Evo Nordics #748 - Engineering For Adaptability - Building Teams Ready For What's Next

Speaker A: Foreign. Welcome to the Evolution Exchange podcast, A melting pot of ideas and inspiration shared by some of the most successful technical leaders in the world. The views expressed by the speakers on this podcast are their own and not necessarily representative of their organization.

Speaker B: Hi everybody listening at home. I'm, um, Alvin Bongpong from Evolution Technology Solutions where we connect businesses with outstanding tech professionals. I'm, um, today's host. For today's episode featuring the following guests, first we have Rustam Singatov, senior Engineering Manager, joining us from H and M. We've also got Lukas Slots, senior Product Manager, joining us from Siemens Energy. And last but definitely not least, Henrik Redman, the Director of Engineering, joining us from Tavia. Thanks everyone for joining. First of all, today we're obviously here to discuss engineering for adaptability. We're going to open that can of worms. Now before we dive into the topic, it's always best to work our way around the room first with some introductions. So I'd like to know who you are, what you do and what your biggest area of passion is currently Henrik, if you'd like to kick us off.

Speaker C: Of course. Yes. So my name is Henrik Vman. I'm the Director of Engineering at Tavion. Tavion is a newly started independent power producer, um, building, owning and operating um, battery energy storage systems across Europe, starting in Poland. Being the Director of engineering, I'm basically responsible for every small technical detail, um, uh, of the equipment that we deliver and the energy systems, energy management systems that we use, etc. I um, have a long background in the battery industry, have been worked in the battery industry my entire career and have a PhD in battery chemistry from KTH here in Stockholm. My biggest passion outside batteries is uh, beer really. One of things I do there is um, brewing my own beer at home and visiting a lot of fun beer festivals. I'd like to pass the word to Rustam.

Speaker D: Thank you Henrik. Uh, my name is Rustam. I'm a senior engineering manager at H and M. I am currently managing two teams that are working on integration with H and M M suppliers and developing software to manage uh, purchase orders, to create them, edit follow up their execution on the supplier side. Um, so I lead both the development and I also manage the people of those teams. And my passion is software engineering and computer science really. So that's my hobby. It's been my hobby since my teenage years and um, I like everything about it, including the adaptability topic, especially given uh, the situation these days with constantly changing world where with pace, uh, of competition continue, um, increasing again and again. So I'm so excited to actually talk about this today and thank you for inviting me. I pass to Lukas.

Speaker E: Thank you very much. Hello. Uh, my name is, uh, Lucas Stoltz. I'm a senior product manager at Siemens Energy. Um, what I'm currently doing there is, um, developing a new portfolio element under the brand of Noaker, focusing on substation digitalization. What we are doing there basically is we are merging the different data silos or data from the different silos within the substation. Let it be Asset Condition Monitoring Systems or scada, and use the data for health assessments so that we basically have an additional intelligence layer, uh, as an addition to asset performance management systems. Um, throughout my career, I spent Most of my 10 years in product management and thinking how to create value from data. Also in the packaging industry. Um, I've led teams on different levels. Let it be, um, development teams on a product level, but also product teams or product managers on a portfolio level. Um, and my passion outside of work, um, I, uh, played ice hockey for more than 20 years now. Keeping it a little bit less competitive with skater hockey in summer. Enjoy some good atmosphere within the team. But also. Henrik, one of the other beer after practice. I can, I can tell that.

Speaker B: Great stuff, great stuff. Um, now that we've established a bit of a, or a bit of context to each of each and every one of you, let's move on to the topic in focus. So you've all brought a question or a statement on the topic, engineering for adaptability. And as usual, I'll work and we'll work our way around the room, giving everybody a chance to first pose their question and also give both us as the audience and also each other the, um, opportunity to give some context and the reason why this question has been brought forward. Now look, as we're staying on you and the question that you posed was what is the biggest organizational obstacle to adaptability in your experience? So first, could you give us some context? Where does this question come from?

Speaker E: I mean, in product management and especially in digitalization, Um, I think every one of us, uh, experienced huge progress in the majority of the markets, but also in the products. But this, uh, does not come from always streamlined development. And 10 years, uh, ago we all knew what to do and, uh, where we want to be in 10 years. So I think it's. We all went through a lot of blood and tears and through a lot of, um, adoption and changing processes in terms of usage of technology strategies, et cetera. Um, so I'm really interested and curious here, um, what Are your maybe best case or also worst case examples and what are the factors that really matter when it comes to successful adoptability from your perspective here?

Speaker D: Thank you for this question and the topic and um, if I may, you know in my experience is actually the mindset and this is something that is really hard to quantify the mindset. You know uh, I live in Sweden and if I take a look at the Sweden maybe 15 years ago and Sweden now. So the pace of development and the expectation and the world situation is very different from 15 years ago. And uh, I've seen it so many times especially in large corporations when the mindset is anti change. So like things needs to be settled, no much changes should be anticipated. So it's all about mindset really. And this is also the hardest thing um, to change uh because again you can't quantify it and it's maybe primarily about psychology. So you, you. I really needed to work with people close and a lot and in various forums, both in one on ones and maybe in larger sessions when we broadcast the direction of the company to shift this uh, mindset thing if I can say so. Uh, and as soon as mindset shifts then everything else follows really. So then people start developing more modular software, more adaptable solutions, et cetera. And again to me it's about uh, maybe the background because you know in Europe in some countries the economy was so sustainable for decades and decades maybe without too much changes or new technologies coming like we have today. AI self driving things. Um, what else? Quantum computing coming soon, most likely next decade. And um, I feel like in Europe we, we need to work on this mindset together. So that's my take on that. Thank you.

Speaker C: I can continue where uh Rustam started. I agree that um mindset and culture is a big part of it but they also feel like uh, we need less rigid processes in a way that very uh, rigid processes and very heavy process can be sort of an inhibitor of innovation and an inhibitor of adaptability. And we uh, especially in Europe we need to reimagine how we do things to have uh, shorter development cycles uh and uh interact uh, and use more adaptability in development because especially large corporations have very rigid process taking a very long time. So adaptability and implementing change is uh, really difficult.

Speaker B: I've got a follow up question to uh ask both or first look as to you but then to the rest of the panel as well. Um, sometimes, well probably most of the times something like adaptability is not very or not easily measurable. So how would you again from Your experience know when an organization is genuinely adaptable versus when they're just talking about adaptability, if that makes sense. Lukas, uh, I can pose it to you first.

Speaker E: It's an interesting topic. I mean, in the end it's about the outcome, right? Um, if you're able to meet the market requirements for a long time and you have a product which is established over a long time, this means you were successful in adapting to changing regulations, adapting to changing customer requirements. And I think this is something what could be used as a KPI, um, if you're successful in terms of adoptions,

Speaker C: I can continue. I think the fact that uh, we do have a lot of uh, companies in Europe that have survived for 100 plus years, uh, proves that they, they do have good methods, uh, to engineer for adaptability. It's just from my perspective, it's a bit. Is the change happening too fast now so that uh, these uh, very renowned companies, large uh, corporations, uh, can't keep up with the rate of change happening at the moment?

Speaker D: Yeah. And I think mindset wise, we actually maybe need to do the opposite because these days we're asking ourselves, uh, like, what are the things we want to make adaptable in our software or organization? But I think it should be actually the opposite. What are the things we think should be settled down for decades to come and the rest should actually be adaptable. Whatever these are reporting lines or the modules of software. So the mindset has to be the opposite, really, I think. Gus,

Speaker E: um, I also would like to refer to a question I think that Henrik posted in advance. So are we adapting or are we firefighting? And I think this question goes into a similar direction. And I mean my answer also would be in this regard, um, we need to look what teams are doing after, right? Uh, are teams always solving the same and same issue over and over again? This means they are in continuous firefighting mode or are they really, um, finding the cause, um, adjusting the cause. And uh, these situations don't happen anymore. But for sure there will be additional challenges coming up. But I think this is also a sign of an organization is adapting because the challenges are changing and there's still a player in the market. Or, or are we like always, uh, trying to solve the same issues over again?

Speaker D: I want to brag a little bit here, uh, really about my personal experience. You know, I've been uh, uh, moving um, between apartments for quite some time. So we needed to buy bigger apartments because of the kids, maybe change locations within the city. So we needed to move a lot and Then I realized at some moment just mindset wise, I started to assess everything from its adaptability and um, migration, uh, perspective. So like if I'm, I'm buying a chair or if I'm buying a table to my apartment, uh, how easily I can move it somewhere else, would it fit into the elevator or if I buy this new screwdriver, uh, how heavy it is if I needed to move it. So um, uh, I personally changed my mindset. Not recently really but maybe already uh, 10 years ago and helped me a lot. So now you know, sometimes we're thinking with my wife to uh, maybe move to the United States. And then I know that my stuff is ready so I can buy a container, put everything there and move. So um, the reason why I'm saying this is not to expose my personal life details but actually highlight the mindset. So we should think even on personal level, you know how adaptable and movable if this is actually right word in English we are overall and I think this will take uh, effect on the work related matters as well. Thank you.

Speaker C: I can continue. So uh, I um, definitely agree um, that uh, what Lucas said before and I think if you don't uh, really um, can plan for the incoming steps ahead and you feel like you're never in control of any situation, then you've built your organization wrong. And then you're in constant firefighting mode. But if you're uh, maintaining control of the situation but can sort of uh, steer the ship more uh, agile, then you uh, have built an organization that's ready uh, for adaptability. But if you can't see what's coming next, what's happening on Monday, you're just focused on what's happening here and now, then you're, I mean then you're screwed basically just in constant firefighting, never being able to surface and see the horizon, so to say.

Speaker E: Um, I think I like what you said. So basically you said like steering the ship more agile. So basically you also need to know a direction you want to go. Right. Uh, and also in product management and there's also one of my passions, I always focus on the vision. I love to create meaningful visions and what I see in the real life, often also from leadership, you do not get enough time to work on the vision. And what happens then? I mean if you don't know where you want to be in five years, in 10 years, and you're adapting or you need to adapt without a direction, it's like a never ending circle. Right. And I think also for the teams Then everything feels disruptive again and again and again because the direction is not there. And I think this is also something I would like to emphasize is if you are working on a new product or a new portfolio, or if you need to adapt, you always need to make sure what is the vision where you want to be in five to 10 years. Make sure you understand the aftermath of your decisions. Because personally what I experienced a lot is um, and I've been in situations where organizations uh, try to um, enlarge their portfolio or shift their portfolio from on prem solutions to cloud solutions or um, from cloud solutions to on prem solutions. And um, there were no clear decisions made. The direction was unclear. Um, from leadership, uh, the responsibility to establish the new, to work on the new was given to teams that have to work on the legacy products. So the change and the adoption is treated not with high priority internally. And then organizations end up one, two years are passing by. A couple of millions euros of development budget was spent. And then they figured out, well, um, we should have made a more tougher decision, um, should we um, scale up the development resources? Yes, it costs money, um, but in the end the outcome might be more uh, efficient, um, on the adoption or should we maybe take people out from the legacy product? Yes, it means we have less resources on the legacy development, but we want to go into a new direction. Right. So it also supports the vision. And I think these are tough decisions, but from my perspective, I don't see them being made on a frequent base. Um, it's more like we want to change, but let's see how we do it with the existing resources. We do everything as it is for now, but we also do the change. And this is from my perspective, one of the most poison situations for adoption and change.

Speaker C: Yeah, I think having a clear vision and a vision that can guide you is very important. And where many organizations fail, if you have a clear vision, uh, all parts of the organization can break that down to guide decision making, uh, uh, where it needs to take decisions instead of requiring, uh, a lot of high level decisions to guide their organization. So um, having a clear vision definitely helps in adaptability because then you can be more adaptable across all the parts of the organization without having a lot of top management deciding all the uh, decisions. That's where it gets slow in a way.

Speaker B: Keeping things on you. Henrik, when we talk about solutions and continue to dive into that, the question that you posed was how do you build adaptability into an engineering organization without making people feel like everything is always changing, could you Give us some context as to where this question comes from.

Speaker C: I've worked in a lot of different uh startups uh throughout the years and I uh think it's ah like um, a thin line that you walk, uh trying to be high uh paced, have uh a high pace of development um while still being in control. And like Luka said before, it's easy to end up in a firefighting situation where you do do a lot of things, everyone work really hard but you're not really progressing and you're not really in control. Uh so I think that's really uh important that you spend time to develop organizations and processes that uh, makes you stay in control while still being adaptable in a way without being in constant firefighting mode. Like Luca said before, it's definitely not easy.

Speaker B: Look as you can

Speaker E: go

Speaker B: ahead.

Speaker E: Yeah, um, I also like this question because it also relates a little bit to the vision. Like how do you avoid driving people crazy with uh change of decisions. I mean if the vision remains stable um, I feel like for me personally but also for the teams, um, change feels less disruptive. Um, but also I think it's very important that um teams have shared goals and are not measured by different KPIs because then they will always keep optimizing themselves in a different manner. But if they are really aligned on the vision, um, if they have motivation uh to contribute to it also the teams will start discussing between each other hey, I have some dependencies here. How can we solve them? It's less than um. Yes, I have my own goal. I will focus on this and for sure I will be able to achieve this. Uh, but it goes more into maybe a systems thinking. I would say um, how can we be together successful and how can also my product um create uh a uh contribution and value to the overall vision. And last but not least I think um we've all been in these situations. Um the vision is quite long term but there are always short term challenges coming in, bug fixes, incidents, um, a new project coming in with additional uh customer requirements. And I've also been in these situations where um, we've added these short term requirements in the current PI plannings and um, basically what happened or what was the result is that um the long term targets all shifted. Uh basically we didn't move at all because we always worked on these short term requirements. In addition these short term requirements that came in, they weren't specified in a high quality so they also slowed down the whole process. So just because something comes in a short notice doesn't mean that we have to do it also on a short notice. Um, so I think it's always important to challenge yourself. Like we're facing a change. Are we having all of the information to make high quality decisions? Are there requirements specified on a high level that it doesn't slow us down in the long run? Um, understanding the trade offs, if we put it in what are the topics that may fall off the table. But also are the short term requirements supporting the vision again and if they do, and if we can check mark it, then yes, then also let's work on these topics. And I think also for the teams it feels less disruptive because it's transparent, they understand why we do it. But otherwise uh, it drives teams crazy.

Speaker C: I definitely agree that setting the correct KPIs is very important and having them on the correct level is also important. Especially if they're tied to uh, economic um, uh, incentive like a bonus or something. Uh, having very, I mean group level KPIs can um, create a very sub optimized organization where all groups optimize for their KPIs and then they are sort of not aligned on a higher level which makes them all work for their, their own sake, not for the company's uh, greater good, so to say. So that's uh, uh, also definitely something that you should work on to set the correct KPIs on the right level to ensure that you can feel uh, like that you are in control of the KPIs that affect you while still not sub optimizing the organization. Because everyone works for their little goal which is not tied to something on a higher level.

Speaker D: And if I might come back to the question itself. So how we incorporate adaptability without creating this feeling of chaos, um, or the feel not chaos. Sorry, I, I misused the word. The feeling of that the things are always changing. Uh, this exactly what I do. So yeah, so I do the opposite. I actually do create the feeling for my people that things are always changing. I really do that. Um, because what I learn, uh, you know, with uh, my experience is safeguarding people often comes backfire. So maybe you wanted to do your best, support someone, um, maybe to you know, hide, not hide, but you know, cater some piece of information in a really gentle manner. But then people didn't appreciate this really. They wanted to know the information firsthand as soon as possible. I mean even if we think now if uh, our managers, we all have managers, they, you know, they were protecting us from some information. We wouldn't really like this right uh, so that's why I do my best to be as transparent as possible. And as people manager, uh, the number one thing that I don't want to do is to manage people. I want my people to be self managed. That's really important for me. And in my talks I'm usually very transparent about our organization or company growth trajectory. We all understand that some companies, especially large corporations that are more sustainable in growth, right? Startups, they're exponential. Uh, I do my best to communicate as transparent as possible in various forms about the trajectory of our business and then let people to manage themselves. We all understand that some people would appreciate and maybe that's why they joined. Some people can course correct themselves and maybe some people, it's just not the trajectory they want. Maybe they want it faster or slower. So I really want people to decide and self manage uh, based on the information I give them. So sort of I do the opposite. I, I do create this feeling of things uh, changing constantly. Lucas. I see.

Speaker E: Yeah, very interesting. Um, I also guess this is, this isn't a practice you did from day one as becoming a leader. Um, but it's something that you established uh, throughout your career. How was it observed by the team when you changed your leadership behavior in this regard that you didn't safeguard them anymore. Um, and you said okay, hey, we are under frequent change. Um, I mean let me be provocative. The team could also say rustam, um, cannot make decisions or uh, we are um, frequently changing direction. Um, aren't they clear about where we want to go? So just as a provocative question, like how was it observed as a team and what was your learnings out of that?

Speaker D: I would say when it was my very first session then people were maybe a little stressed, little you know, felt um, ambiguity about things. Because usually if there was no much transparency in the organization and you are the first one to bring it, so there is this historical depth that is coming with you that you announced to the team. But then over time when I made this uh, um, uh, frequently happening thing when I come to the team and I'm very transparent about perhaps uh, plan for 2027 and saying that we don't really have plan yet, we do have the vision. So that's why guys, I completely agree with you, it's really important to have vision. But I'm very clear we don't have the plan. We have these possible directions we might need to down prioritize and prioritize this and that and uh, you know, over time this level of stress and level of ambiguity Actually went very much down. And now with uh, my teams, we are um, we're just on the same level. We're as transparent as possible and there is no, um, um, sort of no conflicts, no, you know, lack of friction or whatever. But at the beginning, yes, there is this first ice breaking session where many people experience stress. Yes.

Speaker E: And I hear it's also a lot about transparency then top down, um, to give full context to the people that they don't lose trust. The vision remains stable but the strategy evolves, um, the execution might change. So um, transparency here was the key for you.

Speaker D: Yes. And also to be very transparent about the things that have been handed over to me from perhaps senior management. So these are the things we must do and there is no influence that I can do and also the things I can support the team with. And um, I also, you know, put in my head many years ago that the developers I work with and I think this is sort of our way for all of us, that developers are really smart. They are smarter than any manager. They know so much about the tech. So that's why uh, I don't do safeguarding anymore. These are people that are smarter than I am. So um, just very transparent with them.

Speaker C: I just want to build on something that Luca said. I, uh, think this situation of constant change isn't the same thing as not making decisions. I mean even in a situation where you have constant change, uh, you need to make informed decisions. When you have new information or new facts, whatever, uh, you need to make a decision and make a change. It's not the same thing as not making decisions. Uh, I think that's an important distinguishment.

Speaker E: So basically also an important mindset. If we go back to Rustam where he said mindset is important so we need people who are willing to change their point of view based on new information actually.

Speaker C: Exactly.

Speaker B: To stay on Rustam as well. You mentioned that. Or one of your questions posed was what qualities you actually look for in candidates when you're deciding to grow the team and how do you ensure that individuals do have an adaptable mindset? It's a really good question, Rustam. Um, where does this come from? If you could give us some context first.

Speaker D: It's coming from many, uh, interviews that I conducted and also from the companies I worked in. Because, um, you work with different kind of people and then different people have different passions. And uh, some passions are very beneficial to the company and some passions needs to be course corrected. I mean they're okay, but maybe they're not creating that Much value for the business. Uh, so I do have the approach that I have developed, you know, to hire right people for a particular organization. But, uh, I'm going to keep it with me for now, uh, because I'm curious, uh, guys, about what was your experience? But again, yeah. So my question is about two parts. How do you ensure that the people that you hire, they have adaptable mindset? And also how do you work with mindset of your current employees? So I'm really curious about that. Henrik, maybe you want to go?

Speaker C: Sure. I can start. So, uh, I think, uh, when interviewing candidates and when talking to people generally, I think it's uh, important that they have curiosity. They are curious about what your company does or how the world works, whatever. Uh, I think that's uh, an important part about being ready for change is being curious. Um, yes, I think I'll hand the word over to Lukas.

Speaker E: Curiosity is a big one. Also very important in product management. Um, I think it's also important that candidates are willing to learn and uh, are always willing to learn. And uh, if they don't know something m. The mindset is they admit, I don't know yet, but I will figure it out. And I think this is also something very, very important when it comes to adaptability. Um, we also had many discussions, um, just some weeks ago how we create this, this kind of mindset in the organization. Uh, and I think it's two topics there. Um, one hand, um, it's about, um, as a leader you have to be a role model. So whenever you challenge the status quo, whenever you think big, like, speak it out loud, um, let the team also experience, um, your way of thinking to also encourage them to think this way and also, um, creating um, a safe space. So if anxiety, um, is part of the process, if there are crazy ideas like let people speak it out, take it serious, um, acknowledge the crazy idea, acknowledge the anxiety, I think this is also one of, uh, the most important things to create and establish this mindset.

Speaker C: I think creating this environment, uh, with continuous learning, I think that's very important. And to do that, that I think you need to feed your employees, uh, continuous challenges where they are sort of forced to learn new things, uh, in order to solve the challenge that they've been given, I think that's very important, uh, to keep everyone sort of on the top of the game.

Speaker D: Thank you guys. That's really interesting. So there's some, um, I definitely going to use that experience in uh, my work and you know, to um, bring like the approach that I Use. You know, back in the days when conducting interviews, I used to assess candidates on various values or um, areas like how good they are, technically how good they are, let's say with databases, security, etc. How good they are in communication and escalating things, etc. But then one day I decided, all right, maybe I should put the values that I'm assessing the candidates for in priority order. So what's the number one value that is most important? Uh, for me as a hiring manager, but also for the company. And even though it sounds very straightforward, but it's the business value really. And with that said, their passion to complex technical solutions or to software engineering actually comes second. I know it might be a bit surprising to hear, but uh, what I've seen that great engineers that put this um, beauty of software as their first priority, uh, then it's um, they really get sort of rid of their ideas or very hard way. So they love this software that they built and if something needs to be changed there, they cannot let it go. It's that like their baby, they want to keep it there. Um, um, I'm totally understand. You already understood what I'm talking about. And if you hire people that are ultimately after the business value, whenever they see that there is no value in developing this product because company direction changed, they sort of drop this product and drop this love to that software on its own. And again, for me it's important as the people manager is not to manage people. So I would rather communicate about the change of direction and people self manage and lose this passion to their product and start developing new things rather than course correcting them. So um, this priority of values that I'm assessing for helped me a lot. Henrik?

Speaker C: Yeah, I really like this, uh, that you need to be passionate about what you do, your work. I have a quote that I usually bring up from uh, my wife. Uh, you shouldn't only uh, do what uh, the best you can do. You should do what's required. This sort of a mindset thing where uh, sometimes your uh, best isn't good enough. It's just you need to do what's required and put in the extra effort sometime to do beyond what your normal bestest, so to say. I think it's sort of a funny quote

Speaker E: and also jumping on top of what you said, uh, Rustam, with the business value. I think especially in a technical environment, interacting with the colleagues, it's always super easy to describe what we are doing, but really explaining why are we doing it, what is the value behind it. Why does the customer really need it? This is always a big challenge. Um, this is it also. I mean that's why you have uh, product managers, um, to translate uh, these technical requirements into values, but also the market requirements, uh, uh, into the technical requirements. But it's also something I'm facing a lot and it's also something I have to let me say. It's frequent learning, uh, every new product. It's super easy to describe what you want to do but why and what's the building behind it. It's always a challenge. But I like this mindset and it's also very important.

Speaker D: Thank you very much. I'm really glad to hear that you guys liked and it makes sense. And um, if I may say a few words on that topic more so in my mind, adaptability is about both changing software, changing your organization and I always look the questions what the candidates ask me. Because some candidates, especially for manager's position, they may ask you one of the first questions like what would be the size of the organization I'm going to manage, what would be my title? So I mean that's an important topic. But if this is one of the first thing the candidate asks, uh, so in my um, ladder of things, this is priority number three, meaning if there will be any reorganization in the company and the title of that person of scope going to change, that person will drop out. That's so obvious for me. Uh, so I'm um, careful looking what candidate ask for if they, if one of their first question is what this product is about, what's the value, who's using, what's the value proposition of our product? It's one of the best questions I um, would like to hear first actually.

Speaker C: I definitely agree that shows that you have the right motivations to do your work. It's not only your personal gain that motivates you to do the job that you do, it's uh, something larger than yourself, so to say.

Speaker D: Yeah,

Speaker B: I'd say this has been a very, very good conversation, gents. Um, of course I want to give uh, another big shout out to all of you before we end the podcast. Um, and say thanks again for jumping on. Today's guests have been Rustam um, Singatov, senior engineer Manager who joined us from H and M. Um, we've also had Lucas Stoltz, the senior product manager joining us from Siemens Energy, and Henrik Rettman, um, the Director of engineering, he joined us from Tavian. Gents, it's been a pleasure, thank you very much for joining us today. If you're hiring for new technical roles or looking for a new role yourself, feel free to get in touch with us here at Evolution. Or if you or anybody that you know would like to be featured on a future podcast, you can drop me a message here, too. I'm, um, Alvin. You can find me on LinkedIn or you can just email me at alvin.evolution-ah nordics.com you can also visit our website at evolutionjobs.com forward slash nordics forward slash. Thanks again to all the guests. Huge, huge thanks. And thanks for everybody at home who was listening. We hope to catch you on the next one. As always, it's been a pleasure.