People here, how do I switch the screens so that I get my moderator notes on my screen? There's always a button, I know.

Okay Alexandre Pils, manager of Cislab, co-founder of Kuev, helping to get people in contact in the internet and the talk is how Kuev changes the way we work together.

This is yet another Pleduye talk. Are there any technical people here who would like to hear more about Volto? Please leave the room.

A Pleduye talk is a similar category of what Fred said this morning about the project management, about the motivations behind all that technology. I have wonderful colleagues like you here this morning, Alessandro Pisa, who's all over the place with Review of Code, so I don't have to do Review of Code. There is Hannes who does Module Federation.

I do not have to go into JavaScript anymore, and I'm eternally thankful for that. And since I do not have to do that job anymore, I'm also more focusing on management, but also on how people are actually using that stuff and how do we reach them when we are done coding.

Technology and functionality is only a piece of the cake for me. There's a lot more. So this talk is not about technology. Having said that, my first slide is about technology. Who knows Moore's law? Hands up.

I said your technology people should go. That was 1965, Moore's law. He said the amount of transistors on the same amount of space doubles every two years. What does that mean? More computing power, more storage space. That's quite an impressive thought. That means exponential growth in capacity.

But actually, that's not a new thing. Moore was not the first person thinking about that problem. There was actually a guy called Fremont Ryder, an American, and he did that already in 1945, 20 years before Moore.

He said library space. Doubles roughly every 16 years and that was only 20 years before Moore. So he already stated basically that the knowledge of the world is about to explode.

Who of you has still had this experience of trying to work and then you find out you need a book and you have to actually go to the library to fetch the book? Hands up. Oh, you're so young. Okay. You were actually blocked continuing to work because you had to go to a library, but this

explosion of knowledge happened even further, even earlier. The next super pivotal point in history, if you go a little bit back, is Gutenberg with his

with his press. The printing press and I think people agree that there would not be Protestantism without that, because Luther with his super nice ideas he would never have been able to reach many people without actually being able to print his ideas.

Even further back in time, 3500, there was this cuneiform in ancient Assyria. I think that is considered the first time people actually wrote stuff down. And if you look at this, at these events, once they were invented,

an explosion of growth happened. And why is that? Because it allows storytelling. It allows to explain concepts to more people quicker. And why is storytelling such a big thing?

There is a wonderful book by Noah Yuval Harari, Homo Deus, you might have heard about that. I can definitely recommend that, it's a good read. And he says Homo sapiens is great and dominates the world not because he has a soul,

not because he's self-aware, but because he is flexible and he is able to do large-scale cooperation. Flexible, I think we all know that. We try something, it doesn't work. We try it five times more, it goes better. We do it 20 times and we are quite good at this.

But the large-scale cooperation, that doesn't work if you actually have to talk to all these people. You need to write something down and you need to write it down in a way so that people understand that. Timo just talked about that screencasts were extremely helpful, yeah, so that people can get that knowledge by themselves.

But storytelling is much more than screencasts. It's about telling a story that people can understand, identify with, and then carry on in the same spirit and the same meaning without actually being supervised by somebody. One of the first ways of doing that is of course religion.

Religion is a set of rules and guidelines, how to behave, how to function in society, and every time when something like this was involved it was possible for large amounts of population to collaborate with each other.

Later, when religion was not that popular anymore, it was replaced by kind of ideological or commercial religions like capitalism, communism, and you can even see what happens if you don't have that. In pre-communist Russia

it was possible for three million noblemen to control 180 million peasants by actually preventing that they have common ideas, preventing that they exchange ideas.

So every time some technology was invented, to improve it storytelling got a big boost, and more people could be coordinated, bigger things could be reached. And this is also the explanation why the evolution of mankind has been exponential in the past 100 years.

But now something new is actually happening. I guess back in the time of Luther it was still possible to read that Bible. Some people even learn it to recite it without reading it. There was apparently time enough. And that's where we are back to Ryder and Moore,

because information explodes so that we cannot do that anymore. We cannot read anything anymore. So I found another interesting article in 1986. The information stored per person on our planet could fit on a CD-ROM. It's not a DVD, don't worry. It's only a CD.

But you can imagine there was enough information on that planet that you could have your personal CD with information only for you. In 1993 it was four CDs. That equals 15.8 exabytes of data

on this planet. In 2012 CDs, 54.5 exabytes. And this is compressed information. It's not unzipped. In 2007, I think it's 61. Imagine you have to read all of this until it multiplies again.

And in 2014, I didn't find an example with CDs, but with books, five zettabytes means 4,500 book stacks from Earth to Sun. It's the information that we store. So we are in the information age at the moment. And that means even in 1980, something evil

happens because suddenly people do not have to run to the library anymore to get these 4,500 stacks. No, they can get that from home. You have access to all that information. It is too much. Since the 80s, it's no longer about spreading the word. Now it's about there are

too many words. We cannot cope with the amount of knowledge. So the attention must shift a little bit. The attention needs to shift to how can we process the information that is available. And of course the information grows exponentially, but our brain stays exactly the same as before.

There is no growth to be seen there, at least not in my brain. And the speed to read this stuff also stays the same. So what can you do if you cannot keep up? How can you have large-scale cooperation in a situation of information overflow? And we have all seen these negative impacts of what can happen if we do not have

tools to cope with that, like the fake news topic. Like if you can just bombard people with targeted information and they believe everything they receive, you get Trump.

And then something else happened, because in our times we try to apparently collect catastrophes. Then COVID happens and now we even prevent people from talking in person to each other, where we have a big bandwidth of information exchange. We send them home

and we actually ban them so that they have to read. There is no other way anymore. So by now you should have gotten that I'm interested in communication between people and how content is actually exchanged. And I'm also very much interested in how organizations

function and how information flows there. Because the classical organization of a small company, everything is fine. Like if you're only three people, you're sitting in the same room and the icon in the middle, that's not a person, that's a coffee cup. That's my way of signaling that you are meeting at the coffee machine.

You're actually triggered to stand together and stay a little while for a few minutes, enjoy your coffee and listen to the other person. And by listening to the other person, you get a distinct feeling of what her problems are. And then you can offer some insight of your problems and you see common problems and you exchange what's necessary. It's super

efficient because emotions are involved and mirror neurons are involved. That's all stuff that you cannot have in reading. If you go a little bit bigger, the company grows, you create a second team. That means your bandwidth already goes down

within the team. Super coherent still. Everybody knows each other. And okay, we still know the others because we have worked with them a few months ago, but the information is only exchanged in a distilled way between team leaders. And if somebody

distills, something is left behind. In a distillery, it's alcohol. With information, it's equally evil because the person that distills determines what is left behind.

And that happens not even consciously, it happens subconsciously. Only the information that I deem relevant is communicated to the other team leader.

If you add more teams, at least we in Germany, in Germany, we immediately add hierarchy. We love hierarchy. If you're at a university, you even love massive hierarchy. And that means that suddenly the teams are lacking a line. The horizontal line is no longer there

because you have to report upwards to your superior. And that superior potentially is not even a technician anymore, so he's going to filter even more out. And then you have, of course, this. It can work fine if your field of work is well defined. Then you can really say

bottom left bubble, it's about exactly topic A and they have all the information and all the resources to tackle topic A. But if something for them changes and they would need some information from team C, that doesn't really work. This is typical for governmental institutions,

for bigger private sector, educational institutions. If you have NGOs, charities, a club, a congregation, then you're more likely to have something like a networked organization,

which means, again, the people know each other very well. It's part of their organization to know each other. And they want to keep that. They will not organize hierarchically. They will not hire a manager to control them. And that means everybody talks to everybody.

People-wise, they are fine, but the content is suffering because they are using email and they are sending the first version of the word file. And then they have sent that because the other person wanted it by six o'clock, but they continue writing. Of course, they forget sending the second version and so on and so on. And then you have different versions in your email.

You have the discussion threads and you are happy if at least everybody involved has received something by the end of the process. There have been some approaches to tackle that. And please, I'm not talking about technologists here who know this tool and this tool and this

tool to make it better. This is about the iceberg under the water. All the other people but us. That means more than 99% of the rest of the people out there. So if you want to coordinate that a little bit, then you point out somebody who has a crown on his

head or her head is actually very often a woman because women are much better at the emotional part, at the mirror neurons. They seem to feel which information is lacking even on remote distances. That is something you should never underestimate. And then you point out this

person and this person tries to coordinate that and it works fine until that person is overloaded and then it becomes a shitty job. It's like organizing a conference, a plon conference. You're never there. It requires a lot of discipline.

It requires the people who do it to actually follow unwritten rules. It happens in associations and alliances usually created by someone who has hierarchy and we hope to avoid some hierarchy

to be more performant. But is it really necessary to sacrifice either relations between people or the quality of content? That's the big question in the room. Or can we have both? Spoiler, no we cannot have both but we can have at least a little bit more than we have now.

So people who get in touch with people, the people people think that's what we want. It is properly understood by now that praise, acknowledgement and constructive feedback, that's number one of increased motivation and excellent performance.

I think you can only pay people up to 4,000, 5,000 euros and then money is not a motivation anymore. It might differ for your case. Perhaps you can be motivated until 10 or so. But at one point you want social contact. You want recognition to continue to work. You want

a good climate. Content reaches people. Content needs to get to the people in a proper way, in a sane way. Why is that so important? Today we decide where we live, work and even whom we

talk to based on information that we already have. For example the COVID situation. I might be an anti-vaxxer and if I know that person is vaccinated I don't want to talk to him. But also the other way around. I don't want to point fingers. People who strongly believe

in vaccinations and meet an anti-vaxxer have already decided in advance that they don't want to talk to them. So good information for the people when they want to procure it is vital often. And then also we cannot forget that people produce content

and we want that content from all people. And our teams consist of introverts and extroverts. If you get people together in the meeting, the extroverts dominate the meeting. If somebody talks a lot, talks loud, talks quickly, then the introverts usually

stay quiet, hide, hope that the meeting is over soon. But they have vital information. So by providing a platform for meaningful exchange we can actually get valuable content out from

more people other than just by means of meetings. So what we should do, this is my Pleduy slide, we want to make good communication happen by opening up more channels and by making that bandwidth bigger. I think there's a chance that we can accomplish that.

What do we have to do for that? We need to make the systems robust scalable performance. It does not help to make a nice system if it doesn't perform well. So this is for the technology part. It's still important to have a good system. A system that is tolerant on good and crazy ideas from front-end people.

Plone is actually capable of that very much. We have tried that dearly in the past years. But of course we also need to provide an easy, appealing, supporting and guiding user interface. That part guiding is very important.

Because if you just present a user interface, just a content management to people, then they have to know what to do with it. If you give them a system that hints a little bit of meaningful options what they could do in that moment, if you do divide and conquer by guiding them quickly more into the library or into the workspaces depending on the information they need,

then you allow them to turn on their brain a little later. And this hooks into that sentence, don't make me think, at least not too much. We just got wonderful feedback last week in Brussels where a software we did,

people who use that software were the best to understand the process behind it. Of course the people who used Excel were the ones who had no idea about the process. The people who used Excel thought that pointing to the fire extinguisher is a risk assessment.

So we actually can train people with software and with user interface design. A next important point is offering a toolset without imposing it on people.

You never, I'm of course about to talk about Quave, the social internet, that is not a finished product, that's a toolbox. And we never really know what people do with that toolbox. So we want to push them a little bit by offering them options,

but we're not dictating what they are going to do in the end. We have to acknowledge existing structures and we have to embrace and support change. So if somebody has an existing way of doing things, it doesn't really work if we come and say you have to do it differently. But that doesn't mean that he's not going to do it

differently two years after. And then again by reducing the amount the user needs to think. Again, that's super important. Why is that so important? Because when people come to an intranet, the intranet is not the job. They have a different job.

They only come to the intranet for content, for some information so that they can continue the other job. So they want to go in, get the information out again. And if they have to readjust and think about the intranet, then they lose, then they have a context switch and they lose every focus they have on their real software. So

I'm going to show you three examples now of real world products which show nicely

what I just mentioned as points that are important to me. One is a business park a bit north of Berlin and it consists of many many companies. And here it's actually not an intranet for one company but it's an intranet of companies.

And the idea is if you have a business park, there's some interest of keeping the business inside the business park. It would be stupid if one of these companies would order design services from somebody else if the neighbor does the same thing. So they need to get to know each other, you need to provide a platform for exchange and then you can actually support

that location. So during COVID these companies had a lot of challenges to tackle and they organized ad hoc by themselves a format called Friday Circle where they would kick off topics that are interesting for them right away like data protection, public transport, remote work,

student projects. And the threshold to participate was so low that nearly no organization was necessary. So effectively someone set a workspace up and sent an email out to everybody like I

propose a Friday Circle, do you want to join? And that was everything that was necessary and then everything happened inside. People joined, they provided background material inside Quaife while the circle was ongoing and just kept collaborating afterwards. And except for this initial announcement no further emails were exchanged. Of course as a developer of Quaife

we never learn of these incidents unless we actually find somebody to ask and that person also answers. A second example is the long night of economy. 50 companies participated. It's like an advertisement event where you can visit these companies and see what they do.

And all the organization happened exclusively in a workspace, all the preparation meetings, all the material creation and also the post-processing like creating a survey and video production was done in Quaife. And they pointed out that it was super efficient, a very simple

thing that everybody always had the latest version of the documents. And this is really nothing else than just not use email. Super super simple. And then a few years ago coming to

a blog conference I would have been embarrassed to say like oh we wrote a software where people can share files online to avoid using email. It's not technology enough. And now I learn that this is actually the biggest harm that most of the people out there are still facing. Then we

have another company from the slightly bigger industrial private sector. And they also coordinate their projects in Excel and Outlook. And when they find that Excel becomes a little bit too crowded they start doing pivotal tables

and macros in Excel but they do not go away from Excel. So they haven't understood the point. It's not about Excel not being able to handle large data masses and we know Excel can by God. It's about the people who have no idea how to handle these complex Excel tables and they make

mistakes in filling in the data. They need to track tasks, they need to plan events, they need to compile order lists and this is done in distributed fashions and then somebody is recompiling them by hand into a high level report and that's where it goes wrong. One field wrongly

entered you have an error in your cell and then digging starts. So what happens then? Because the process to combine these sheets is not guided mistakes are bound to happen all the time.

Have you ever tried cooking a meal from a different culture without even a recipe? Like decide okay today I'm going to do African. You have a picture of the meal and then you try to cook it. Good luck. And then the fact of remote locations come in and that requires an

insane discipline of all involved peoples. But if you need to make quick decisions the last thing you want to happen is to fix Excel or chase the latest version of a document from somebody. And therefore managers felt always behind the wave. They're always chasing the information

to make decisions. And what happens then the manager reaches for the telephone and calls the people and says I need that information now and I need it fixed now. Then the people of course comply on different locations, different people are doing nothing else than fixing Excel.

Everybody has a big super disruptive context which no work is being done for half a day, normal work stops effectively and this is also on top of it highly demotivating. Which reminds me on Steve's talk in the morning. The job of a referee is not to demotivate people,

it's actually to support. And in such a situation the manager is disruptive. And they said we could use the tool right away without much extra effort and we could reduce complexity of our digital structures right away and make effective collaboration possible.

They said we wanted to make connections between people systems and data more simple. And personal relations are in the center of our collaboration but we are glad to see that it's possible to improve our processes where digitalization makes absolute sense and it allows us to concentrate more on our real work again. And my third example and I'm coming to an end

is a liberal Jewish community in Amsterdam who is using Quaive. First I talked to the admin, a technical person of course and he said yeah it's good

that we are not sending more emails forth and back and information is easy to find. People find it obvious where to search and information is filtered. People only see what concerns them but can access more if they are interested. And what surprised him is how everybody adopted

the system with no little training, especially elderly people who had suddenly created their own structures and filled the system massively with content. And there I wanted to close my talk but then yesterday evening I even received a letter from the rabbi of this community

and I could not write such a letter because I'm a technical person but I like that very much. Since a few years we are blessed with the use of Quaive.

The communication amongst the members and friends of Beit HaChidush, our small Jewish community, has changed significantly. It is now so much easier to communicate with either the whole group of members and friends or with specific committees than before. Communication. Quaive is a great

improvement to correspondence by email. Not forgetting to include members of the community in messages meant for everybody. No communication only with some members of committees leaving out others. No circulation of old messages to which A, B and C have responded but D, E and F never have seen.

Synagogue service organization. Quaive is a great improvement compared to working with Excel documents. To organize our synagogue services we need schedules in order for every active person to know what she or he has to do. Sing, speak, inform another person, get somebody to open the

park with Torah scrolls, bless who and why and when etc. In the past exos schedules we're circling through the group of service performers, each amending their own schedule often not informing others what they had amended. With Quaive schedules amendments are

possible by all involved and visible right away by all. This is unbelievably helpful. Get to know each other. The possibility to publish blog posts and send them to all members and friends has had remarkable and fun results. Normally members know each other from services in

a synagogue but have a scarce idea about hobbies or interests or life histories. Because of my blog posts on Reshet all sorts of new connections are made. Archive. Quaive helps to have a real good archive for the first time since the establishment 27 years ago.

In all these years we never owned our synagogue building we have to rent. A consequence is that the paper archive has been everywhere. Bits and pieces were stored at the houses of former members of the board at non-board members schlepped from storage to storage. Considerable parts of

directly produced in the Quaive system available to anyone who has been given access. An example what this means the membership forms of many years have been stored in Quaive. All new requests for membership through a new form can also be found in Quaive.

When the members of the membership committee have a discussion whether to accept a person or not the discussion takes place on Quaive and the rabbi and the members of the board can be included in this discussion. The correspondence about such a case is very easily available and found

back at a later stage. Music. Another example is the music archive of BHC. Every synagogue community has its preferred melodies. The prayers in Jewish community are mostly the same in order to facilitate the feeling of home when Jews travel through the world or settle

in new countries. The texts don't change. They are kept mostly constant throughout the Jewish diaspora. But the melodies with which these prayers, songs, litanies, blessings are performed reflect the history and color of the local community. They reflect the sub-ethnic identities

of this Jewish community or that Ashkenazi, Sephardic, Gemini, American, Russian, Indian, Nigerian, Iraqi, Syrian, etc. Most of the synagogue music that can be heard at BHC is Ashkenazi 19th century classical German music inspired. But also American modern music traditions and Chassidic

traditions found their way into our practice. It is wonderful for our Chassaniem and Chassaniot, the singers and the female singers, to know what the musical traditions of BHC is. It is also very easy for them to add to our music archive melodies that they found

or composed or learned elsewhere. And what is most important, it is easy to communicate about it. I'm delighted for Beit HaChidush to use Quave. Tamar habenimah, Rabbi.

So what I want you to remember from this talk is we need ways to manage excessive information and find quickly what we need to be able to do our main work. Then information flows depend heavily on the type of organization that you have in place

and very often either people or content is suffering. Take a look what you have, try to avoid the suffering. And we as homo sapiens, we don't like complexity. We need to find ways to make work more simple. For us, for code, for content and for people.

Thank you. Any questions? Nobody? So you all have simple software already.

Thanks. Perfect. Thanks a lot.