With Harold and Ronald's words, the tone was set. "But it also immediately raised all kinds of questions from people," admits Monique Schut, former People manager and member of the management team. "And let's face it, not everyone was immediately enthusiastic. Customer-oriented! Why, isn't that what we are? And, agile, what do you mean by that?". Management knew that this ambition would not be achieved by itself. Monique: "Change was needed, and in very different areas. Starting with our own behavior as management, and our management and result orientation. But our culture of loyalty to each other and social connectedness also had a downside. As a result, we avoided the "exciting" conversations in which issues were resolved at a deeper level. In addition, our process focus was primarily on eliminating waste increasing efficiency and control. It left little time for people to think about whether our participants and employers were truly satisfied with the outcome." This is about we, but shouldn't this be a different perspective?

Adriaan: "With so much change going on at once, a traditional, centrally driven, top-down project approach was out of the question. It would give the illusion of control and above all slow down the employees in the teams. With KCS as the basis for the new way of working, we chose a change approach in which we immediately put into practice what the result had to be: becoming agile. Instead of seeing change as something separate and what you plan as a (serial) process, we saw change as an integral part of the work and each team set to work (in parallel) with short cyclical steering on what they saw as the most important and urgent for a particular quarter. That's bound to lead to chaos, you might think. Well, a little maybe, but most of all it gives teams ownership and the means to very decisively focus their energy on the (for their customers, their environment and their own) most important goals."