So yeah, we are quite open minded about how to start with this, but we're quite confident as well that once we get some insight to the nature of the problems, we can engineer a solution that will at least start the process. And I think that's another crucial thing. We'll say, look, all we'll do is we'll like the Touch Paper. The rest of it's down to you. So I think that's again, where it can feel quite safe. It's not a it's not a big ask, it's not a big commitment, it's not a waste of time. We reckon we can get more done in three hours than most people would do in three days. That's

that sounds uh, that sounds very attractive. Um, so I guess one last question for me before I hand back to James, I was listening, and I was thinking, what is it? What is it that's so different from the way people do things? And there's part of this, I think that it feels to me like this gives people permission and space to all point in the same direction, on the same problem and that they aren't fitting problem solving around their daily job the way that it feels sometimes in organizations that we're doing. And I just wondered how much, how much you see after the labs or. Organizations not necessarily like, is anything different? I guess the question is, is anything different about the way people behave after these so that they get a bit more traction, or is it do you still have to really sort of nudge nudge nudge to see them actually implement what they're sort of what they've come up with in the business

labs? I think it's a brilliant point again, about, you know, sustaining momentum and commitment and so on. So we don't like to interfere, but we are now starting to get into some follow up conversations. And in fact, we quite like to leave them for a while then come back in and say, look, let's let's see what's different. Let's measure it. And just the fact that they know we're coming back in to do some evaluation, sort of prompts them into thinking, well, we better not do nothing, otherwise we won't look very good on our investment. So we keep a little tiny bit of peer pressure, I suppose, by offering to assess how they've performed with the things we've given them in the lab. But I think what we're starting to see just to really sort of tail your answer there is that that people are genuinely kind of going, this is the first domino in several we want to knock down so they then integrate it with a bigger strategic intent. It forms part of a transformation program. It manifests itself in something to do with talent management. So we've seen it attach itself in a nice way to either an existing or a fresh perspective on something that the corporate entity has signed up to do in so yeah, so we feel quite comfortable about that. We don't feel like often, you know, people just do this and then it's kind of like, Oh, that was nice, and just forget it. You know, like the strategy away days that everybody has when they write on flip charts, and then bugger all happens. Yeah, we don't get the sense of that with these because they are so practical, I think, and they have started something rather than just scoped it. So I think that works in our favor. Momentum is pretty good, and we're getting repeat requests. So that's good. So people come in and say, let's do this, and they come back and say, well, let's do another one. So we think that's a sign that they're starting to see this adding up to something bigger. So yeah, we feel quite comfortable with that. There is a temptation, I suppose, that companies could sit back and kind of go, Well, we started that process, but we're too busy now to do anything else, we can't really compete with that. But if people are busy, we can say, well, we can help you be less busy, because we can help you buy some of our labs, creating less of that side desk project that you talked about, Jane, and more of the let's put this in the right space where you do something transformative, but you detach from normal stuff for a while to do it, and then when you've transformed something, the normal stuff you do will never be the same again. So, yeah, we we can, we can, we can arrange it so that it fits where they are, I think, which is probably nicer than your average consulting program.

Yeah. And it really feels like there's a piece around, you know, teaching people to fish, as opposed to giving them fish. So they've got that mindset, and they've explored all of that, and that Trojan mouse is out there running loose in the corridors of power. Brilliant. Well, in the interest of time, I'm going to wrap us up just before we go though. Perry, could you let people know how they could learn more about you and the labs and things?

Yeah, so the the labs themselves are on our website, which is pthr.co.uk, forward slash solutions, forward slash labs. And I'm on LinkedIn, so you can always find me on there and on Twitter. Yeah, we're always happy to have a conversation about anything to do with these and like I say, they're pretty low friction, pretty non committal. Non committal. So, yeah, it's not even a massive financial investment. Brilliant.

Okay, well, that was really fun. Thank you very much for sharing all that, Perry. So thank you for me. Thank you for me. Okay, you are back in the room of us. That was our conversation with Perry. Tim, it's all about business reinvention labs covered a lot there, Jane, anything you want to reflect on? Yeah,

I guess at the heart of it, it makes me think the fact they've been really well received. I wonder how. I'm sure they're fabulous, and I absolutely would imagine they're very, very engaging. I know, I know their team. Do you know brilliant work of that. But I also, like I said to him during the session, I do wonder how much of it is about giving a large number of people the space and permission to all work together on a singular problem, not around, sort of around the edges of their work, but wholeheartedly commit to it, and how much of that is also a signal from the organization to say, Yeah, we're investing time and money into solving This problem, and therefore it's worth doing, because we're likely to back the solution. And I think that in itself, I think is a really important thing, because too often we see problems and they just drift right and people half heartedly pick at them, rather than really putting full effort and energy behind solving or improving them. Yeah.

Brilliant. Good point. Um. I echo that. And the bit that I just wanted to call out was just a lovely piece of language that dropped in there around Trojan mouse. I just think that's so brilliant. If you can bring a new way of working or thinking to an organization through something like that, and then just let that idea or way of working run free in the organization and and I guess, replicate and do what it needs to do. So I really like that image. I thought that was really powerful. All right, let us leave it there. So it is goodbye for me, and it's goodbye from me.