Maxime Kurkdjian, Séverin Legras
Transcript (Translated)
Hello everyone.
Hello.
Hello everyone, I am Séverin Legras, I am responsible for an agile transformation team in a consulting firm called Rhapsody, there is my photo behind once Maxime has clicked. Yeah. Today, we are here to tell you about the journey we have taken with a company called Oxalide, which we transformed into a form of organization we called an organic enterprise. The word emerged collectively. We drew a lot of inspiration from the Liberated Company or Opal Company, other concepts, but we chose this word for this particular company. We are going to give you feedback on our experience, so we are not here to show you a model that will necessarily work for you or in your company. However, we will try to tell you how we designed it, how we experienced it, and the different points that were important in this journey. We have about 40 minutes to speak, and then we will have a good fifteen minutes to discuss questions. So feel free to note down your questions, and we will come back to them later. Maxime?
Hello, I am Maxime Curgent, I am the founder and president of Oxalide.
I will provide a bit of context. Oxalide is a company I founded in... 2000, with my system and network engineering degree in hand. At that time, we were doing web and open source. We were well positioned, since a few years later, it became a business that exploded with a lot of traction. Today, in fact, we help our clients move towards DevOps and the cloud. So when I say a lot of traction, what does that mean? A lot of market traction means we end the year at around 18 million.
Growth from 2010 to today has been between 30% and 50% per year, with a recruitment rate that could go up to 30-40 people per year. And today, we have over 100 employees. Faced with this influx of new employees within the company, the first thing that became quite obvious to my associate and me, was that our personal impact and the oral culture, which is often the first type of culture you have in a company, was insufficient to continue perpetuating our company culture and especially our values.
So at the beginning of 2016, for the first time, we experimented, we had the audacity to experiment with bottom-up, highly participatory processes to define the company's values. And it was the result of the work done by the employees, not at all the management of H20.
that allowed us to define these different values.
So, why am I talking about this? For two reasons. First, because it was our first bottom-up experience of participatory co-construction with all members of the company. But also and especially because this project we are talking about today, in fact,
could have gone less well, but our values, especially, I will go back, accountability and transparency, were a real success factor in Oxalide's transformation. And you surely know the little phrase, 'Culture is strategy for breakfast.' In our case, we were lucky. Our culture and our values were very compatible with what we wanted to do in terms of company transformation.
So, why did we launch this organizational transformation project at Oxalide? Like all growing companies, we had to go through the classic steps of setting up support functions, setting up middle management, and formalizing the top management's operations a bit more. And in fact, these classic, or at least traditional, projects, with traditional management approaches, resulted in a number of issues, including misalignments between what we can promise to clients and what we can actually deliver, with a certain friction regarding the adoption of new technologies, or at least the rapid adoption of new technologies. You can well imagine that in our sector, which is DevOps and Cloud, the adoption of new technologies needs to happen quite quickly. And then, there was something else last year.
Last year, I had the chance to take a vacation in this kind of landscape. And so, you see, there isn't much to do, actually. And I took with me a book that was fundamental in Oxalide's transformation. It's Reinventing Organizations, which you may have already heard of. I strongly recommend reading this book. And it was a real revelation for me. And I thought, if we want to sustain both the agility and the performance of Oxalide, we need to become an Opal company, or at least, our company needs to be as Opal as possible. Who doesn't know Reinventing Organizations?
The term Opal company refers to a type of company that is extremely collaborative with a high degree of decentralized decision-making, great autonomy within teams, and which aims for
better performance and especially alignment on values and a common purpose, a company's reason for being. That's the very brief summary; we don't have much time for... The book is between 400 and 500 pages, but this summer the comic book version came out, which is a bit more digestible, I would say.
I strongly recommend it if this topic interests you. So, as a company leader, I naturally share my issues with my peers to address them.
What were the main feedbacks I received, or primarily the feedback I received? I was told, listen, it's normal, your company is growing. You need to hire a top-level CEO, a polytechnician, an X-Mines graduate, whatever you want, but someone really high-caliber who will put everything in order, who will fit everything into boxes, and so on. And beyond the financial aspect, what bothered me about this approach was that I felt like I was taking a step back to leap forward. I have a system and network engineering background, and in fact, monolithic systems like that don't appeal to me. First problem. Second problem, in fact, Oxalide's culture exists and it is quite unique.
And I identified a significant risk in placing a CEO from outside at the top of the company, particularly regarding the alignment between their own values and the company's values. Because recruitment processes are not necessarily 100% effective in aligning the values of this CEO with the CEO themselves. So, the alternative path we chose was to move towards a more collaborative approach.
Among the drivers mentioned earlier, there was also the company's scalability. So the idea was that if we handed over the reins to someone super intelligent, if I may say so, anyway, at some point, they would also reach their limits. So it was really about waiting. What we decided was that we really wanted to put participatory innovation at the heart of the strategy for building this new organization. And so we were going to rely heavily on the collaborative aspect with a systemic approach. The idea was not to achieve local optimum but to work on the entire system and ensure it was as efficient as possible by using collective intelligence. So, we started by defining a number of organizational principles.
The first principle is that we want the organization to be centered on customer satisfaction. Remember that at Oxalide, we are a service company, so we are at the service of the customer. Customer satisfaction is still the first thing we must seek. The second element is teams that will be self-organized with a certain level of alignment. If some of you know Henrik Kniberg, he made a great diagram to talk about alignment and autonomy. And so, what we were looking for were autonomous teams that are aligned towards the same goal, all pulling in the same direction. For this, we need to rely on a rethought management model. We will move from a manager mode to leaders. We will try to change the managerial posture to ensure that everyone is lifted up, skills are developed, and teams are given the means for this autonomy. All this is done, just Maxime, with obviously a lot of sharing, a lot of cross-functionality, a lot of collaboration, transparent information, etc. So, how did we approach this?
We actually started at the end of 2016 with Maxime and two or three members of the executive committee. And we began by identifying the drivers, which are the first slides we showed you. We projected a bit by saying, if we wanted to change the company's organization tomorrow, if we had arrived, we made a kind of projection into the future, if we had arrived, what would we see differently? What would we be able to observe that would tell us we had arrived? And these elements were drivers that allowed us to monitor, throughout the transformation, whether we were still going in the right direction or not. Are the new behaviors we wanted to observe starting to appear now as we go through all the stages? And of course, we designed organizational models, but we will talk about that just after. The approach we used is a change management project when modifying an organization.
And the approach we adopted is an agile approach, meaning we built this new organization as if it were a product. So we built it iteratively and incrementally. We set a pace we called six-week seasons. And for each season, we wanted to deliver a small piece of the organization. And for each season, we wanted to deliver a small part of the organization. So, like a product that is built incrementally.
A fundamental element, so here you see drafts of organizational charts, it's blurry, you can't see it well, which is just as well. The idea is not at all to show you this thing here, because this is specific to Oxalide and each company will have its own model. However, we co-constructed it. What is important is that this model is not actually a model; it's a projection to carry out experiments, and the experiments will tell us if we are going in the right direction or not. And at the end of each season, we will be able to readjust and modify this model. The other key point is that we decided, since we are agile, to reduce the scope. So we did it for a first part of the company. When we started, there were about 90 people at Oxalide. The target population for this first iteration was about 40 people. So we reduced the scope a bit to be able to conduct experiments and then, in a second phase, aim to generalize.
So, if I may say, this iterative approach, where we are actually co-constructing with the stakeholders of the change, is already a first level of change, precisely because in corporate transformations, it is often the general management that comes with a master plan, with a target, and tells you, well, this is where we need to go. And so, in fact, we were able to see behaviors, I would say, of regression, meaning employees who say, no, but we want the destination, we want you to tell us exactly what to do. Here, making decisions is a bit... So these were the first observations. We saw behaviors, I would say, traditional ones manifesting in some employees. As you have understood, this type of transformation, even if we start with a part of the company, are very significant transformations. And I was deeply convinced that this was what needed to be done. The sponsorship was really very strong. I am the president, the majority shareholder, and this is where we need to go. And I think that was fuel. An important success factor for this transformation.
It's true that having strong sponsorship really helps sometimes to redirect the orientation toward this target. The target exists, it is rather vague, we cannot describe it very precisely, but nevertheless, it exists. And the role of the leader, the sponsor, the person who carries this vision, is precisely to reframe when we see things going off track.
The second important success factor, often in medium-sized or small companies, internal projects are the fifth wheel of the carriage. So this project is an internal project, an internal reorganization.
Since these projects do not necessarily have the necessary resources to move at the right speed, they sometimes end in failure. So obviously, I did not want to fall into that. So very quickly, I actually went to find Rhapsody Conseil to accompany us from the design phase, I would say, and throughout the transformation of Oxalive.
So it was important not only in terms of workload and quantity but also quality, since when you call on companies that are used to managing change, things go a bit better than when you improvise.
So what did we do very concretely? So now we enter the second phase where we will explain the approach we took and the major important milestones. First, we started with a framing phase, a preparation phase, where we aligned a number of possible organizational scenarios that were in line with the principles we had seen from the start. This was not done just by the two of us; there were members of the executive committee present with us during this phase. And then we developed a timeline. So this was around the end of 2016. And we developed a timeline where you see here that we started with a big kick-off, a kind of big meeting in front of the whole company led by Maxime at the beginning of January. And in fact, we formed the BUs or Business Units. That's the name we gave to these teams. We could have called them Team, Squad, whatever you want. Cells. We called them BUs. And this was done at the end of February. So roughly, in two months, we designed the entire first phase of organization, the first experiments we were going to conduct, and we were ready to start.
Just if you go back, Maxime, excuse me. So we had a day to define the governance, I will talk about it in a bit more detail, the governance of each of the BUs. We shared a lot of information here, and then we made sure to place people within the BUs, and we will explain. How did we do that?
And in fact, we formed the BUs or Business Units, that's the name we gave to these teams. We could have called them Teams, Squads, whatever you want. Cells. There you go, Cells. We called them BUs. And this was done at the end of February. So roughly, in two months, we designed the entire first phase of the organization, the first experiments we were going to conduct, and we were ready to start.
Just if you go back, Maxime, excuse me. So we had a day to define the governance—I’ll talk about it in a bit more detail—the governance of each of the BUs. We shared a lot of information here, and then we made sure to place people within the BUs, and we’ll explain how we did that.
One of the fundamental elements of the organization was that we wanted to decentralize decision-making, and in fact, we didn’t want to recreate teams with just one person at the head of the team. So we identified a trio of profiles that would embody the governance of each of the teams. We’re talking about teams of roughly 10-15 people. In this trio of people, we had three profiles. A hunter commercial profile, meaning the one who goes after new clients. A farmer commercial profile, what we also call the account manager, meaning the person who takes care of existing clients. And then a team leader profile, someone who works closely with the production profiles.
And so we said to ourselves... For this organization to work well, we need this trio to function well. And so, on the management side, we won’t impose the composition of these trios. We had four business units to create, and we had identified 12 people who would lead these cells. But on the other hand, we didn’t want to do the mapping ourselves. So we took them for a full-day seminar. We started by bringing in the executive committee, who shared the vision and reiterated the importance of the role of this trio. After that, we took the executive committee, put them outside, closed the door, and really got to work. And we worked on four axes. We shared the principles. We defined together which clients would be assigned to each of these BUs to understand who our clients are and what their businesses are. So we worked on the Value Proposition Canvas and other tools that helped us focus on client segments. And then, we also defined selection criteria for how we would form this BU trio, particularly based on interactions within the trio and behavioral complementarity. We used a tool called DISC, which helps map behavior to some extent. And we tried to find groups of people who would be compatible together. So, the three main criteria used for selecting this trio were, First, do I know the client and their business well?
Do I know the people I’ll be working with well? Do I want to work with them? And most importantly, the third point: do I want to work with these people and with these clients? Understood? So, we know the clients, we know the people we work with, and do we want to work in this setup? And we asked everyone to position themselves on these points. We put up large panels. So, these are different photos taken during the day. And here at the bottom, you can see we placed everyone’s photos on large panels. We asked everyone to position themselves. We, the facilitators, left the room and gave them 20 minutes to come to a conclusion. And so, they had to form the four trios themselves.
We came back, and they hadn’t managed to finish everything, so we helped them wrap up, but by the end of the day, we had four trios formed. So, this is fully in line with the principle we set from the start. It’s co-construction, a lot of autonomy, while still being aligned because we have a shared vision. And we end up with a result where people are truly on board with the change, since they were more than just involved—they themselves decided where to position themselves.
And all of this in one day. It’s true that this day was quite intense, with information sharing beforehand and decision-making afterward.
Then, once we had decided who these three trios would be, we gave the trio some work to do. Because the next step was that they had to recruit their team. To recruit their team, in the same way, we decided to do this collaboratively and give the DevOps the autonomy to choose which teams they would join. For their first task, the trio had to prepare a pitch for their BU to recruit and attract the DevOps who would join. So a pitch: who are our clients, what is our positioning, our value proposition, what revenue do we expect to generate next year, etc. How many people we expect to have on the team, that sort of thing. We did this during lunch breaks, between noon and 2 PM; it was open, and people came or didn’t come as they wished. And then, we set up a choice workshop. So, we asked people to position themselves. How did it go? We set up in the middle of the open space, established a few ground rules, and we can quickly revisit them. In fact, I won’t even read them to you; it was as if there were no rules. We set rules that were so broad they didn’t impose many constraints. Roughly, you must choose where you want to go yourself. That’s the rule.
So, we placed four boards in the middle of the open space, each representing a BU, with an A4 sheet containing the BU’s pitch, and then we placed baskets on the floor with everyone’s photos and names. And we gave everyone a week to position themselves on the panels in the BU they wanted to join.
At the start, we received some resistance and a bit of fear, particularly from members of the executive committee. The fear was expressed as: what happens if all the best people go to the same BU? What happens if everyone wants to go to the same BU because it’s the best BU? What happens if no one wants to go to the other BU because it’s the least good BU, so to speak?
And so, Maxime and I were quite firm at that moment. We said, OK, we’ll just add one rule at the end that says if it’s really a mess, we’ll do a second round and adjust. But we believed in it. And in fact, what happened was that by the end of the week, all the BUs were staffed roughly in the desired proportions in terms of seniority and also in terms of numbers. That is, there was only one BU with one extra person and another BU with one fewer person. The others were fine. So, they actually self-regulated. And what we decided at the executive committee level was that we wouldn’t switch the extra person with the one who was missing. We would leave it as is and address the difference through more recruitment or a stronger investment in the market or similar measures.
This type of phenomenon is really what you’ll see if you implement this kind of transformation in your company. It’s directors saying, 'Yes, but we won’t achieve the right result.' We won’t achieve the right result. And we were lucky because with the participatory process regarding values, we were very happy with the result since we also had the option to impose the values. And in the end, co-construction took us exactly where we wanted to go, if not even better. And in fact, with the formation of the BUs, it’s exactly the same. The directors, especially the production director who is in charge of all these teams, said, 'You don’t realize the risk you’re taking.' If there’s an imbalance, you’ll be forced to enforce rebalancing, and you’ll create disappointment. And in the end, thanks to the information we provided beforehand, everyone positioned themselves well and it worked out perfectly. Were we lucky? I don’t think so.
The process still drives part of the result. We’ll speed up a bit. Once we had formed these teams, we took a little preparation time. Because to really launch this BU organization, we needed a month or two to set up the entire system, prepare, especially to distribute clients among the new BUs, and ensure knowledge transfer from one DevOps to another when the DevOps changes BU, etc. So there was a preparation phase that was quite significant. And then we officially launched it with a kick-off. The kick-off took place over a week where each BU had a full day dedicated to a kick-off. The goal of this kick-off was to share the vision for the organization and to share the vision for the BU. So, this was embodied by the trio. who reiterated what our positioning is, who our clients are, what our ambitions are, etc.
And above all, the ambition was to create a team. Because at that point, people had positioned themselves; for some, they knew each other, for others, they did not. So, we conducted a whole series of team-building workshops to create this team spirit. We had them design a team logo and come up with a name. We then sent these logos and names to a graphic designer who turned them into signs that we displayed on the teams' desks. So, that was quite nice. We haven't displayed the logos because some of them can't really be shown, to be completely honest. We are in the world of DevOps.
That is the vision. You will find it in the slides; we will share the slides on Slideshare. So, similarly, a graphic facilitator helped us identify globally what the organic enterprise meant at Oxalide.
And then we continued right after the kick-off. So the kick-off took place over a week. The following Monday, everyone moved into the premises because the idea was, of course, to place sales closer to the production teams to ensure the team was truly integrated.
In fact, we physically relocated.
There you go.
We created multidisciplinary teams, and as a result, they worked a bit like mini-factories, together, in their physical space as well, to improve collaboration and convergence.
So that was a bit of a revolution.
Now, I will take a quote from Spiderman's uncle. I'm not sure if Spiderman exists, but his uncle certainly does. ‘With great power comes great responsibility.’ And in fact, when you liberate decision-making, especially, as Séverin said, if you don't pair it with the responsibility that comes with that power, it's, I would say, only a half-liberation, because you will be seen in a way as a child not responsible for their own decisions. So the cornerstone, the place where this responsibility and decision-making materialize, is in the budget, in the P&L. So we asked all the BUs to project themselves in terms of P&L. Of course, the administrative and financial management was there to support them. But it was a foundational exercise that truly elevated them in terms of responsibility. We had to, as I said, really support them in terms of skills, because you can't ask just anyone to create a business plan for you. So there was support in terms of skills. And the last point of vigilance regarding the P&L, which, in my view, has an element... Liberating the P&L, meaning liberating the financial management of a BU, is essential; otherwise, it is not truly free.
So, the last element regarding... Difficulty point regarding the P&L. So I repeat, we are still a small company, with only about 100 employees and just under 18 million euros in revenue. You still need to have the right tools, the information system, and perhaps the management control to produce this P&L. That is, the P&L must reflect reality. So there was still some room for improvement, let's say, for us, and work to be done on that. And finally, the last point, as a business leader, there are certain things we... Sometimes, we lack a bit of empathy with our employees. And in fact, we learned that we cannot expect the trio to have the same enthusiasm and ambition as the business leader. In fact, we are often very, very positive and create business plans that necessarily reflect the company's ambition. When you ask, I would say, the trio to do the same work, they are not as confident as the business leader. So, we had to put in place means, well, some... Means, tricks, let's say, to secure and reassure the P&L holders, meaning the trio, in the company's growth ambition.
We will move quickly over this. So, of course, we set up follow-up rituals. So the P&L is a business management tool. Therefore, the BUs report to the executive committee on their P&L regularly, and the executive committee helps them work on continuous improvement and manage all these elements with these follow-up rituals.
Now, the last point, often in companies, there is a tool called commission plans. Often, it's only the salespeople who are subject to commission plans. As for us, last year already, we wanted to implement variable compensation across the entire workforce. And ultimately, this helped us create an additional element of convergence, since the variable compensation of the members of a BU is mainly based, so 100% for DevOps and at least 40% for sales profiles, on a synthetic indicator we called 100 TBU, which includes our different drivers, such as satisfaction, revenue growth, and the profitability of the BU. So concretely, this is an element that aligns the interests of all members of the BU.
There is a tool, which is commissioning plans. Often, it's the salespeople who are subject to commissioning plans. As far as we are concerned, already last year, we wanted to deploy variable compensation across the entire population. And ultimately, this helped us create an additional element of convergence, since the variable compensation of the members of a business unit is based primarily, so 100% for DevOps and at least 40% for sales profiles, on a synthetic indicator we called 100 TBU, which includes our different drivers, such as satisfaction, obviously, revenue growth, and profitability of the business unit. So concretely, this is an element of convergence for the interests of all members of the business unit.
Of course, even though we are in a small company and the culture is rather open, there are still elements of managerial posture that need to shift. So we sometimes encountered resistance, as we were discussing earlier. So the support we planned is a bit of training to bring everyone to the same level of knowledge, using Management 3.0 and many other tools, Solution Focus, etc. We reviewed the formats of the Executive Committee that were... When I experienced the first one, I thought it would never end.
At the end, I wondered if we had made a single decision in the five hours that had just passed.
I’m exaggerating a bit, but we tried to make ourselves a bit more efficient by introducing new practices. And of course, we supported each member of the Executive Committee in working on their own posture. Because what is really very important is that, for example, before, you had a production director with 40 people under him, in a Pierre Midal way, and tomorrow, with this business unit organization, he no longer manages anyone. So naturally, he asks himself questions. So it’s also important to see. And today, this person still brings as much value to the company, if not more. In fact, his role is even more decisive. But he abandoned his old job to seek another role within the company. He managed to reposition himself, which almost everyone has succeeded in doing.
I must say that we haven’t transformed all our managers from a command-and-control posture, even though we weren’t really in command-and-control, into charismatic leaders,
Elon Musk. But there is still work to be done, which is completely normal. And sometimes, there are employees who simply don’t want to go in this... And that’s also why the executive committee is important.
We must make the necessary decisions.
So the points...
Yes, because we did tell you, we’re going to present a rather idyllic picture. Not everything went well. We still faced quite a few difficulties. So we tried to highlight at least three major difficulties here. And then afterward, we can go into more detail.
Support functions, because in these transformations, often in the decentralization, support functions aim to be more or less disseminated throughout the rest of the organization. So the support functions were not affected by the first wave of transformation, that is, phase 1, the one we are talking about. However, indirectly, they were strongly impacted. Earlier, I was talking about the finance department, which had to put itself at the service of the business units not only to support them in terms of skills but also to provide them with the right financial information. So I must say they were put to the test, but with real satisfaction, because they are getting closer to the business. And this restores collective meaning. We are not just the finance department; we are the finance department of the company that aligns with the purpose, the meaning of Oxalide.
Earlier, Séverin was talking about how we positioned each DevOps within the business units. So these were obviously rituals that were visible throughout the company. And the second point is that this phase created a lot of enthusiasm. Especially when the trios pitched. The energy it released in the company is incredible. I am the founder, Oxalide is 17 years old. This is the first time I’ve seen so much energy, so much enthusiasm in the company. It’s extraordinary. So, in fact, it’s great for those at the heart of the change, but there are those on the sidelines. who say, well, what they’re doing looks great, but when do I get on board, when do I get involved. So we need to give them visibility, and at the same time, it’s co-construction.
Next, the sales teams. I think this is where the change was the most impactful. Quite typically, sales teams are on different floors, a bit isolated.
And naturally, given the distance to cover, this change, especially since their compensation is more affected because the variable compensation for them is greater,
we should have perhaps paid special attention in terms of support. We could have done better in that regard. The fourth point I didn’t note, but Séverin mentioned it, is obviously top management, or even management, but especially top management, who can clearly see in the diagrams we imagined at one point where the top of the pyramid is, right? Usually, I’m at the top of the pyramid, and here, in fact, I’m not even on the diagram. So that was also, fortunately we have trusting relationships and good human relations, but it was naturally anxiety-inducing.
In fact, as an anecdote, the first presentation of the organizational chart I did in front of the entire Executive Committee, I deliberately didn’t include the Executive Committee, and no one noticed. And after a while, I told them, don’t you think something is missing from this diagram? And then, finally, I got the question. Yes, that’s true, where are we on this diagram? Then I told them they needed to look for another job.
Some understood well.
So, where are we today? We gave ourselves some time. In fact, I say today, but you saw the schedule. In fact, we started at the beginning of the year. So, at the beginning of the summer, we said we needed to give ourselves some time, if only to let the rituals settle in and also to give the men and women time to digest these changes.
There was really a breathing phase that was important. It was a big change. We really changed the culture. The trios had much more work than before in terms of management, etc. So it was really necessary for things to start running smoothly before we could add a second layer of change behind it.
So what exactly remains for us to do? I was talking about phase 1, so in phase 2, or in any case in future phases, we have issues that we had identified beforehand, on which we wanted to provide an answer. So it’s the support functions, and particularly their position relative to the business units. That is, are they cross-functional? Do we leave them cross-functional? Or do we integrate these functions into the cells little by little?
So I’m thinking, for example, of marketing, recruitment, that is, there are functions that are usually cross-functional, and in fact, it can create value to put them inside the cells. The issue of sharing experience, which, if we draw a parallel with the Spotify model, can be considered as chapters or guilds. Same for R&D and innovation. Well, afterward, there was a fairly major event in the life of the company, since I said I was the president of Oxalide. In fact, I haven’t been for a few months, since Oxalide joined the Claranet group in June. So this also corresponds to the pause. It wasn’t related, but it also corresponds to the pause. Naturally, when your company joins a much larger group, there are other issues than your transformation into an organic company. So it was quite impactful. The good news is that Claranet values highly what we did at Oxalide in our organizational transformation. And today, a few months later, we are trying to transpose or, I would say, contaminate Claranet with this organizational model of decentralizing decision-making.
In fact, at Claranet, this was one of the determining factors in choosing to acquire Oxalide and not another DevOps company. It’s that these organizational experiments, this decentralization of decisions, was a... Because what makes Oxalide strong is its agility, in the sense of its ability to quickly respond to a new need from its clients. And indeed, they were very interested in experimenting with this model. And so today, we are leading a project we called Chrysalide, which aims to ultimately integrate these organizational principles, not exactly the same, not the same breakdown into business units, but the organizational principles are indeed the same. And today, we are co-constructing the model for Claranet, knowing that Claranet is a company that has acquired 5-6 companies in the last 3-4 years and is trying to align everyone with this new model, this new target vision in terms of organization.
The transformation challenge is even greater since they have 500 employees, I believe, and they are multi-site. So, it's clear that it's...
So, we'll come back to tell you about it next year.
To conclude, a quote from Maxime Kurgian.
Exactly. What seemed most important to me in this transformation is above all the collective. It's about moving forward together. Earlier, I said that sometimes there are people who don't want to move forward. But obviously, the will of the business leader, the will of the person who will drive this transformation, is to bring everyone on board. And I said it clearly: we will all move forward together.
So, this is very important to reassure the teams about their future. come within the structure.
There we go, we're done. Thank you very much. We hope you have questions.