We tend to assume that if the people who will live with an architecture standard help create it, adoption takes care of itself. Invite the teams, let them design the process, give everyone a voice, and the standards will be theirs.

Wouter Lagerweij tells the story of an organisation where that assumption did not hold. A large company grown through mergers and takeovers, where "no one can tell us what to do" had quietly turned into "no one is actually telling anyone what they're doing." The ask was sensible: standardisation and a common architecture, coming from the teams. Technical leads self-selected into the sessions, ADRs were written, debated and ratified, and everyone had an opinion. Half a year later, the standards were parked on a website and practically nobody was using them. Not even the teams whose own members had written them.

The moment it became undeniable was a sprint planning session. On the backlog: a technical improvement implementing one of those standards. There was a document, example code, a production service already using it, and the author, a former teammate, explicitly offering to help. The team's answer: "Yeah, we don't know. We're gonna postpone it to the next board."

This conversation, with Suzanne Lagerweij joining in, explores why doing all the right things still didn't produce the change. We dig into how a process built so that everyone has their say can end with nobody feeling they own the outcome, why consent is not consensus, why the technical lead is not always the person who moves a team, and why Wouter believes the missing ingredient was not more process but people whose only job is to keep the energy on one change until it lands.

Key Discussion Points

* [00:02] Standardisation From the Teams: A merged organisation where autonomy has become "nobody tells anyone anything" asks for a common architecture built by the teams themselves

* [00:05] Parked on a Website: After half a year of ratifying ADRs, the standards sit unused, even by their authors, and the process gets seen as a "distributed ivory tower"

* [00:07] "Postpone It to the Next Board": Documentation, example code, a production service and a willing author, and the team still defers the work

* [00:08] Pulling Every Lever: Easier adoption, wider representation and explicit leadership permission fall flat, while defect-only sprints actually deliver

* [00:13] Nobody Owned It: Not even the people in the room felt the standards were theirs, and Suzanne asks whether technical leads were the teams' informal leaders

* [00:16] Too Much Room to Object: A process designed so everyone has their say, design by committee, and the difference between consent and consensus

* [00:22] One Change, Real Slack: What Wouter would do differently, from landing a single standard to sending in people whose only job is to raise the energy

* [00:24] More Emotional Than Cognitive: Connecting the "because" to what teams care about, and why a dashboard is not the change

**Guests:** Wouter Lagerweij, Suzanne Lagerweij

**Hosts:** Kenny Schwegler

Welcome back to yet another episode of Facilitating

2

Software Architecture and Design.

3

And again, no con-

co-conspirator this time.

4

Again, Andrea still in

a virtual VDD session.

5

If you haven't watched that, go

see them as well or listen to them.

6

And, Andrew's unfortunately preoccupied.

7

Hopefully they are back in the

next episode, but I'm back here

8

again with Susanne and Wouter.

9

the previous episode, you heard Susanne

talk, and now today is about, Wouter.

10

Welcome.

11

Wouter Lagerweij: Yeah.

12

Thank you, Kim.

13

Yeah.

14

yeah, welcome back.

15

We only switch places.

16

it's the secret background

of, of, podcast magic.

17

Kenny Schwegler: Yeah

18

Wouter Lagerweij: I'm Wouter Lagerwey.

19

I have been developing software

and helping people develop

20

software for almost 30 years now.

21

I have a strong conviction that

you can't change the technology

22

without changing the organization

and the process, and vice versa.

23

and, my, my clients tend to have…

24

are, are places where there's a

lot of legacy, both in technology

25

and in organization and process.

26

so much so that at one point I even

wrote a book about it, The Product

27

Owner's Guide to Escaping Legacy, which

is all about, you know, collaboration

28

and iterative approaches of, dealing

with legacy systems and organizations.

29

what I wanna talk about today, to

switch things up after, the, the, the,

30

the good story that, Susanne did last

time, is talk about a bit of a failure.

31

because, you know, those are educational,

too, and, and, and sometimes it's

32

interesting to see what, what, what,

what exactly ha- happens when you don't

33

have that, that, energy or, that agent

of energy in the, in the organization.

34

So, I'm gonna talk about a, a place

where we set up everything for

35

collaborative architecture and,

and, um, uh, standard setting.

36

we invited all the people from

across the organization and

37

movement still did not happen.

38

so that's, that's, that's

the story I wanna tell.

39

Yeah

40

Kenny Schwegler: I'm very curious

and, I guess I've this as well.

41

So

42

Wouter Lagerweij: I do, yeah.

43

Kenny Schwegler: think a lot of people did

a similar experience, so I'm very curious.

44

Wouter Lagerweij: Well, let,

let's, let's go into it.

45

It, to, to, to set the scene, this is,

a large organization, in this case,

46

grown by takeovers, mergers, and,

and, as those things go, also grown

47

in, in the, the, the different types

of technology that are there, the

48

different cultures that are, are added.

49

And, so there was a, there were, there

was a lot of different, variation

50

and not much focus on any sort of

standardization or, common architecture.

51

Now, one thing that was there was a

culture of no one can tell us what

52

to do, for each individual team, and

often for each individual developer.

53

So, so much so because I kind of like that

sort of thing, but so much so that there

54

was also a result of no one is actually

telling anyone what they're doing.

55

Um, and that is less healthy.

56

So, um, when, when, when, when I got

involved here, I was mostly focused

57

on the, on the, on the product side,

but I did get involved in, s- setting

58

up some of the structures for this,

this more collaborative approach

59

that we were looking for, and for

the focus on stan-standardization.

60

Now, the- Main message there was, that

we need some standardization, right?

61

and the, the, so the, the, the, the

ask for the, for the, organization

62

was, we need standardization, we

need a common architecture, and

63

it needs to come from the teams.

64

and to do that, we got the different

people in the, in, from across the

65

different, teams and the different

elements of technology that were, were

66

there, to come together and talk about

what they have, which was a, a, quite a

67

lengthy process because they had a lot.

68

Uh, there was a lot of different

things, a lot of different opinions,

69

and, um, uh, it, it took a while

for that to start, coalescing in,

70

in, in, into, um, shared opinions.

71

But at some point, the,

the, the process got going.

72

It…

73

For me, it was a little…

74

It was a very large organization,

so it, it all felt a little

75

bureaucratic, and, and, you know, slow.

76

but it-- the process was there.

77

People started talking, and slowly

we started seeing, some standards,

78

created, architectural decisions.

79

ADRs were being formulated,

discussed, shared with a larger

80

group, and, and accepted.

81

So we saw this, this process,

getting, you know, I was going to say

82

up to speed, but, pro-progressing.

83

Meanwhile, I was working with individual

teams on doing basically the things

84

I do a lot, introducing story mapping

and BDD to, document their existing

85

systems and also to make sure that they

started using that for newer, services.

86

So we got some good examples

of well-tested services.

87

So it was all starting to look like

what we wanted it to look like.

88

Until it didn't.

89

because then after like, let's say,

yeah, probably half a year of this, we

90

started noticing that these standards were

ratified, accepted in quite large groups.

91

Lots of people were actually

joining these sessions, and there

92

were lots of discussions because

everyone had an opinion, so…

93

And then nothing was happening.

94

so they were parked on a

website somewhere, and nowhere

95

were, were they being adopted.

96

well, practically nowhere.

97

again, large organization.

98

There was always some progress, but it,

we, we, we were not seeing, the type

99

of results that we would, would expect.

100

Interestingly enough, even the teams

that, you know, where, where the people

101

that, that were instrumental in creating

the standards were part of, were

102

not actually adopting the standards,

which is, you know, interesting.

103

but worse, we started noticing that the

experience of different teams started

104

to basically resent the collaborative

process, that was there, and it

105

started being regarded as a, well,

what I can only call a sort of like

106

a, a distributed ivory tower, right?

107

even though, you know, people in

your own team are involved in this

108

process, it, it, it was still seen as

something that was, a, a requirement

109

and not a part of their, their work.

110

and in, in that way, it

was kept at arm's distance.

111

I, I, I re- I still remember

there was a, there, there was

112

one particular session where I, I

joined, one of their teams, in…

113

That, that were working on preparing

some of the, the, the next sprints,

114

the next work, and one of the items on

their backlog was one of these, these

115

technical improvements, that would

implement parts of these, these standards.

116

And, and they were like, "Yeah,

we don't know what to do here."

117

And I thought, said, "Well,

118

there's this document which

documents the standard.

119

there's example code.

120

the example code it, is als- it's

also been adapted in, in, in a, in

121

one of the, the other, projects.

122

There's a service that actually

im- implements it, so you can see

123

like a production, version of this.

124

That example code was actually

written by this particular person

125

who used to be part of this team.

126

he switched teams like, about a year ago,

and you talk to him very, very regularly,

127

and he's explicitly available to answer

any questions and even help out."

128

And they were like, "Yeah, we don't know.

129

We're gonna postpone

it to the next board."

130

And f- for me that was like a, th- that,

that, that, that was a, like I said

131

earlier, this is a story about failure.

132

that was a very clear sign

that this was not working.

133

and I well, we of, of course you then try

to, find out what the problem is, right?

134

and over the course of this

project, we tried a lot of things.

135

we tried to make sure that the, Well,

like, as I was explaining, you know,

136

there was a lot of work done to make

it as easy as possible to adopt this.

137

Uh, that apparently didn't matter.

138

Uh, there was a lot of work done

to make sure that there was as

139

wide a representation as possible.

140

Apparently that was not the

thing that would make this work.

141

Um, we…

142

From the, at least from the technical

leadership, there was very clear

143

messaging on, "You can spend time

on this," which did not have the

144

effect that we thought it would have.

145

It was not a complete, you know, not

everything, not everything failed.

146

But we also saw that when we, cleaned

the slate completely, for instance,

147

we spent, a couple of sprints focused

only on removing defects, as part of

148

an effort of getting to a zero defect

policy, which is, one of my pet peeves.

149

that actually worked.

150

that actually got the, the,

got, got the required results.

151

And, um, it was very clear that, um…

152

And, and we, we, we, uh, we

touched on this in, in, in, in the

153

last session with, uh, with, uh,

Susie's, um, more positive result.

154

It was very clear that there was

still felt a lot of pressure for

155

delivering the features, right?

156

The…

157

This was, made worse, I think,

this was exacerbated by the fact

158

that there was also a culture of no

one tells us anything, apparently

159

even if it's us doing the telling.

160

right?

161

It's e- even if we're doing this in,

as a, as a shared effort, we are still

162

feeling that it, it's, it's, imposed

in- instead of that we own this.

163

we did see that, you know, the, the,

the one lever that people were willing

164

to, to pull was, "We need to go slower.

165

Apparently we're doing too

much, too much change."

166

I don't necessarily think that's

the truth, but that was- The, the,

167

the felt experience, i-in, in, in

those teams and also I think in

168

the, in the wider organization.

169

There was still a lot of pressure

from outside of the technology

170

organization, and the politics there

did not, were not settled, and were

171

not handled, successfully anyway.

172

so there was still this feeling of,

of, of we need to deliver, and we,

173

and we, a- and the only thing that, in

that situation worked was slowing down.

174

Unfortunately, slowing down is not always

an option for an organization, right?

175

it helped get some things through, but it

does not help you get to the place where

176

you can corner your market or, you know,

do the changes that you need to do, in

177

this case, regulatory changes as well.

178

So it, it, it's, it's, it

doesn't actually get you there.

179

And, for me, this, th-this was a

interesting experience because it seemed

180

like you're doing all the right things,

and it still doesn't get you the effect.

181

I think one of the major, things

that is lacking is the, the, the

182

change agent that applies that

energy, which in an organization

183

that's, that's, that's, that's big,

it's probably not a single person.

184

but you do need that energy applied

very consistently, and you do

185

need, you also need that protection

of the team, that appreciation.

186

In, in my case, I call it more

appreciation for quality than

187

necessary for people because she's

the people person, and I'm, I'm, me.

188

But I, I have been in these

sort of situations before

189

where I usually turn it around.

190

I, I very much focus on removing

the stress from all the, the teams,

191

removing the, the delivery pressure,

making quality important, and then,

192

people rise to the occasion, and they

pull, they pull their colleagues in.

193

And, I think that, that, that is a

major difference, in, in the, in what

194

I saw here is there was, there was no

one doing that particular protection.

195

It was also very hard to do because of

the distributed nature of the organization

196

and because of the, the different cultures

in, in different subsections of it.

197

but I think that that was, for me,

that was the, the missing ingredient.

198

Kenny Schwegler: Interesting

story because, we talk a lot about

199

decentralizing, decision-making.

200

So, and I hear like, "Oh,

we thought we did," right?

201

But

202

Wouter Lagerweij: We, yeah

203

Kenny Schwegler: some reason distributed

enough, I guess or something.

204

So what popped into my mind, this is a

question I'm not sure how it is, right?

205

and I make this assumption as well,

that might be a team in itself

206

collaborating with each other,

for some reason there was some

207

Tension between the person that

was included in the decisions

208

and the rest of the team?

209

Is that what you saw as well?

210

Wouter Lagerweij: It,

211

Kenny Schwegler: because for

212

Wouter Lagerweij: yeah

213

Kenny Schwegler: reason the

other people in the team didn't

214

feel a part of that decision.

215

Wouter Lagerweij: I, what I think

that not even the person that was

216

involved actually felt they owned it

217

Kenny Schwegler: Ah, interesting

218

Wouter Lagerweij: it was distributed.

219

all the forms were right.

220

Kenny Schwegler: a tear

221

Wouter Lagerweij: it wasn't … Sorry?

222

Kenny Schwegler: Was it a, they call it

the same as scrum theater or, uh, right?

223

It's usually performed as…

224

And I hear this, uh, introducing

the advice process as well, right?

225

Yeah, we just go through the check

boxes because then we just…

226

I hear you say it was a

bureaucratic company as well.

227

We just do the check boxes and

then we can move along and we

228

don't need to do anything, but

at least we did the check boxes

229

Wouter Lagerweij: well, the interesting

thing is that the individuals

230

involved were passionate about the

things that they were involved with.

231

Kenny Schwegler: Yeah

232

Wouter Lagerweij: but they

weren't necessarily passionate

233

about getting the change through

234

Kenny Schwegler: Interesting

235

Wouter Lagerweij: and so they, the,

they cared about the technology, they

236

cared about the organization, but I

don't think it felt as their change.

237

Suzanne Lagerweij: Something that

they felt like they needed to do, or?

238

Wouter Lagerweij: Yeah.

239

Yeah.

240

Well, the, the, a- a- again,

it, for me, it was a weird…

241

It was a, a, a strange

situation because it…

242

But I don't, I do think that, um,

you know, uh, comparing that to, to,

243

to your story, you found the early

adopters- Mm-hmm … that were already

244

at their own initiatives doing- Yeah

245

these things.

246

And fan that fire Yeah And I, I

don't think that, that's, that's…

247

I don't think that's,

that's what happened here.

248

Mm.

249

I think that it was, it, it, because

it was, again, it was very big, but

250

also because a lot of parts of this

organization felt no need, to do

251

these, these changes, even if the

individual developers did feel the

252

need for their particular changes.

253

So,

254

Suzanne Lagerweij: I also wondered,

like, did you get the right

255

people from the teams involved?

256

So maybe technically the right

people, but were they also, like,

257

the informal leader in their team?

258

Because I think you actually

need those people to get that

259

fire started in the team.

260

Wouter Lagerweij: Yeah.

261

I, I do think that, that they were,

262

I do think that they were the

technical leads, within those teams.

263

Mm-hmm.

264

And they did self-select on this, right?

265

Yeah.

266

It's not, it was not imposed.

267

I think- … it was invited.

268

Suzanne Lagerweij: The technical

lead is not necessarily the

269

informal leader of the team.

270

So psychologically-

271

Wouter Lagerweij: Yes

272

… Suzanne Lagerweij: it, maybe

it should have been someone

273

else to get more involved.

274

Wouter Lagerweij: Just,

just- It could be, yeah

275

Kenny Schwegler: what, what I, from my

own experience, I sometime- and maybe

276

this, this is going to another drift,

but what I keep thinking about what you

277

were saying it was bureaucratic, right?

278

And there might be the right people

trying to create the movement, but

279

then the movement is taken over by the

bureaucratic process, and then they're

280

not a part of designing the process

in where the design should happen.

281

So

282

Wouter Lagerweij: Yeah.

283

Kenny Schwegler: that be it?

284

Wouter Lagerweij: It gave

285

Kenny Schwegler: they felt a little

bit more disengaged, like, "Okay.

286

Ah, this is great," and then it

got took over by other people who

287

formed a process, and they're out of

the loop, and they're like, "Okay.

288

Well, okay.

289

my process anymore."

290

Wouter Lagerweij: Oddly enough, I

do think it was their proc- process.

291

In, in fact, I, m- my…

292

It was definitely not my process.

293

Um, it w- Now, but it, th- this was a

process that they came up with, right?

294

The, the, as a, as a group.

295

it was very, it was very much

focused on everyone needs to have

296

their, their s- their say on this.

297

there was a lot of room for, you know,

for, for blocking proposals because,

298

someone didn't agree, which is why

it moved slowly and, and there were,

299

was a lot of, iteration in there.

300

It was a process that maybe removed any…

301

That maybe removed the ownership

because there was so much, room for,

302

for feedback, let's put it that way.

303

Kenny Schwegler: Was, did it go to the

design by committee anti-pattern, We're

304

trying to create consensus instead of,

305

Wouter Lagerweij: yes

306

Kenny Schwegler: it?

307

Wouter Lagerweij: yeah Yeah.

308

I, I, I, yeah, up to the point where we,

we introduced those concepts to, to see if

309

we can, could smooth that, that process.

310

but I do, I do, I do think

that that's part of it

311

Kenny Schwegler: It's like

balance I guess, right?

312

Consent and consensus.

313

I mean, I-- introducing these things,

people recently introducing this

314

advice process, as well, and then

people are like, but why should

315

we let everyone, have a say in it?

316

It goes slow."

317

And I'm like, "Well, this is not consent.

318

This is advice."

319

There's a-- It's a huge

conceptual difference, but

320

people might not feel that it is.

321

You know what I mean?

322

They, they might only see two

states, authoritative, like someone

323

decides, and everyone should agree,

while there are things in the

324

Wouter Lagerweij: Yeah.

325

It, it, for me, one of the things that

is definitely d- was different from my

326

other experiences in, in doing this sort

of thing is, that because there was such a

327

explicit room for, dissent, and, and, and,

328

Kenny Schwegler: They

329

Wouter Lagerweij: and discussion,

330

Kenny Schwegler: well?

331

Wouter Lagerweij: I think

people maybe lost ownership,

332

lost the feeling of ownership.

333

Kenny Schwegler: Hmm.

334

Wouter Lagerweij: again, talking

about what we were, we're talking

335

about last time, with that, the

opportunity to get appreciated for it.

336

Mm-hmm

337

Kenny Schwegler: And also responsibility

because, right, if, if you put something

338

out there and out from everyone, then

right, we talked about it in the last

339

episode as well, responsibility then,

you, you can either tighten responsibility

340

in, in a person, I guess, right?

341

And you- it's your responsibility now.

342

It's everyone's responsibility,

but then again, it's no one's

343

responsibility now anymore.

344

So I think that's what I hear you say

345

Wouter Lagerweij: A l- a little.

346

Yeah, I, I, I'm, I'm, I'm always a

little careful with that word, because

347

as some people might say, I tend to go

off on rants about, overly constrictive

348

rules and roles and responsibilities.

349

But, I would call it maybe ownership

or maybe the feeling of, you

350

know, this being my initiative.

351

I died with it, and then there

was nothing to pick that up.

352

there was just a process, and just a

process is not enough to get anything done

353

Kenny Schwegler: Yeah.

354

I think that's, I talk responsibility

as in I feel responsible for it,

355

not that I need to be responsible

356

Wouter Lagerweij: But take

responsibility, yeah Yes

357

Kenny Schwegler: I feel responsible

or stewardship, I think, Matt,

358

you called it now, right?

359

Stewardship.

360

I feel this is my thing, and if I

put it out in the group and then I

361

lost that feeling, I might also lost

362

the in- motivation to then start

implementing that because now

363

it's not my, sole thing anymore.

364

Wouter Lagerweij: Yeah.

365

Kenny Schwegler: was

366

Wouter Lagerweij: I think there was

a lot of that particular feeling and

367

th- that, that, that process involved.

368

Uh, I like, I like, I like stewardship.

369

I like that as a, that, that, that

feels like the right term for this.

370

And,

371

Kenny Schwegler: Yeah

372

Wouter Lagerweij: I said, you know, th-

there was a lot of things that were,

373

were, were done in this, in, in this

whole process, and we, we, we tweaked

374

and we got something, something working.

375

But, um, I think that combined with

this, this, already this culture of,

376

you know, no one can tell us anything,

meant that the, the actual rate of change

377

was just too slow to, to gain momentum

378

Kenny Schwegler: so

something popped in my mind.

379

On one hand, you talk about team flow,

and teams are just picking it up, and

380

it's their problem, and usually it was

their problem also to decide how to deal

381

with it, and now that problem gets put

outside the flow of the team, and all

382

of a sudden it comes back, and then it's

like, why are you breaking my flow?"

383

Is, would that feeling

describe it, I guess?

384

Wouter Lagerweij: Yes.

385

I think that was, I

think that's part of it.

386

Kenny Schwegler: It,

387

Wouter Lagerweij: But I also have to say

that in most cases, these problems were

388

not being picked up by the teams, right?

389

there was a reason for the whole process,

390

Kenny Schwegler: Yeah, of

391

Wouter Lagerweij: get started.

392

Kenny Schwegler: complex and

nuanced, but I think that's an

393

interesting story, especially,

people listening, usually try to…

394

Well, this decentralization is a good

thing we want to do, but then these are

395

these stories that makes it harder, right?

396

Wouter Lagerweij: Yeah.

397

I, I figured it would be fun, well, fun.

398

I figured it would be useful

to, talk about something that

399

did not go as smoothly and then,

400

Kenny Schwegler: Well, yeah, and

that's why we do the stories, right?

401

Because people are in their own

situations and, but maybe as a final

402

question, of this story, how would

someone notice this happening, right?

403

Because what you were saying, if you

think back about it, could you, in

404

that whole process, could you spot it

earlier on that because it's a tight

405

slope between consensus and consent?

406

What did you learn?

407

How-- Would you spot that earlier now,

and how would you spot that earlier if you

408

Wouter Lagerweij: W- my, my, um, m- yeah.

409

Well, well, my own reaction to it

is, I would spend much more time,

410

getting a single change implemented.

411

and I would spend a lot more time

making sure that everyone feels

412

the bandwidth, the room, the

slack necessary to implement that.

413

I think that that's the major thing.

414

The individual people involved, like

I said, they actually cared about the

415

topics that they were involved with.

416

they came up with ways of dealing

with them, which were, definitely

417

good or good enough to, So There was

no reason for that to change that.

418

but I do think that you need,

like I said, you need some…

419

Every time I've, I've done this

successfully, which usually on a, on

420

a smaller scale, which is al- also

helps, but it was also because I, I

421

usually inserted myself in the place

in the organization where I could

422

ensure that there was slack, there

was, there was room for, room for

423

this, and by doing that, reinforced

the message that it's important.

424

So for me, that was the, the, the…

425

And i- if you, if I need to do

this at a, at a larger scale,

426

I would get, like, five of her.

427

and no, but seriously, I, I w- you, yeah,

I would send, like, a, a, an, a number

428

of people in with the only, To change

the behavior … objective to change the

429

l- level of energy being applied- Yeah

430

to the change.

431

Suzanne Lagerweij: I think it's the

energy, but I also think that if you want

432

to cha- it's a lot of about, changing

behavior of the people in the teams, and

433

if you want to have that, change behavior,

there needs to be the because, why you're

434

doing it, needs to be explained and needs

to be connected to what's the people in

435

the teams actually think is important.

436

Wouter Lagerweij: Yes.

437

Suzanne Lagerweij: Because that, that is

the only way for them to make a change.

438

Kenny Schwegler: Yeah, it's interesting

what I'm thinking of now because you

439

were talking about the bandwidth, right?

440

Wouter Lagerweij: Mm-hmm.

441

Kenny Schwegler: Team topology

p- talks about cognitive load,

442

which is a psychology concept.

443

And what you were saying, do we actually

get psychologists in to help us?

444

W- we do this restructuring, we

445

Wouter Lagerweij: Yeah

446

Kenny Schwegler: team types but

I seldom see people focusing on

447

that cognitive load piece because

it's, it's a, it's a complex topic.

448

Wouter Lagerweij: I,

449

Kenny Schwegler: I understand and I can…

450

But are we focusing on that?

451

And what you were saying, get, get

a couple of maybe some psychologists

452

in to help you understand what is

the load of the team to actually

453

Wouter Lagerweij: I think, I think so.

454

I, I would, in this particular

case, I would say it's not

455

so much the cognitive load.

456

The team topology and cognitive load,

at least as I understand it, is very

457

much is c- can we, process all of the

different types of things that we need

458

to process in terms of information and,

and knowledge, and that sort of thing.

459

I think this one is much more emotional.

460

Suzanne Lagerweij: S- yeah.

461

so, I've seen, with clients where they

would say something like, "Okay, we'll,

462

we'll, we will create this, this dashboard

for the team so they are aware of, of

463

what they should be doing differently."

464

And then I have to explain to them,

"Well, that's not gonna make that

465

change because you need, we need

to coach the teams to get there.

466

J- just a dashboard is not the change.

467

It, it, it could be, in your opinion,

what could be helpful, but it's,

468

it's, it's only one li- little

aspect of what you should be doing."

469

And then there was a lot of

talking to the people and, and

470

helping them to make that move.

471

Kenny Schwegler: Yeah.

472

I think that's a nice, end of this story.

473

Thank you very much again

for, joining in these

474

Wouter Lagerweij: Yeah.

475

Thank you for inviting us

476

Kenny Schwegler: Yeah.

477

And, for the people listening, reading,

watching this, uh, hopefully see you next

478

time on another episode, and thank you

very much for listening and tuning in.

479

Bye-bye.

480

Wouter Lagerweij: Okay