Menschgeist

Conversation with Li Fang and Francisco Cortez

Executive Summary

This document consolidates a conversation between Pierre Neis and two key stakeholders from Quipu. They discussed a comprehensive agile transformation program delivered across the organization. The program spanned 10 months (May through March). It included 37 training sessions. It engaged 90% of active staff, representing over 12,000 training hours. The program covered employees across multiple international locations. This included Frankfurt, Skopje, Pristina, and remote participants.

The transformation employed the Agile Organization (AO) Method. It was adapted specifically for company-wide implementation. This includes back-office functions beyond traditional software development teams. The program emphasized practical experience over theoretical certification. It fostered cultural shifts around empowerment. It encouraged saying “no” based on facts. The approach also promoted team-based collaboration.

Company Context: Quipu

Organizational Profile

Quipu operates as the IT service division of the ProCredit Group, primarily serving the banking sector globally. The organization represents remarkable diversity:

• 45-47 different nationalities represented across the workforce
• Primary geographic focus: South Eastern Europe, Eastern Europe, with historical presence in Latin America
• Cultural composition: Colleagues from Ukraine, Moldova, Romania, Spain, Ghana, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Guatemala, Colombia, UK, Germany, Switzerland, and other nations
• Main offices: Frankfurt (Germany), Skopje (North Macedonia), Pristina (Kosovo), with historical operations in Kiev (Ukraine)
• Service focus: Banking sector technology solutions and support

Organizational Complexity

The company’s complexity stemmed from several factors:

• Multicultural workforce with varied communication styles and cultural norms
• Different functional areas: software development, testing, support operations, back office (HR, finance, procurement), credit card services, ATM maintenance
• Varied maturity levels regarding agile understanding (from new graduates to long-tenured employees with change resistance)
• Multiple stakeholder relationships including holding company oversight and diverse banking clients with contractual SLAs
• Geographic distribution requiring both in-person and online training delivery

Program Overview

Timeline and Scope

Metric	Value
Program Duration	10 months (May – March)
Total Sessions	37 training sessions
Staff Coverage	90% of active staff
Total Training Hours	12,000+ hours (staff time investment)
Session Format	3-day workshops
Locations	Skopje, Pristina, Frankfurt, Online

Table 1: Agile Transformation Program Metrics

Program Launch

The transformation began strategically with a kickoff session targeting middle management:

• Initial session: Quarterly middle management meeting (May)
• Participants: 60 middle managers and leadership
• Format: Three parallel sessions led by Pierre and two external colleagues (Virginia and another Pierre)
• Objective: Set tone, secure buy-in, prepare leaders for cultural shifts

This leadership-first approach proved crucial for program success. It prepared managers for downstream behavioral changes. These changes include employees learning to say “no” based on facts and data.

Training Delivery Team

• Lead trainer: Pierre Neis (primary facilitator for 37 sessions)
• Support trainers: Virginia Anderson and Pierre Hervouet (Menschgeist Partners)
• Internal coordination: Frank Cortez (Learning & Development) and Li Fang (Head of Agile)
• Expertise requirement: Coaching skills prioritized over pure training skills due to intensive facilitation needs

Methodology and Approach

The Agile Organization (AO) Method

Pierre’s proprietary AO Method formed the foundation of the transformation. Key characteristics:

• Target audience adaptation: Originally designed for leaders and agile coaches, successfully adapted for company-wide deployment
• AO Matrix: 12-point assessment framework enabling teams to self-evaluate current agile maturity
• Application: Used at beginning and end of training sessions to demonstrate progress and create awareness

Self-assessment approach: Teams identified their current position on the agile maturity spectrum. They visualized their target state. This process fostered ownership of the transformation journey.

Training Philosophy

The program rejected traditional certification-focused training in favor of experiential learning:

• Priority: Practical application over theoretical knowledge
• Goal: “Aha moments” connecting agile principles to daily work
• Coaching over instruction: Facilitators guided discovery rather than lecturing
• Content focus: Not about the trainer or material, but about the participants
• Memorability: Exercises and games designed for lasting impact beyond slide content

Pierre’s facilitation principle: “The content is easy peasy. You have a scenario and you have to roll out. But every session, it was mostly the same thing, the same games… But in fact, because the nature of every team was different, [everyone had] a different experience.”

Core Frameworks: The “We-Us-Me” Triangle

The training centered on three interconnected perspectives:

1. WE (The Team): Primary focus and safety container
   • Your immediate team “watches your back”
   • Reduces individual tension through collective support
   • Team becomes the core unit of care and accountability
2. US (The Company): Organizational context and alignment

1. Understanding how your team serves Quipu’s mission
2. Focus on company purpose without making it the primary concern
3. Example: Work for IBM’s data analytics team, not “for IBM”
4. ME (The Individual): Personal gain and development

1. “What’s in it for me?”
2. How individual growth aligns with team and company success
3. Personal agency and empowerment through agile practices

Key Tools and Exercises

Value Stream Mapping

A critical exercise that created breakthrough understanding of workflows:

Process in Pristina example:

1. First team created initial value stream design
2. Design was improved through facilitated discussion
3. Subsequent teams from same entity reviewed the improved design
4. Teams added corrections: “This is belief, in reality it’s working differently”
5. Final output: Complete systemic picture of actual workflows

Pierre’s reflection: “The improvement of the us by the we… Only when you have the full picture, you can start improving the picture. Because if you want to change, you have to notice there is a change to do. If it’s theoretical, people will never buy it.”

Daily Retrospectives

An innovative addition to the 3-day workshop format:

• Frequency: End of each training day
• Purpose: Demonstrate trainer receptiveness to feedback, embody agile principles
• Impact: Participants saw real-time adaptation based on their input
• Cultural modeling: Trainers practiced what they preached about continuous improvement

Starting with Retrospectives: Pierre adopted the practice of beginning new engagements with retrospectives. He did this rather than starting with planning. This approach helps in understanding the team’s current state before prescribing changes.

Content Adaptation Strategy

Challenge: Company-Wide Scope

Traditional agile training focuses on software development teams (developers, testers, Scrum teams). Quipu required adaptation for:

• Support teams: First-line customer support, operations
• Back office: HR, finance, procurement, office managers
• Specialized functions: Credit card services, ATM maintenance technicians

Pierre’s reflection: “Artificial software development is easy peasy. But then you have the challenge of what are you doing with the support team?… the guys doing the credit cards, or even… people in Pristina, they’re just doing the ATM maintenance. These are the guys driving through the sales offices to maintain the ATMs. And you have to… explain what is Agile for them. You can’t talk about Scrum and only Kanban, there’s something else.”

Content Customization Process

1. Initial material design: Frank and Li posed challenges related to different roles and functions
2. Continuous review: Pierre constantly revised materials to fit each context
3. Weekly feedback loops: Frank and Li provided formal and informal feedback
4. Anonymous participant surveys: Collected concerns and suggestions
5. Real-time adaptation: Content evolved dramatically from start to finish
6. Transparency: Feedback shared with staff to demonstrate listening

Final Training Structure

The program evolved to a refined format:

Days 1-2: Practical exercises, games, and discovery learning

• Retrospective opening to understand current state
• Tools and techniques applied to participants’ actual work contexts
• Focus on enabling fact-based decision making (“saying no” effectively)

Day 3 (Half-day): Theoretical framework

• Introduction to formal terminology: Scrum, Kanban, scaled agile frameworks
• “Checking boxes training” – naming what participants already experienced
• Connecting practice to theory rather than theory to practice

Key Learning Outcomes

Definition of Done

Li, Frank, and Pierre established clear success criteria at program outset:

1. People know each other: Cross-functional connection and collaboration
2. People start to say “no”: Evidence-based boundary setting
3. Engaged workforce: Passion beyond just “doing the job”
4. Awareness of agile principles: Understanding why agility matters for the organization

Cultural Shifts Achieved

Empowerment to Say “No”

The Challenge: Many participants, particularly those from certain cultural backgrounds (e.g., Indian colleagues), found it culturally difficult to refuse management requests.

The Solution: Training provided tools for fact-based refusal:

• Checklists for decision-making
• Clear alignment to strategy and vision
• Data-driven justification frameworks
• Permission and encouragement from trained leadership

Management preparation: Pierre warned managers during kickoff: “Starting next week, I will begin the transformative learning with your people. They will start to say no to you. Are you ready for that?”

Ongoing work: Li identified continued focus on empowerment as key post-training work for agile coaches.

Understanding the Big Picture

Li’s perspective on transformation value: “What motivated me to invest in Agile… is really… how to empower people, how to unleash their potentials. I believe each of us are smart people. It’s just you need to give them some overall picture and to give them some directions… with this vision and everybody will have this in mind and connect to their day-to-day work.”

Connection to purpose:

• Core problem: How to react to market rapidly while serving end users
• Quality imperative: Deliver higher quality, potentially lower-cost services
• Meaning-making: Understanding how individual work benefits real people
• Motivation: Finding purpose through connection to organizational North Star

Problem-Solving Focus Over Process Compliance

Fundamental shift: Purpose is not to “deliver our job” but to “use our job to solve a problem.”

This reframing proved transformative across functional areas. It helped participants understand agile as a means to an end rather than an end in itself.

Autonomy Recognition

Teams with direct customer interaction (support, operations) demonstrated higher initial autonomy scores on the AO Matrix:

• Direct feedback loops with customers enabled faster learning
• Customer-facing teams naturally developed agile behaviors
• Recognition of existing agility built confidence rather than imposing foreign concepts

Challenges and Solutions

Challenge 1: Maturity Level Diversity

Problem: Participants included recent graduates who were enthusiastic about change. It also included long-tenured employees who were resistant to transformation. They had varying degrees of understanding of agile concepts.

Solution:

• Start-where-you-are approach (Kanban principle)
• Self-assessment via AO Matrix to meet teams at their level
• Coaching facilitation adapting to each group’s needs
• Focus on sense-making: “What makes sense to everyone?”

Challenge 2: Logistical Complexity

Problem: Reaching 90% of geographically distributed, culturally diverse workforce.

Solutions implemented:

• Multiple delivery locations (Skopje, Pristina, Frankfurt)
• Online and in-person options for flexibility
• Accommodating last-minute cancellations and transfers between sessions
• Deliberate overbooking some courses to maximize attendance

Frank’s reflection: “It’s very challenging to get them… different offices. You also have the flexibility to deliver online. Additionally, you support us with these other last minute cancellations.”

Challenge 3: Initial Participant Confusion

Problem: Early feedback indicated confusion about training purpose and relevance.

Solution:

• Clearer framing: Not traditional training but awareness creation and challenge sessions
• Retrospectives demonstrating responsiveness to concerns
• Immediate content adjustments based on feedback (e.g., reducing overwhelming content volume)
• Transparent communication about program goals and participant feedback incorporation

Challenge 4: Multicultural Communication

Observations on diversity:

Pierre’s experience: “I really get your point. I would say the challenge will be if you only work with mid-age white male from Switzerland. This will be a challenge. All thinking the same way. You don’t have this kind of diversity of voices.”

Specific cultural moments:

• Colleagues from Kiev and Moscow working together despite geopolitical tensions
• Participants from El Salvador traveling to Pristina, Kosovo for training
• Language barriers (e.g., Ukrainian participants with very fluent UK English speakers)
• Different communication styles requiring calibration

Solution approach:

• Humor and willingness to communicate bridged gaps
• Creating psychological safety for misunderstandings
• Trainer vulnerability and dark humor built trust
• Encouraged participants to joke back as proof of trust

Li’s perspective: “For me, multicultural shouldn’t be a big problem. Rather, it’s… the different understanding, different level, maturity of the understanding of what is agile.”

Challenge 5: Systemic Complexity

Problem: Multiple layers of stakeholder relationships (holding company, diverse banking clients, contractual SLAs) created alignment challenges.

Solution approach:

• Focus on communication improvement across boundaries
• Questioning outdated contracts and SLAs blocking progress
• Shift from output-based to outcome-based partnerships
• Recognition that agility requires social skills, not just engineering practices
• “Putting butter in the system so it’s more fluid”

Questions from Audience and Pierre’s Responses

Q1: Do you find multiculturalism a challenge to work with?

Asked by: Li Fang

Pierre’s Response:

“I really get your point. I would say the challenge will be if you only work with mid-age white male from Switzerland. This will be a challenge. All thinking the same way. You don’t have this kind of diversity of voices. And this is making the thing awesome.”

Pierre acknowledged specific cultural challenges:

• Communication factors (e.g., fluency differences creating perceived coach preference)
• Cultural norms around humor and communication style
• Importance of considering cultural context in facilitation

He emphasized that diversity strengthened outcomes. It did not hinder them. He noted the team’s “sense of collaboration, which is awesome.”

Q2: What was the challenge from your perspective as head of learning and development?

Asked by: Pierre to Frank

Frank’s Response (with Pierre’s follow-up):

Frank identified reaching everyone across the distributed organization as the primary challenge. The solution involved:

• Strategic timing: Launching with quarterly middle management meeting
• Multiple delivery modalities (online and in-person)
• Flexibility for cancellations and schedule changes
• Focus on interactive feedback loops (weekly discussions, anonymous surveys)

Pierre’s validation: The middle management kickoff was crucial for securing buy-in. It prepared leaders for the cultural shifts their teams would experience. This was particularly true around empowerment and saying “no.”

Q3: What adjustments did you make based on feedback?

Context: Implied question from discussion of continuous adaptation

Pierre’s Response:

Pierre described implementing daily retrospectives at the end of each training day based on early feedback. This served multiple purposes:

1. Demonstrated trainer listening and responsiveness
2. Modeled agile principles in real-time
3. Reduced overwhelming content when participants felt overloaded
4. Created trust that feedback mattered

He also shifted the training structure to start with retrospectives even when engaging new teams. He said, “I adopt that into my work. When I work with a new team, I will start with a retrospective. This is very important to understand how they work currently. It also allows me to coach them instead of teaching them.”

Q4: How did you handle the “saying no” cultural shift with management?

Context: Discussion about empowerment outcomes

Pierre’s Approach:

During the management kickoff session, Pierre explicitly warned leaders:

“Hey, attention, this sounds for you maybe fancy. I believe you [will] not discover new things. It was just how you [are] using your tools, what you know. And what’s coming up is… Attention, next week I will start the transformative learning with your people. They will begin to say no to you. Are you ready for that?”

Li’s follow-up work:

Li identified this as ongoing work for agile coaches: providing clear metrics, rules, and checklists. They also offer guidance for strategic alignment. This helps employees have frameworks for fact-based decision making. “They have this awareness to say no, but how?… We must provide tools to empower them. Providing guidance is also essential to empower them to say no.”

Q5: How did you adapt agile training for back-office functions?

Context: Implied question about customization strategy

Pierre’s Response:

Pierre acknowledged the challenge. He said, “Artificial software development is easy.” However, it’s more difficult to explain agile to ATM maintenance technicians, credit card services staff, or HR personnel.

His approach:

• Constant material review and revision with Frank and Li
• Context-specific examples relevant to each function’s work
• Less focus on Scrum/Kanban frameworks initially
• More emphasis on universal principles: collaboration, problem-solving, continuous improvement
• Value stream mapping to help all functions visualize their workflows
• Connecting agile practices to actual problems each function faces

Final day included framework overview (“this is called Scrum, this is called Kanban”) after participants experienced the principles in practice.

Q6: What made the value stream mapping exercise so impactful?

Context: Discussion of specific tools and their effects

Pierre’s Explanation:

The value stream mapping game demonstrated breakthrough understanding through iterative improvement:

1. Initial team creates value stream design
2. Design gets improved through discussion
3. Subsequent teams review and correct the “improved” design
4. Teams add real-world complexity: “This is belief, in reality it’s working differently”
5. Result: Complete systemic picture emerges

Key insight: “The improvement of the us by the we. Is the entities, how the system of all the entities are really working together… And only when you have the full picture, you can start improving the picture. Because if you want to change, you have to notice there is a change to do. If it’s theoretical, people will never buy it.”

This simple tool created lasting impact by making invisible workflows visible and connecting individual work to organizational systems.

Q7: Why did you decide to use the AO Method for company-wide training?

Context: Discussion about methodology selection

Pierre’s Response:

Pierre expressed initial hesitation: “I created this methodology… this is mostly for leaders and agile coaches.”

Li and Frank insisted on using it: “No, no, no, you tell me. No, no, Pierre… we know why we have to go agile. But we didn’t have a proper plan at the beginning, which is in progress.”

Application: The AO Matrix (12-point assessment framework) worked effectively because:

• Allowed self-assessment: “Where are you now? Where do you think you are?”
• Created baseline and target visualization
• Used at beginning and end of training to demonstrate progress
• Gave teams ownership of their transformation journey

Discovery: Teams with direct customer contact, such as support and operations, scored higher on autonomy initially. They received direct feedback. This feedback helped them naturally develop agile behaviors. This validated “start where you are” rather than imposing foreign concepts.

Q8: How did you maintain consistency across 37 sessions while keeping each one fresh?

Context: Implied question about facilitation approach

Pierre’s Response:

Pierre used repeatable structure with adaptive facilitation:

Consistency elements:

• Same core games and exercises across all sessions
• Same scenario and rollout structure
• Even same jokes to enable peer sharing (“Did you attend also this crazy training with Pierre?”)

Adaptive elements:

• Full focus on participants, not content
• Reading the room and listening constantly
• Responding to each team’s unique nature and needs
• Coaching skills over training skills
• 7-8 hours of intense facilitation per session

Result: “Every session, it was mostly the same thing, the same games… But in fact, because the nature of every team was different, [everyone had] a different experience.”

Li’s observation: Pierre finished every day “with a sweating shirt” from the intensive facilitation effort. Participants often said “I survived from today” due to the immersive, challenging nature.

Q9: What should participants remember most from the training?

Context: Discussion about lasting impact

Pierre’s Philosophy:

“Maybe after a week I will forget what you teach and what you showed in the slides. But when I start to think about implementing something, I will recall something from your training. I will remember something from the session… from the method you used and then I can copy or reuse. So this is the thing we really need. This is the valuable. It’s not about the theory, but really the experience you shared with us.”

Design principle:

• Experiences over information
• Practical application over certification
• Associative memory triggers (games, provocations, nudges)
• Tools that can be recalled when needed rather than memorized content

Frank added: “People have different ways to react to this… In conversations with you, with Lee, and with me, they will hopefully keep something from it. They may reference it and then be able to apply it.”

Q10: What role did contracts and SLAs play in the transformation discussion?

Context: Systemic challenges mentioned briefly

Pierre’s Perspective:

Pierre challenged the status quo around contractual relationships:

“We talked about the SLAs… have you never thought about to improve and review the SLAs? [Response:] Why should we review the contract? [Pierre:] Yeah, because if the contract is not helping you moving forward, it’s just a blocker.”

Key insight: Contracts valid 10 years ago or even 5 years ago may no longer serve current needs. Agile transformation requires:

• Questioning outdated agreements
• Shifting from output-based to outcome-based partnerships
• Making contracts coherent with current reality
• Recognizing that social skills, not just engineering, drive agility
• Improving communication to make systems more fluid

This challenged the notion that agile is purely technical: “People talk, agile is mostly of engineering. No, it’s social skills.”

Critical Success Factors

Based on the conversation, several factors enabled the program’s success:

1. Leadership Buy-In

Early engagement with middle management created top-down support for cultural shifts, particularly around empowerment and boundary-setting.

2. Continuous Feedback Loops

• Weekly coordination meetings between Pierre, Li, and Frank
• Daily retrospectives during training sessions
• Anonymous participant surveys
• Informal corridor conversations
• Transparent communication back to staff about changes made

3. Experiential Learning Design

Games, simulations, and practical exercises created lasting memories and recall triggers rather than forgettable slide presentations.

4. Adaptation and Flexibility

Willingness to completely revise content between sessions based on feedback, customize for different functions, and pivot delivery methods as needed.

5. Coaching Expertise

Facilitators with coaching skills who could read the room, adapt in real-time, and focus on participants rather than content delivery.

6. Partnership Model

Pierre, Li, and Frank operated as partners rather than vendor-client relationship, with shared ownership of outcomes and continuous collaboration.

7. Cultural Sensitivity with Universal Principles

Acknowledging cultural differences while focusing on universal human needs: purpose, autonomy, mastery, connection.

Lessons Learned and Reflections

For Trainers/Consultants

Pierre’s insights:

• Closeness matters more than formality – avoid suits and ties, be human
• Dark humor and stupid jokes build trust when rules of engagement are clear
• Allow participants to joke back as proof of trust
• Focus 100% on people, not content
• Repeat structure but adapt to each unique group
• Expect emotional reactions and emails – perfection is impossible
• Travel, logistics, and organizational details consume significant time
• Coaching skills trump training skills for transformative work

For Learning & Development Leaders

Frank’s insights:

• Record time achievement possible with right partnerships (10 months, 90% coverage)
• Strategic timing of kickoff sessions amplifies impact
• Multiple feedback mechanisms catch different concerns
• Geographical and scheduling flexibility essential for distributed organizations
• Sharing adapted materials post-training supports continuous learning
• Investment metrics matter: 12,000+ staff hours represented significant commitment

For Agile Leaders

Li’s insights:

• Empowerment requires tools, not just awareness
• Big picture and North Star essential for meaning-making
• Starting with retrospective before planning reveals current state
• Coaching over teaching enables self-discovery
• Continuous improvement applies to training programs themselves
• Post-training work focuses on sustained empowerment and frameworks for decision-making

Outcomes and Impact

Quantitative Results

Metric	Result
Staff Coverage	90%
Total Sessions	37
Training Investment	12,000+ hours
Duration	10 months
Completion Rate	Successfully concluded

Table 2: Program Completion Metrics

Qualitative Outcomes

• Awareness creation: 90% of staff now understand agile principles and their relevance
• Cultural shift: Employees empowered to say “no” based on facts and strategic alignment
• Cross-functional connection: Increased collaboration and understanding across departments
• Systemic visibility: Value stream mapping revealed actual workflows for improvement
• Engaged workforce: Shift from compliance to passionate problem-solving
• Leadership readiness: Managers prepared for and supportive of behavioral changes
• Lasting methodology: Li and others adopted training techniques (starting with retrospectives)

Participant Feedback Themes

From the conversation, common feedback included:

Positive:

• “I survived today” – intense, challenging, engaging
• Recognition of already being agile in some ways
• Aha moments connecting agile to daily work
• Appreciation for games and experiential exercises
• Value of seeing the big picture through value stream mapping
• Feeling heard through responsive adjustments

Challenges addressed:

• Initial confusion about training purpose (clarified through better framing)
• Content overwhelming at start (reduced through feedback)
• Varied reactions to coaching styles (normalized through communication)
• Questions about relevance for non-development roles (addressed through customization)

Future Directions

Ongoing Work

Li identified continued focus areas post-training:

1. Empowerment frameworks: Developing clear metrics, rules, and checklists for fact-based decision-making
2. Strategic alignment tools: Helping teams connect decisions to company vision and strategy
3. Vision clarity: Establishing and communicating North Star to guide agile behaviors
4. Continuous improvement: Sustaining momentum beyond initial awareness phase

Knowledge Management

Frank mentioned efforts to support continuous learning:

• Training materials adapted for independent study
• Resources shared with staff for reference
• Materials available for newcomers to understand organizational approach
• Creating institutional memory: “Who was this Pierre guy who was with us?”

Conclusion

The Quipu agile transformation is a comprehensive, company-wide initiative. It successfully engaged 90% of a diverse workforce. This workforce was geographically distributed and the engagement occurred over 10 months. The program created lasting awareness and cultural shifts. It focused on empowerment, collaboration, and problem-solving. This was achieved by prioritizing experiential learning over certification. The program also adapted content for all organizational functions and maintained continuous feedback loops.

Key differentiators included:

• Early leadership engagement preparing managers for cultural change
• Partnership model between external consultant and internal champions
• Consistent structure with adaptive facilitation responding to each group’s needs
• We-Us-Me framework connecting individual, team, and organizational perspectives
• Tools like value stream mapping creating systemic visibility
• Daily retrospectives modeling agile principles in training delivery itself

The success stemmed not from perfect execution. Instead, it was due to genuine partnership, continuous adaptation, and cultural sensitivity. There was also an unwavering focus on participants rather than content. As Pierre emphasized, “It’s not about the trainer, it’s not about the matter, it’s all about the people.”

The journey required significant investment. It involved over 12,000 training hours, extensive travel, logistical complexity, and emotional energy. However, it achieved remarkable reach and impact through collaboration. This was possible due to Pierre’s facilitation expertise, Li’s agile leadership, and Frank’s learning and development orchestration.

As the program concluded, attention shifted to sustaining momentum. This was to be achieved through continued empowerment frameworks and strategic clarity. Additionally, the application of learned principles would guide the organization’s ongoing evolution.