My name is Casper and I once again have the pleasure of welcoming you to this fourth event in our journey on transformation. We call it the Unlocking the Full Potential of Your Transformation. And it's fantastic to see that we once again have over 200 signups and I hope that you're all ready to dive into the topic of transformation management. At least I know that we are. So these on point sessions are designed to provide you with the most possible knowledge in a short time. So that means that we are a bit busy on today's session and it will mainly be us talking. However, by the end of the session we will do a short Q&A. So please leave your questions in the chat and I can see that you're already writing in it so that's perfect. And then we'll try to answer as many of them as we can in the end of the session. Yeah. And with that said, I think it's time to do the introduction. And if you have been here before, you know this man here, Alexander, who is with me here again today. And he heads up the department in Implement on Strategy Execution and Transformation Management. And he's one of our experts in turning strategic vision into actual value. And together we have some experience in actually helping organizations structuring their programs and maximizing the value of transformation. And it's wonderful to be back. Last time I'd lost my voice, but now I'm here again. So thank you for inviting me back. So good to have you again, Alexander. So I think with that, I'll just do the agenda and invite you back up later. So the purpose of gathering you here all today is to continue the journey that we have been on on large scale transformation. And more specifically, we'll dive into the execution discipline of this best practice framework that we have created. So today we have three points on the agenda. First, we'll just make sure that you are all up to speed with our series and that you know what our framework is all about if you haven't participated in the other sessions. And then we'll use the majority of the time today to deep diving into the drive progress discipline of the framework. And as I mentioned, by the end of the session, we'll do the short Q&A session. So please, again, leave your questions in the chat and then we'll take them as we get there. But before we get started, I just want to mention that if you missed the first three events, you can actually still catch up. Because together with the slides from today and also the recording from today, we'll share the recordings of all of the previous events. So you can see them if you want to. So let's get started. And it's no secret that designing, steering and executing large scale transformation is extremely difficult. However, our almost 30 years of working with them across literally all industries, parts of the world has taught us that you can in fact increase your chances of success. And to put it very briefly, you need to implement practices that does three things. First of all, you need to increase the impact because clarifying the vision and reducing the time to benefit realization and it will lower your risk, like we talked about last time. And this time we'll focus about how you can actually speed up progress through efficient execution, increase agility and improve coordination across the organization. And then next, Next time we'll talk about how you can strengthen the engagement in the transformation through faster adoption, higher stakeholder satisfaction and stronger ownership. And our best practice framework for succeeding with large scale transformation programs therefore guides you to do exactly this. We call it Implement TPM and it's designed around these three equally important disciplines. They will together guide you to ensure that your transformation is designed to create high impact, that your program is set up to continue to drive progress and that the receiving organization is engaged to actually make the changes that are needed. Because far too often we see that the target remains undefined, there is an overestimation of the execution capabilities and that the change in the organization is actually forgotten throughout the process. And to truly exceed, we see that the experience shows us that these three must work together as an ecosystem while they are being steered by a strong leadership and facilitated by an effective transformation management office. And if we look into the actual framework, each of these three disciplines have three underlying objectives, which together function as a high level roadmap with concrete practices for the program management. And to avoid the tendency that we see that programs often not just go wrong, but they actually start wrong, it is very much important that you spend a lot of efforts in the beginning to create a clear and compelling program vision. that everyone in the transformation and the organization can actually subscribe to this will enable you to define the scope and the desired benefits and also the plan for how to get there. After this, you will actually be able to design and establish the transformation organization and staff it with the required capabilities to take you from where you are now to where you want to be. And in the second discipline, which we will talk much more about today, it's all about strong governance with roles, responsibilities and mandates being clear on all level to enable fast decision making and effective flow of information throughout the transformation. It is about creating an effective TMO that facilitates this rhythm with a meeting cadence and control environment and collaboration practices across the entire transformation. And finally, in this domain, we have that we need to have streamlined project management approach, process across the entire transformation with common systems, tools and templates to enable to have this one source of truth, reporting and also automated data aggregation. And if we look through the last dimension of the framework, we have that you need to involve all of the stakeholders with engaging change communication, a compelling communication early on in the transformation and continue this throughout the transformation. You need to equip leaders to drive change and also engage all of the stakeholders with engaging engage all of the affected employees. And lastly, we need to assess the current capabilities, define the future one and build and bridge the gap between where you are now to where you want to be in order to actually enable this benefit realization in the end. Zooming out even further, we have on the outside here, the framework which contains concrete methods. When you apply it, to a given object to a given object, these will actually serve as the how to guide for how to obtain a specific object. For instance, if we're looking at the create vision and aspiration, this is all about designing the target operating model and designing the desired impact like we talked about last time. If we look for engage to change, the focus here is on the strategies for the stakeholder management, the change management and the communication and all of the change readiness that is needed. And lastly, the last level of our framework, it contains a comprehensive range of concrete tools and templates to support these methods that we are needed. And these are actually tested in practice and they all aim to streamline efforts to create consistency and facilitate collaboration across the program organization. But before we dive into the framework even further and engage and the drive progress dimension, we'll just take a quick look on how we typically support clients across this transformation lifecycle. So in the beginning, we help to initiate and scope the transformation journey with program initiation and also ramp up efforts. We support program planning and establishment by setting up and driving PMOs. We are involved during execution by managing and supporting program execution, program execution, and when needed, we also run course correction and improvement offices. And finally, we support the benefit realization in the end by building the transformation capabilities to keep the engine running also after the program has actually ended. And lastly, our transformation X-ray is our structure's approach for improving the capabilities of ongoing transformation. And with it, you first get a fact-based view on the current state, then we together design the desired future state and create a strategic roadmap to get there and then close the value gap between where you are today and where you want to be. And we do that by assessing these three dimensions, as I just mentioned before. You compare today's practices with the ambitions in the future. And if you are interested in that, you can see the second event where we talk much more about this part of the journey. And since we are zooming in on the strategic execution here today, we would like to start with actually your reality. And here on the screen, you see the question, what would you wish you could say about your strategic execution that you cannot say today? So please grab your phone, scan the QR code or use the code here on the screen to join Dementi and write a short sentence or answer to this question. And we'll just give you a couple of minutes and then I'll invite Alexander back in so we can use your input. as the backdrop for the deep dive that actually follows. So please don't go anywhere. We'll be back in just a few minutes. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. And thank you so much for adding comments. I can see that there are several people probably still writing. So we'll take it as it follows. What we see here is especially, I think, looking to strategic execution and driving progress. There is something on, you know, being better at following up and measuring on and actually achieving what we think. And of course, there is a lot of there is also maybe looking to a more ideological perspective, think planet and people first, but in a wholesome way of working with transformations. Just in leaders understand that it's not about a new tool, but about changing processes. Yes. So zooming out on the greater purpose, that the following through was great. And we really need to get a bang for the buck and being supported by top management and change management sponsors. And of course, all of these talk into a lot of different aspects. And at least in our mind, it's really important to know that it's not one single element that we are talking about. It's not only being good at driving progress or only being good at engaging the organization or only being good at really moving on the high impact targets. It's about binding all of those together to really get a strategic execution. And I'll talk about what the pitfalls can be there in a moment. But I think there's a lot, you're touching on a lot of very important thing here. There's also one I just really want to highlight because that's going to be directly relatable in a moment. I wish I could say the strategy was clear, making it easier to operationalize and execute with clear roles and responsibilities. I think that sums up a lot about what we're going to talk about later. Caspar, do you have any reflections on it? I think that overall, it aligns with the things that we also talked about, especially last time that we see more also talking about that the beginning of the transformation is not clear either. So already from the get go, we are a bit unsure of where we actually want to land. And that, of course, also makes the execution even harder because what do we want to land? Yeah, cool. Yes, thank you. I think we're on a schedule. So I better dive back into to what we came here to to talk about. And if I can get this to work here. Whoops, we have a small Christmas in the PowerPoints. We are going to talk about how to drive progress today. And especially in our main aspect, we are looking at, you know, how do you establish a very simple but effective governance? How do you actually execute a transformation with rhythm or cadence as we like to call it? How do you stay in control when complexity increases? And how do you actually from a transformation perspective, if you are leading it, if you are working in our work stream, how do you come together and have a support system that's really beneficial? And then of course, how do we actually deliver projects or you could say value streams in a transformation with impact? Ultimately, that's going to be about how do we execute where the value is created? So all of the things we will dive into in just a second. But before we do that, a few data points that might be beneficial to know. When we look at it from a data-based and data-backed perspective, even in transformations where there is a clear vision, a clear scope, you have a capable team, you have devised a solid plan, we feel ready to go. So on average, we still lose 37% of the value we hoped in the execution phase. So meaning when we start to spend a lot of time and resources on executing this transformation, when you're done with it, we end up on average 37% lower than we hoped. We can argue if that number is 34 or 54, but I think we can all agree that execution and what we're going to talk about today is a very, very big stealer or deteriorator of value. as we execute. So we need to do something about that. Furthermore, one of the things that we really stumble upon when we're talking transformation is that complexity increases dramatically. It's not something where you have a clear overview anymore of everything going on. You have multiple business units, maybe it's even a global organization trying to do something in a tactic form all at once. We have many different, you know, interdependent initiatives, projects being executed. at the same time impacting each other and we have multiple decisions that could have impacts all around. And of course, ultimately impact the scope as well. And then we also typically see when we talk transformations that we have a much bigger, wider and more, you could say differentiated landscape of stakeholders. And sometimes most transformations that we work with also have competing priorities, something that's really a burning desire on the short term, has to battle against what's the strategic wish and outlook on the long term. So a lot of things drives complexity when we're looking at transformations. And we can do something if we want to have progression on that. We also see if we go really specific into the execution aspect that complexity can deteriorate progress by, for instance, not having a consistent way of executing together across the transformation. We see that we have a lot of duplicated work, work streams doing the same way of executing together across the transformation. We see that we have a lot of duplicated work, work streams doing the same way of executing together across the transformation. We see that we are doing the same thing, not being in collaborative form, we have work needing to be redone. We will see risk that we weren't aware of emerge too late, and the program can start to become misaligned and not as a cohesive form. And we had a comment before about really understanding the strategy and the vision to work together. And if you want to know more about that aspect, you can check out the previous webinar we had on how to work with Build for High Impact. We also see that transparency is one of the biggest inhibitors of progress, meaning that if we don't have the adequate data, it's not about volume, it's about precision. If we don't have the right data, it's going to limit our ability to make timely, meaning early and effective data-driven decisions. In essence, we are basically driving the car without a dashboard or a blocked windshield, trying to figure out if we are going to arrive at our destination on time and if we are keeping up with the speed. We also know from data that clear accountability and mandate are a huge progression factor that if you have that under control knowing who does what and have very good collaboration forms, you will see a very high increase in progression. On the other hand, if you don't have clear accountability, on the other hand, if you don't have clear mandates, clear accountability, there will start to be uncertainty about who is doing what on the transformation. Typically, we also see a lot of friction in collaboration, stepping over each other's toes or doing the same thing, and progress will start to slow down. So a lot of things can limit a program for being run effectively and increasing progress. Now, if we look at another data point and a hero of ours, Ben Flubia, I think many of you know him as well. He has this set of numbers that I just think puts a line on the why it's important to work with transformations in a new way, but also why it's important to work with how we actually drive progress and create overview in a transformation. So if we look at all transformations or programs, only 47.9% actually arrives and delivers what they intended on budget or below. Only 8.5% actually delivers on budget and on the time they set out to. And only 0.5% delivers on budget, on time, and on the benefits that they promised. And that's applicable to small projects, and it's applicable to huge, large transformations. What's really interesting here, and what we need to work with is typically some of the underlying factors are having great transparency. It's about having early warning signals, knowing how to tweak the transformation to keep cost, to keep time, and to keep benefits high. And of course, our framework works with all of these different aspects along the way. All right. So to put it in a summary, before we dive into the next thing here, it takes a goal and commitment to start a transformation. We also typically say a transformation doesn't go wrong, it starts wrong. But without really clear execution and a fixed cadence, you'll never finish a transformation. So one thing is knowing where you want to go, where you want to end up having that clear target picture, having the audience and the stakeholders. So we want to hold our image with you. The other thing is being really good at driving progression along the way and ensuring that we are always hitting a right text to arrive at the time where we sort out. And ultimately, if we try to put it simply for us at least, if you want to drive progress on your transformation, you want to have that really good feeling of being in control and arriving on time, you need to have a simple structure, a governance, a way of working top to bottom, and a way of working top to bottom, and then you need to have a very good time in the organization. How do we exchange information? How do we make timely decisions? How does everything flow? And how do we ensure that we actually know who is doing what? You need to have a high degree of transparency. We'll talk much more about that, but ultimately, it's about having the right data to support the decisions and being good at using them to have early warnings and calibrate the way we execute the transformation along the way to make the right decisions. And it's about having a steady cadence or a fixed heartbeat of your transformation, ensuring that we actually have a very, very good form for how to execute. We are working together and we're releasing value as we go along. If you manage these three, you will see a big, big change in how much progression you can get out of your transformation. Of course, it's much more complex than that in reality, and we're going to dive into it in a moment. But just so you have our frame of thought, it's about having structure, governance, transparency, and having the right cadence and collaboration form. In our model, the transformation model that you see below us here, there's a lot of different layers that work with exactly this. But I think without too much time being put into this, I'm going to hand it over to Casper to dive into each of these elements that we just talked about. Something about the governance, we're going to talk about how to execute with rhythm and control, and then we're going to dive into how do we actually deliver in projects. and work streams in practice. Casper? Yes. Thank you for that, Alexander. Yes, to become a bit more practical, we'll dive into each of these three objectives here. And we start with the first objective, of course, the established governance. And this objective covers the essential practices that enable fast decision-making and issue resolution. And today we have chosen to focus on two of the elements that lies under this, so being the governance structure and also the TMO that connects all of the moving parts of the transformation. So let's start with the overall governance structure. And we tend to organize this transformation in three connected levels. On the strategic level at the top, we have the transformation steering committee, which typically consists of an executive sponsor together with benefit owners and also key people from both business and the tech. At the middle layer, we have the tactical level, where the program manager and the TMO are sitting. This is where the strategy actually meets the delivery. And at the bottom, at the operational level, this is made out of the project steercos, the project managers, and all of the work streams. And this is where the actual execution on a day-to-day level happens. And the important point here is that all of these three levels need to work together so that issues and risks move up quickly when they are exceeding the mandate of a given level. And then that decision and priorities and guidance flow back just as clearly when this is made. So we end up spending time on real decisions instead of just endless status reporting. And at the strategic level, the steerco owns the overall ambition for the transformation. They hold the vision, the value, and the risk appetite. And they also decide on the scope and the funding for the transformation. They make the major prioritization choices and they also resolve escalations that cannot be closed down below. And at the tactical level, the program manager and the TMO integrates the transformation with the plans across all of the projects. They set the priorities of what to do and how to sequence it. They manage the cross-stream dependency and prepare clear decision proposals for the steerco at the top so that the top level can focus on the actual choices and not on the details that is not needed. And at the operational level, the project steerco's, the project managers, and the work stream deliver the actual outcomes that should deliver the benefits in the end. They manage local risks and the changes within the agreed guardrails. And they escalate when the thresholds are exceeded or when impact cut across multiple projects. And across all levels, everyone, it should be clear on what they own, what they can decide themselves, when something needs to be moved up or down for the transformation to actually keep progressing. So this is key here. The TMO is where the governance is actually turned into the day-to-day operation or execution. Its job is to keep one rhythm, one set of numbers, and one decision flow for the whole transformation. And first, the TMO owns the governance cadence and the performance management. It runs the calendar that links the project, the program, and the steerco at the top. It makes sure that information flows in a disciplined way across all these three levels and supports the performance review and prepares material for gate decisions so that these forums can actually focus on the choices and not on changing updates for the levels below. And second, it ensures that there is an integrated reporting and shared standard across the transformation. The TMO aggregates the project data across all other KPIs and it applies common decision thresholds and RAC rules. And this creates this single source of truth that Alexander mentioned before so that everyone in all of forums reach the same picture when they look at the performance. And third, it supports forward-looking insights and decision enablement. So it pulls together KPIs and benefit forecasts, prepares these decision options with their intended impact, and maintains a program view by decision and change log. And this is the way that everyone knows what actually needs to be decided and can track that decision actually happened out in the real world. And now we move to the second objective, the execute with rhythm control and support. And the goal here is to set clear cadence, as Alexander mentioned, with simple controls that keeps the plan on track and surface these risks early if there are any. And we'll zoom in on how we actually design the transformation rhythm and planning flow, and how we use right-sized controls so that reporting stays simple and forward-looking, and also linked to the benefits that we would like to have in the end. So large programs becomes much easier to steer when everyone actually follows the same drum beat. Here we use a simple fixed cadence that creates predictability and flow. And at the center, we have the quarterly rhythm. And this is where you confirm the next way, if there is a next wave, you take gate decisions, and you also run project readiness checks. Around that sits the monthly rhythm. And once a month, we step back and review the performance and the benefits across the program, whether we are on the right track. And we also update the benefit forecast and refresh the business case so that the sponsor sees the latest picture. On the outer ring, we have the weekly integration. And here, it is where the project leads comes together to take a look at the cross-project integration. with key risk and dependency. And they also should agree on the action that actually keeps the overall plan on track. And when these quarterly, monthly, and weekly rhythms are aligned across the program, everyone actually knows when decisions are made, what information is needed when, and how issues move through this entire system. And this is what actually creates the flow rather than a hot firefighting. And when we talk about this execution engine that we need to set up, we also mean that you need to have a shared performance system across the entire transformation. So first, we need to use common way of measuring and steering performance at all levels. That means that we set the same KPI targets, rack definitions, and decision logic for the strategic, the program, and also the project level, so that all people in the transformation actually acts to the same signals. Second, the performance is forward-looking. Second, the performance is forward-looking. We do not just report on the last month, but we look ahead on all KPIs so that we can actually act before something slips up. And we aim to have this single source of truth with agreed definitions and clear data ownership. This should reduce the debate about numbers and freeze up time to actually talk about decisions. And finally, we have data and tooling that are integrated so that information flows from the project to the program to the overall transformation with limited manual effort. And this is how we are allowing quick and fact -based decisions in the entire transformation. And the performance system actually really lives on the project levels where the work actually happened. And each of these projects gives one concise status aligned with the program cadence, as I just mentioned, before, and not just a long report. The update shows where we are now, how things have moved since last time, and also the key steps planned in the coming period to stay on track or get back on track. So every project uses the same structure, the same deviation criteria, and reports on the same core elements. You see them here on the screens. The benefits, the cost, the milestones, the risk issues, the dependencies, the changes, and also the stakeholder satisfaction in the end. Because we need to have this common language and structure that is shared, so that project updates can actually be compared across projects, but also rolled up into a single program view without having too much rework. So for the instance that the items that actually needs a decision, the TMO and the project team to prepare clear options, the impacts of these options, and also a recommendation. And what we see here in the bottom is an example of a real client view. And we showed how we could actually turn this to discipline project reporting into sharper and faster decision on the program level with automated dashboards that you see on the right. And we now turn to the third object here in our framework, delivering projects with impact in every wave. And we have up until now mainly been focusing on the program level and also the transformation at the top. But here on forward, we will actually look at the project level and where the actual outcomes are. And focusing on the unified ways of working, the simple project reporting and visual progress so that each project knows what to contribute and the value that actually lands and not just the activities that they are carrying out. So when we talk about delivering impact in every way, it starts with how the projects are actually run. And first, every project in the transformation should follow a streamlined project model that actually fits to the context. So whether you're using a agile or hybrid or more classic delivery approach that needs to be tailored to the context of the transformation. But overall, the people need to recognize where they are in this lifecycle, what goods look like, and what they can actually be expected at each of the gates that takes them to the next part of their projects. Second, we need to make ownership crystal clear. So there is a name project owner for each project. There is a project manager. There is a change manager or project lead, depending again, on the transformation that you are on the transformation that you are having. And all of these need to be aligned on the decision right between them, but also the accountabilities for the outcomes and not only the activities that are carried out. And third, we need to look at the adoption and change so that is built into the actual delivery model that we have. Stakeholder behavior change and the benefit realization are part of the plan from day one and not something that you just put on top at the end. And when we support this with the six common or concrete project practices that we use, co-location, high allocation on the critical roles of the projects, affect meeting cadence also on the project level, not only on the transformation level and visual ways of working, crystal clear ownership I just mentioned, and this early involvement of key stakeholder, that is the way that we actually turning this standard into a real performance in your transformation. And let us end where we actually started with the three words that Alexander mentioned, the simple structure, the high transparency and the steady cadence. We keep the simple structure. At the bottom, we have the projects, the work streams with clear owners who drive the day-to-day delivery. And above that, we have the project steercoast that actually takes the decision on the project levels, of course, within the guard rails of the mandate that they have been handed. And then, of course, also remove any local blockers if there are any. Next, we have the transformation manager and the TMO here in the center, which, again, integrates the plan across the projects. They manage the risks and the dependency of the transformation and they prepare options for decision for the top management. And at the top, we have the transformation steerco, who, again, owns the visions, the value, and the risk appetites and decide on the scope, the funding, and resolve escalations if there are any. And across all of these levels, we use the same performance systems, the same cadence, so that information flows in a consistent way and decision and priorities flows back down throughout the system. So this is what we actually mean by executing engine that reduces the complexity that Alexander mentioned in the beginning and increasing the transparency so that the transformation can actually deliver impact in all of the ways that it consists of. And with that, I think, with that, I think, with that, I think, we conclude the deep dive on the execution dimension of the TPM framework that we just saw here. And we'll just move to the Q&A part. So if you haven't already posted your questions in the chat, I'll head over to Alexander while you do that. So please don't go anywhere and, again, post any questions that you might have, and then we'll take them. We, of course, have some questions here, Alexander. Sure, sure. And I think that what we hear in the beginning would like to take is take it from sort of the theoretical level because that, of course, is one thing and two into a more practical level. So, Alexander, with your experience, can you tell us about a transformation where you saw this execution engine? Really worked and what actually stood out about that? Yeah, I have a few examples. I think one that was a big financial institution. And I think what really worked there was that they were, it was just after COVID. So there was really getting back to work and a very big buy-in on being together physically. And we used that momentum to actually do a full floor of a transformation, meaning that they were sitting in different areas, working in work streams, having, you know, meetings and being really close to each other. And the other thing was that we made the entire scope, you know, both, of course, digital, but also physical together, and then a huge plan and had meetings that were really focused on that. What that basically worked, tended to be and worked out to be was that we could zigzag across the hall in that very big floor really fast and clarify decisions and, you know, identify a risk. So from identification of a risk to handling of the risk could be minutes, not weeks, not months, not reporting up and down. We had the steercoats come in and have the meetings in the room. The board was in the room having progress meetings. People could add information. So we really went maybe even a little bit overboard on it, but we really defined, you know, some really efficient pathways to work. And the progression was, at least compared to what they usually do, it was one third of the time for that transformation. So 66% in terms of progression. The value and all of that is, of course, always, a different story, but really progression was faster. Yeah, because that will sort of be my next follow-up question here is that it sounds like a very large system that they actually set up. Do you need to set up such a system or could like maybe less also do? Yeah, of course, you don't need to go for the full gold plating circus there, but at least for their transformation, they had a lot of different expertise areas that had a really good collaboration. So that makes sense. I think for many organizations, if you were to start two places, it would be reduce wasted time in overlapping meetings or having too much of a fixed calendar that doesn't create any value. What I mean there is we typically see organizations spending insane amounts of time of meeting and coordinating where they could be working more together on selected days, having much more of a fast cadence. That's one thing. And the other is that for some reason, often, if you were to really effectivize a transformation, you have to reduce the cutoff between what the projects are doing, how they collaborate and how they communicate upwards. If you really get that top to bottom communication going, a lot of information flows faster. So just those two things I would focus on to begin with. Yeah, and we have talked a lot about the whole communication, how information flows up and down, but that has been within the actual transformation. And Philip here in the comment asks about if you could elaborate on the difference between an enterprise PMO, EPMO, and the transformation management and the transformation and the transformation management. So how does this transformation actually fit into the entire organization or enterprise? So how do you see that? Excellent questions. So hopefully many organizations have a center of excellence or an EPMO that owns the general project or program transformation execution standards. The TMO is decided to drive progress and deliver value and accountability in one transformation. The EPMO should ideally float above if we're looking at the enterprise part. And making sure that all projects and transformations use the same framework to make them comparable. So it's more, it's a level above, but the TMO should borrow all of the execution methodologies from the EPMO, hopefully. So we don't reinvent the wheel every time we start a transformation. Yeah, so some of the same principles that we are applying with the transparency and the symbol cadence and all of that also attributes to this part, right? Yeah, yeah. Yes. And then really nice to see here that Carsten asked about our half-double methodology. And he asked how much of the project actually have to choose the projects and specifically whether we have a preferred method to use in project management. I would say if you have half-double already, use it. It's a fantastic framework, but it's not a requirement, meaning that you can use whatever methodology you have in your organization already, as long as every project in the transformation uses it. What we don't want to end up with is having multiple ways of working that limits how we can talk together, how we do reporting, how we understand scope, how we work with risk. So as long as everyone follows the same, it's typically okay. Half-double is designed to really help accelerate project execution and help deepen scoping and assumption in the beginning. There's definitely some value in that, but it's not a limiter if you have another project model. No, and I guess there will also be a certain situation where we would encourage not to use half-double like certain types of project where it doesn't make sense. If it requires several months of implementation before you start, I would stick with what you have, but unified, of course. Good. Then we have a follow-up question on the whole talk about the actual various roles that are within the steerco at the top. So what are the roles and responsibilities of the actual benefit owner? And this is specific compared to the executive sponsor, but also if you have a business or a tech owner. What are the differences there? It can be designed depending on the transformation. Sometimes some of the roles can be held by the same person. Sometimes it makes sense to go broader. But in essence, we would really like to see that the people in the steering parts of a transformation has at least something to do with the pain, the need to do this transformation, and the gain, those who stand to benefit. Also the ones who will live with the solution going forward, which could be the benefit owner or the ones getting the benefits on their balance sheet. So they will have an active ownership in following up, making sure that it's realized. And I think for the executive sponsor, at least for many large transformations, it would be a C-level person that sponsors that transformation. When we succeed really well, we have someone that really champions this, not only for the first few weeks, but for the duration of the transformation. So it's about creating that top-level awareness on this transformation so it doesn't become forgotten. I think we have time for just one more question here, and that is from Jens. And it sort of relates to the whole point about how it clicks into the entire organization or the enterprise. But here specifically, instead of the people, he is asking about how the interconnection between the transformation delivers on a strategy, but that the strategy is actually developed somewhere else. So how is that interlinked, and how do you make sure that what we actually learn from the transformation is put into the next strategy cycle? It almost becomes an advertisement for our other webinar about strategy execution. But to put it concretely, the transformation should have a very, very strong coupling and link to the strategy function or team and the C-level of an organization. So when we learn something in the execution of a transformation, if it's a strategic bet or strategic importance, that information should be shared outside the transformation. And that should be taken into account on when you do your strategy cycle, your strategy refresh every six months, and your strategy team should be ideally really concerned about monitoring how transformations actually deliver on that value, because the transformation is the vessel that's going to help them realize their strategy. But in essence, they should be very closely linked. Or if strategic priorities change, the transformation should change. So it needs to go back and forth. Yeah, so there's also that hierarchy between those two elements. Thank you very much, Alexander. With one minute left, and I know that probably many of you also have sort of a fixed cadence with probably many meetings starting here at nine, we'll just say thank you very much for joining in. And we hope that you will join on our next event, which will be in February. So thank you for joining in and all of your good questions. Have a good day.