OK, great third example, which I hear called the language legacy case, and this is also something
I see all the time, and that is when language gets stuck in organization.
But they actually need to change it because they might have a completely new strategic situation.
But it's so stuck.
So it's very hard to break out of.
So let's say that back in the old days in an asset finance company, a couple of people declares that
our customer needs to list or asset, which they buy from their supplier.
So that's a number of different important concepts in an asset finance business where customers and
they lease something and they list their assets, which they have bought from a supplier.
OK, so they're saying that this is our business model.
We sell leasing products to customers.
So in this simple conceptualisation, we have a customer who has an agreement regarding a leasing product
which is used to finance an asset that is sold by a supplier.
OK, very simple.
Fair enough.
And probably works very good in that concrete situation.
But time goes by and the person is to declare to say these functions are retired and long.
So systems like this could be easily be 25 or 30 years old.
I've seen that in a couple of places, but for strategic reasons, the end customer sales was actually
put out of business.
So now it's pushed out to brokers and asset funds, asset managers.
So it's actually the the asset vendor that is selling the asset, who's also selling the financing.
And they are doing that because they would like to sell more services, of course, but also they would
like to help their customer to buy their goods.
So what to happen here for from the asset of finance companies perspective is that the customer is not
no longer just the end customer of the leasing.
It's actually the asset supplier because they are buying what is usually called vendor finance.
So one of the more important customers for this asset finance business is now actually the acid supplier
who needs vendor finding solution.
And in the earlier conceptualisation, that person party was never treated as a customer.
So from what I've seen, that old language could get stuck in organization and they keep referring and
treating actually this crucial customer who's very crucial for the new business model as a supplier.
And that became becomes very strange, at least not speak for the crucial customer himself, the ousted
vendor, that they would like to be treated as a customer.
And this.
Yeah, as you see.
So this could produce a lot of waste, not just communication waste, but it might be that the business
aren't flourishing as they should because they aren't actually getting right.
Who's the customer and who's not the customer.
What needs to happen here is that new is functions that are implied in this new strategy needs to be
declared explicitly, because even if they define this implicit strategy change or explicit strategy
change, they actually haven't changed the domain language that goes with the old strategy.
So they would the the person who had the declaration power in this business need to make the declaration
explicitly and then make sure that the whole organization accepts this new language.
So they need to slightly change the terminology here and say, OK, you have an agreement regarding
leasing product, but that agreement is for the customer and the customer is just a rule that apparently
place.
Then we have another type of agreement here.
We can call it a broker agreement regarding the other very important product that is sold, the Vendor
Finance Service.
And when we make it when we create a broker agreement, we also created with a customer who supported.
Right.
So we have another type of customer here who could broker agreements with when they are buying actually
our service, the Vendor Finance Service here, and then that vendor finance service actually results
in those normal types of agreement.
And those normal type of agreements are still connected to assets and the assets are connected to a
party which act as a supplier in that acetylation.
Right.
So they are still sold the asset as well.
But as you see here, the party who was the customer in the broker agreement is the supplier in the
leasing agreement, and that's fine.
So we had kind of decoupled from the role from the parties and we introduced a broker agreement where
the supplier is the customer.
Very good.
And that lecture as well.
So that examples showed you how you actually could could get stuck in an old language and how that could
prevent you from implementing a new business strategy.
Very good.