 Wel, gadebwch i'r fywr, i ni i Matthew Heard. Brindwch yn fawr, gweithio'r fawr. Fel hynny'n rhaid, mae'n gweithio, Matthew Heard. Rwy'n gwneud y gweld i mi, yn y bwysig yn y ffraim ar y Ffraim ar y Fyra Archartekwysg. Felly, rwy'n gweithio'n ei gweld i'r fwyfyr yw'r ffwrdd yn i'w'r ffordd ac mae'r ffwngshu yn ymwyllgor. Mae'r bwysig wedi'i gweithio ar y tawgaf trafnflaethau, fel y gweld i'r ffwrdd. Felly, mae'n gweithio y sgadeau o ddweud ymlaen, a i ddweud na tarri bod nhw'n wneud ond parwau, pa'r me unprefnais i'r methodolig, nodi fenny i'r stag dedalio i'r syniad a'r gwaith i'r ddeun 195 ond mae'n grannu o'r llwyffr, ac mae'n gweithio'r llwyffr yn ddullol. Fe, rwy'n gweithio'n noedlio'r sgadeau y sgadeau yma, yma efo'r gwneud fyddion, ac mae Steve oedd y mynd gwneud yma ei wneud y Sgadeau ar y cymdeilu sy'n cîn. Mae'r gweithio yn ysgol i'r gweithio dda'r ffordd er amser y bydd yn ymwybodol. Felly, os ydych chi'n golygu'n ffordd cyfrageddau, mae'r ysgol wedi gweld llwygu'n gweithio'n gwybodol yma, oherwydd ei ffordd y bydd ymwybodol ar y cwmponent sy'n cyddiwch arnyfodol ei ffordd, mae'r pwg hwn yn ymwybodol o'r gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio, oherwydd ydych chi'n gweld y gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio'n gweithio. wherever you will. The operations function is where I started my career and where I currently work where Jon has worked for the last 27 years. There are 10 different departments in that range and form the manufacturing of parts, the construction, the testing commission, etc. There are also over 20 different disciplines, from welders to pipe fitters to sheet metal workers and everything in between. You can understand that we have 10 departments based on a very large site ac yn yr ydyngyniaeth ffordd gwahanol erioedd ynannaeth yn ein Everyone ac yn y rhan o'i cyd-dweud gyd amb�ysgol. there's a lot of interdependencies a lot of areas for things to connect and also a lot of areas for things to not to surely work well. So that gives us that context, again, of why we needed a structured approach and why an architecture framework. So as you can see on the left hand side that's the original model and on the right is our translated version and some of the words make sense things like y gallwn y cael y cyfnod yn ffwrdd. Mae'n gwybod i ni ddim yn adael, ond ac yn ddarparu, mae'n ddwy'r llwyddoedd. Felly, cyfnod y cyfnod ymlaen, mae'n ddweud y ffwrdd ffwngfynol, ymlaenau, ymlaenau i chi fod yw'n credu. Mae'n gwybod i chi'n cael ei ddweud i'r ni'n bobl o'r 15 min. Mae'r prosesau llwyddoedd o'r llei a'r ffordd o'r objectif sy'n ffordd a'r ffordd o'r llei. Ac yn mynd gael yn gweithio'r fungfa IT yn cael ei dda, mae'n cael y byddwn yn gweithio eich post-its yn pen a papur. Rachel, ddim yn fawr i'n gwybod. Dyna'r gweithio. Mae'r ddim yn cael. Felly, ystod y dyfodol, mae'r gweithio'n rhoi. Felly, mae'n gweithio, ei ddim yn gweithio'n gwahodd ar gwybod o'r un o'r ffodol, oherwydd o'r gweithio'n rhan o gweithio'r cwmplir datblygu'r ffasol, a sut mae'n ddysgu'r ffordd gweithio, a hynny'n rhan o'r gweithio arwain yn fwy ffordd, mae'n ddau'r ffordd ar y ddweud â'r gweithio yn llwythwyr ar y fforddol. Felly mae'n gweithio'n gweithio ar y ffordd. Mae'n ddau'r ffordd. Mae'n gweithio yn llwythwyr ar y ddweud a'r ddau'r ddweud. Mae'n ddau'r ddweud. Mae'n ddau'r ffordd o ddweud â'r ddweud. Felly, sy'n ffordd, y dyfodol yma i'r dyfodol ond yn gweithio i'n gweithio am yr order o'n sefydlau cynllunio'r perff segol. The thing that was involved is that this was not an overnight. It was not a what's the problem, right it on a page and jobs are good. We spent roughly five full days, about eight hours apiece, over a three month period with the functional director, all of their heads-of, the wider transformation team, myself, John, Rachel were all involved in developing this and getting that key by in an engagement at the very onset. Diolch yn dda, eich ddweud o'r ffordd a chylo'r pethau ddechrau gwahanol ar y cael amddangos y cyfnodd yma. I ddweud o'r ffordd, mae'n gwybod ddweud o'r ffordd. Yn ddweud, mae'n rhai dda i'r gael, a mae'n pethau ar y cyfnodd yn ddigon fwy o ddweud yma, ond mae'n dweud o'r llwyffa unrhyw unrhyw ymlaen o'r lluniau yma, a phobl yma, sy'n ddwych ar gyfer maen nhw'n ffordd o'r ffordd o'r ffordd. Felly, we've got future products, we've got future commitments that we're hopefully working on, and therefore we need to become fit for the future. Now, in order to define this vision and strategy from the outset, as John talked earlier, roughly 3,000 people have been involved in this process, and throughout 2013 and 2014 we undertook engagement sessions with everybody within the ops function from the welder, through to the team leader, through to the foreman and the manager to understand what are their problems, what would make their life easy, what would make their day-to-day job an easy thing to do, and built all those problem statements. I think we had 8,000 comments which rolled up into around 800 problem statements, alongside some of the business issues around increasing our throughput, doubling the workforces, the capability there, how do we transition from all IT systems to new ones? There's lots of input into that and understand that. It was very simple for ourselves to be able to address one of these problem statements. We have to have the ability to be able to do something. If today I don't have hot water and I need hot water, then the ability I need is to boil water. That means that I now need to define something that's going to give me that ability, and that was the context in which we put around that. So, let's say the objective for ourselves was to define that strategy and vision, but also get that buy-in from all levels and understand how it all fits together. I believe the IT is working again. Let's see if I break it again. So, now we know why we need to change and we've got buy-in. That's a great start. We've got a vision and strategy of what we want it to look like and how it's all going to fit together moving forward. The key question I'll go back to my boiling water is, okay, I need the ability to boil water, but what is my capability? Is that a kettle? Is it a pan? You know, there's many different options but understanding what those capabilities are in order to deliver that. Something that we've used throughout is these reference points, those things like previous objectives that we may have not delivered on, previous change frameworks, previous improvement initiatives that have been done potentially in isolation and are not alongside the other capabilities, and really to define what it is we need to do in order to deliver that vision and strategy. As you can see, we've finished with 27. I believe at the height it was 35 and at its low point was 21 as we kind of defined what the scope was and understood where the capabilities would fit in. So we've now got ourselves 27 capabilities or projects as they will then become to deliver that capability. We now need to understand how these all fit together and how we deliver them, because otherwise, we're just in a danger of trying to do everything today, which basically means we're doing nothing in the future. So stage C for ourselves is what we do in work breakdown structure and that's our terminology so that we could communicate that between ourselves as a team and also get that buy-in from people at various levels. So as you can see across the top, there all of our ability is the ability to boil water in my previous example along the top and all the capabilities down the left-hand side. What we started to understand is, okay, we've got 28 abilities we need and 27 capabilities, so we've got 756 different connections points that can fit into that and start to develop and understand where they all fit together, how they link and how they will work together to deliver something. I think for myself, one of the key things that jumps out to me is no single capability is the answer. You cannot deliver one project, one capability to fix a problem. There's a lot of interdependencies from different projects that need to deliver things. So that was really key for ourselves to start building up that scope of work and understanding how broad and how deep it was. But as John touched on earlier, it's one of the areas where we tried to get everybody through and understand what we'd done and actually that wasn't needed because all we then did is confuse them and take them through 756 different review processes that we've been through and kind of shocked people and so actually lesson learnt for ourselves is that we maybe keep the team smaller in that aspect of stuff. The buying to what we've got to do and how we're going to do it is important, but understanding all those interdependencies, I think the smaller the team, the better it has been for us to do. So we've now got ourselves why we're changing. That's key. We know what we want it to look like in the future. We know the projects and the capabilities that we need to deliver and we've started to understand the interdependencies and how they all kind of fit together and work. This stage was really around understanding what do we need to do. We've got a baseline of our performance today against varying capabilities and we've got that desired future state that we need to be at in the future. Now, before we went into the review sessions, again, part of this was around getting that buy-in from all the heads-of because they're the people who've got a change. They're the people who are going to have to drive these change programmes through their departments. It's not myself, it's not John. We're just facilitating that change for all of them so it's key to get that buy-in. So we sat down, got each of the department heads-of on their first line and sat in a room and kind of said truthfully and honestly against each of these capabilities that we've defined a base level for, put some context and some words around it and again for an optimum level. Where are you today on that scale? It was important that honesty came out because if we got this bit wrong then the scope of work and the depth of which that project has to go to would have been off but actually, as John talked about earlier, that commitment from that wider team to really buy into what we're doing and get on with it was vital. So as I say, with 10 gap analysis sessions I think they were three to four hours each. All that data there understanding where are we today and where are we in the future and I think Oliver Wignall who said to me at the time we cannot be optimum in every aspect of this. We cannot try to be an optimum in every capability. I'll get the athlete wrong, Daley Thompson. There you go, I've got it right before my time. A decathlon athlete. You do not need to win every event in a decathlon to win gold in that event. You've got to have certain things that you've got to hold standard at and certain things that you've just got to finish. Everything needs to finish but actually it's understanding what that is because otherwise, again, we're in danger of just doing too much change at once and therefore actually not working. So that thought process was involved in this stage and understanding where are we today and where do we need to be in the future. So stage E, I think my and John's home for probably six months we spent a lot of time in this stage trying to break it down into various phases to make it more manageable. I think the key objective for ourselves was to define the scope of the projects but also to gain that buy-in and understand what the priorities were. So having scoped 27 projects and things like who's the project owner, what's the budget, the resource required, what are the key milestones and objectives because as John talked earlier this had to be passed over to a programme management organisation and that information was key for them to be able to manage this going forward. So we spent a lot of time in the development stage of the scope. We then needed to get the buy-in to what we'd defined that scope of work to be. So as you can see, each one of the 27 capabilities was reviewed in 10 different sessions. Again, breaking it down through the operations function through the departments and their heads of and some of the wider teams in those areas to kind of take them through what I've almost taken you through and take them through that journey. But then to also say, right, well what are your key problems? What are the things that you need to be gold? Because as I say, myself and John could have sat in a room and we could have done this in an hour. There's your five gold, there's your bronze, there's the bottom and we're just going to finish on those. Done, move on. But we wouldn't have had the buy-in and we'd have been wrong. Because again, it's not about ourselves, it's about engaging with those people. So that was key and fundamental. I think we spent four to five hours to review sessions and they were really, to be honest, I really enjoyed them at first. Before we did the sessions I was kind of a bit nervous thinking that this is just going to be an opportunity for some people to moan and say everything's wrong and we've not done it right or this doesn't work. But actually it was a great opportunity to see people's passion and enthusiasm to get this right and do it properly. And that's now, the outputs from that have helped us to prioritise some of the work and understand some of those areas where we really need to, you know, commit and put up to a gold standard. So those sessions, we then rolled those up into the operations, kind of big six as we've got there. So those across the top and then the orange ones underneath were kind of the functional capabilities, things that we had to do across the function anyway. But actually, you know, we're close and up behind, close to the gold standard or green as we've got them in this. So it's a really important phase and we've spent a lot of time and commitment during that. So I've kind of rattled through what we did on stage, very high level and it's very difficult as John said to present all that information and data that's been involved in this. But roughly 2,500 people had an input to this from the early engagement sessions of 2013-14 through to the transformation team, the functional director and either other directors and other functions trying to understand what we've done and where they fit within this transformation piece of work. Roughly 65 workshops and review sessions between two to eight hours a piece so again, a lot of time, a lot of effort, a lot of energy and roughly about 8,000 man hours had myself and John working on this probably full time for over a year plus all of the other people involved at those various stages and to be honest I've probably underestimated that I've probably more like 12 I would have thought but a lot of time and effort that's been involved in it it's not just five PowerPoint slides that I've taken you through today and as you can see, some of the people are actually involved in those stages so you've got the engagement sessions here with the shop floor staff actually talking about what would make their life easier this tooling would be better for fitting pipes that would make welding easier wouldn't it be nice if we could have mobile IT access so that we can find things on an iPad rather than having to go through loads of paper whatever the kind of problem statement was and in top right hand corner you've got Keith Minican who's one of our heads of in the function standing up and taking accountability for this transformation project and what his vision is for his department within that organisation so the next steps we've currently worked up those scope sheets and the prioritisation and we've passed that over to the project management office and John touched on that earlier we've got the involvement from the project management office maybe slightly too late and therefore myself and John have been spending time with them getting them up to speed what do we mean by the scope we've designed a transformation strategy but actually it's passing that information on and I don't believe that we'll ever fully let go of that because we've designed it and we can help and support them and give them the direction so we're now consolidating some of these projects so actually the last conversation I had on Friday morning was that we've now consolidated these down into 19 projects we've not lost the scope of work and that's important but because we've got project leads working on multiple projects actually it's easier to manage if we reduce that and condense it and the project plans are now under development ready for ourselves to start implementing those in the near future the implementation governance is also under development, really important when are we going to review each of these projects when how are we going to measure the success how do we ensure that we're delivering it at the right time along with those interdependencies so that we don't deliver something too early or too late and therefore have a knock-on impact to the rest of the programme and I think for me this is one of the really key important things that we've got to develop and get right is that change management piece yes we've defined the scope for 27 projects yes we've gained buy-in from a wide range of stakeholders but fundamentally somewhere along the lines something's going to clash and it's how we make that decision and how we understand and change that scope to ensure that we don't lose that vision and strategy and that wide change along the way and I think if we hadn't been through this process and we jumped straight to the answer when that happened and we changed the scope we wouldn't know what we were referring back to in the first place and that's why change is so important so few final thoughts for me really these are my thoughts rather than the wider team but an architectural framework has provided structure it's standardised the approach to fixing our functional problems it's given us that opportunity to really standardise that and I know I use it on a regular basis someone asked me to do a project to a piece of work the first thing I'm asking myself is why am I doing this why are we doing that so that we can document and sort it out and I believe that ultimately this tool can be used for any organisation to structure any kind of transformational project that they need to do and it's the interpretation and the digestion of it that's been key it's not about being rigid and saying sex stage A says at point 3.1 says I've got to do that exact thing understanding what our interpretation was and that was key for us and as I've mentioned you know that process and that approach to projects is now kind of ingrained in my head I've been doing it for 13 months now it's my interpretation but actually it's really key and it's helped me and helped my career understand how I'm going to do projects and how I'm going to do stuff moving forward and I don't think it'll be something that I'll ever stop doing if that makes sense I hope that was useful and that just kind of summarises and contextualise what we actually did in each stage and hopefully I'll be able to answer any questions you've got later on. Thank you