 Yn ymddangos yw'r ddweud yma, yw'r ddweud yma fel Mike Fulton yma ym ddweud yma yw'r ddweud yma, a ddweud yma fel Dave Hornford yma, ymdweud yma fel Conexium, Llywodraeth Bradley, ymdweud ymdweud yma, ymdweud yma, ymdweud yma, ymdweud yma, ac David Gilmore yw'r ddweud yma fel Panastra PTE. So, mae'n ddweud yma'n ddweud yma, a fyddwn i'n ffurdig, Yn ymddangos cymaint, rydyn ni'n ddweud sydd wedi bod yn dweud am bach. Rydyn ni'n ffeidio bod y cwestiynau yma ar y ddweud. Rydyn ni'n ddweud, rydyn ni'n ddweud, mae'n i ddweud i'w Mike Fulton. Felly yn fawr, byddwn ni'n gwybod y gweinfa'r gweinfa'r ddefnyddol ar hyn gyda Tony a Eric. Rydyn ni'n gweinfa'r gweinfa'r gweinfa'r gweinfa'r dweud. Rydyn ni'n gweinfa'r gweinfa'r gweinfa'r gweinfa'r ddweud. I did want to ask, because we just spent an hour on the topic of IT for IT, and the entire presentation, we actually saw two very little pictures of IT for IT on one single slide, and we didn't see anything else of what is actually the IT for IT reference architecture. So, how many of you actually know what IT for IT is in a little bit more detail? Just show hands. Okay, so about half of the audience has some familiarity with IT for IT, which is great, but it means the other half of the audience needs these next couple of slides, not that one. So, what is IT for IT? IT for IT is, it says it's an evolving open group standard, it is still evolving. It, as Tony said, it has been out there in the industry, it's getting a tremendous amount of traction, but it will continue to evolve and improve very rapidly over the next several years. So, if you are an open group member, love for you to get in there and participate, help us drive this standard forward as we continue to evolve it. IT for IT provides the capabilities that we need for managing the business of IT. As Tony mentioned, better, faster, cheaper and safer is a great way to put that. It is industry independent, just like everything that we do in the open group, and it is designed to work with the existing landscapes of IT as well as the direction that IT is going as well. So, it's important to understand both of those. This is the IT value chain, this is a key piece of IT for IT. I'm going to actually talk through three key components of IT for IT to kind of warm us up here before we get into some of the case studies. The value chain and the value streams is an incredibly important piece of what we've done with IT for IT. This business orientation using the Porter value chain model is something that's unique to this standard. It's not something that's been done with other IT management frameworks, and it's a critical part of making this resonate with various audiences with C level executives. I think we can't oversell that. The second piece here, this is only 10 minutes, I'm going to go pretty fast on this, but the second key piece, and Eric's really highlighted this a little bit, is this concept of an IT service model. This is again unique, in my opinion, to IT for IT. This idea of really following a service from its inception in a conceptual form through logical detail and then into the actual physical realization of the service when it goes into a production environment. That's something again that is very unique to IT for IT that I think is important to know and understand if you're new to the concept. Then the third key component here, beyond the business value orientation, the service orientation, is the IT for IT reference architecture. If you've not seen this picture before, it really is made up of four distinct pieces, the functional components, which are the blue boxes. The data objects, which are the black circles, relationships, which is the lines between the circles, and then that service backbone, the purple circles along the bottom. Now the important thing that's unique and different about this reference architecture versus other IT management frameworks is that this is an actual legitimate reference architecture. Most of the other management frameworks that you have for the business of IT aren't architectures. They're descriptive. This is a prescriptive architecture. It focuses in on functional components, the application orientation, as well as then the data objects and the flow of data between functional components. The focus on application and data, the focus on interoperability is again unique to IT for IT versus what we do with other IT management frameworks. So I think it can't be reiterated enough. IT for IT, as Tony was mentioning, is something that is very unique in the industry. It is different than what's come before it. It's building on top of some of the great work that's been done to create things like idle and COVID, but it is different. And so these four aspects of this are really how it's different. The business-oriented approach, the service orientation, the data application focus, and then that last one is a key and important one. The idea of this being an open standard, which is obviously part of what we do here at the open group. Now, one of the questions that we always get asked, oops, sorry about that, every time we give a presentation on IT for IT as well, how does this fit with idle? The question that comes up every single time. And so it's important to understand that the different components of IT for IT fit in different places. That IT value chain and the service model, those are really higher order, bigger picture sorts of conversations. Those are really coming in at the top of the IT discussion. When we step down a level, we get into some of the IT management frameworks that actually cover a similar scope, but at what I would consider to be a real process orientation. That's what you see in idle and COVID and ISO 20000. You tend to see more of a process orientation, a best practice orientation. The next set of stuff here really is management frameworks that are double-clicking on a specific functional component or a series of functional components. They're that next level of detail. There are things like TOGAP that you would bring in to use when you're looking at how am I going to run the enterprise architecture functional component within an IT management framework. And then once you've kind of figured out what you want to do at a detailed level from a process standpoint, then you need to get into the data and application architectures, which is where we bring IT for IT back in. And then obviously something like Arcimate can be used to visualize the entire conversation. Now, for me, when we use this at CCNC, we really look at IT for IT being used in three specific ways. And we use this very often without ever bringing up the words architecture. I think Tony mentions that architecture isn't necessarily what IT for IT is all about, although it is a fabulous reference architecture. We're having a different kind of conversation when we go in and try and talk IT for IT to start with. We use IT for IT as a great way to do a capability assessment across the IT function to be able to look at an organization and figure out where the pain points are and really try to drive the conversation with the CIO around what's in your toolbox that we need to upgrade to help alleviate some of that pain. The second area that we use it really is to kind of lay all this out and do an IT management tool rationalization. I'll show you an example where I used that here in just a couple of minutes. But try to use this effectively, keep hitting the button, sorry. Try to use this as an effective way to kind of lay out everything that you have and start to compare and contrast what works and what doesn't. It works very well for that and I'll show you an example when we've done that. And then the last that we've got on here is really this idea of introducing a service orientation into the conversation. You hear companies that talk about wanting to become service brokers with their IT organization, but they don't know how to do it. We very effectively have used IT for IT as a way to take that conversation to the next level and to help organizations to do that. The big thing here and obviously I put it in big bold letters so we would be real clear about that. For me, IT for IT provides context to the IT professional when they do their job on a day in and day out basis. It gives them an understanding of what's going on outside of their world. It helps get them outside of their silos. I firmly believe that every IT professional in the industry needs to have a basic understanding of IT for IT for this very reason. To lift them up out of the day to day and help them see the bigger picture and give them a little bit of context so that they can do their job more effectively. I'm going to show you a couple of real quick examples and I know I'm almost out of time. But this is an example that we used to kind of do that value stream assessment. Just one way to do it, you can do this any number of different ways. But it's trying to take a look at from a standpoint of how an organization was doing in some of the various areas. Just kind of quickly hit the high points and facilitate a conversation around where should we go next. And then this was an example of a tools rationalization effort that we were doing, kind of laying everything out. Taking a look at what do we have in the organization, where's the overlaps against the various functional components from IT for IT. And this also created some interesting conversations around what we had, where we had five or six tools that were playing in the same place across the organization. How are we going to drive rationalization off of that? So I want to turn this over to Dave. I think he's next. Good morning. I'm a management consultant. My job is helping organizations improve. It's interesting sitting here listening to the other presentations where they're talking about an IT organization. My clients are not the IT organization. I work for the business. We use IT for IT and one of our cases there isn't an IT organization in the company. They outsourced it. Why do they use IT for IT? So it connects you as management consultants. We start all of our stuff with standards. The work we're doing largely at the open group right now is around how you use these standards. Looking around the room, there's seven of us in the room. Why we're here is helping move forward and describe how you actually use these things. And we use IT for IT as an accelerator. My practice is aimed at transformation and changing organizations. We have a framework and a toolkit on how we describe an organization. In fact, I've got a bunch of slides in here where we're going to talk about how we describe an organization. And then brought IT for IT in. Important thing for an organization that does management consulting and uses an architected approach is I'm not changing anything because we've got IT for IT. The way we approach the problem is identical. I need to layer this in. Why? Because I'm enabling integration. Every one of our cases that we're looking at here is we were looking from the outside in. What IT capability does the business need to deliver what the business wants? Not what IT wants to provide. It's a very interesting approach. Not one of our clients is constrained by an IT organization's view of itself. In fact, many of the services that when we went through IT for IT and we mapped them out looking at value streams, looking at service to strategy to portfolio requirement to fulfill are provided in and by the business. One of the mapping exercises we did was to identify the IT functions that IT doesn't do. Absolutely critical because if you're going to succeed in as was talking about faster time to market and you're going to be deploying an application that you've got three seconds before your consumer says oh, sucks, moving on. What have you done there? Blown your value apart. It's gone because you've spent 100% of your cost to get an app out. You spent 100% of your marketing to get the consumer to try it and you died. So I've got two clients we're going to talk about. One is a public sector organization. Client's a huge consumer of IT capability. Every one of the products and services they provide to the citizens of their country are IT oriented. Whether it's products enabling, facilitating time to market for work visas, or enabling transportation in a developing country, all IT operations are outsourced. One of the things that when we were going through was like who's your IT organization? We don't have one. We went through the organizational chart. Nobody in that company is responsible for IT. It's all outsourced. Every one of their IT oriented products is also contracted. So what we identified in the chart here, and this isn't deliverable with their names taken off, are the IT functions and who mapped them. We mapped it to the different organization. Interestingly, in this org, nobody's happy with IT. The irony being is there is no one to be unhappy with. Second one is the financial services company. Clients embarking on a massive change. A major transformation. And as with most businesses, they are incredibly dependent upon IT capability. Products and services. Think about trying to do banking, insurance, any of that, without having IT capability handy. You can't do it. Now how do you transform your business? So what we're chasing here is an organization that needs to dramatically improve its time to market and its efficiency and its customer engagement. And again, where's the IT organization? They have a major platform that is developed by the business. Now this business unit has also completely outsourced all of its IT functions. They have somebody else providing their platform. They have another person providing their sustainment. Now they're bringing in people to write code for them. Everything's out. So when we look at the method I mentioned that we have, we look at capabilities and there's third-party services, processes, applications. And a capability for us is not something miracle or magical that's got a fancy definition. It's simply something you want to improve. The piece is underneath and we score everything. We score to drive out requirement and goal and what you're actually trying to get there. And we score it on a series of attributes. So when we talk about a capability, we'll ask everybody in this capability, are you chasing efficiency? Are you chasing fitness or value or output? Are you chasing the ability to improve it? Then we look at each of the processes under the hood, competency, automation and the application functionality. That's what we do as a normal course. So what we had for the first client, the public sector, we've identified 11 processes that they have to excel at to succeed. That was the competency question. That led into identifying 10, 11 capabilities that the business needs in order to succeed. So this is where we started. This is what my business needs. Now how do I map them and bring an IT for IT? I've got all these gaps. I've got my ability to move forward and I now need to identify what my IT organization has to provide. So we took IT for IT, the reference model, didn't worry about whether it was a functional component or what, I mapped it to my framework. Everybody's going to do that. Took it apart and said each of these functional blocks looks a lot like a capability, a thing to improve. We identified, I've got to count them, five that are absolutely central. IT's ability to manage demand, to do fulfillment, incident management, requirements management and financial management. Does it mean the rest of it isn't important? No. What it means is these are the ones that were required. Interestingly, not always by the IT organization, some of them came from the business. If your business writes the portal as a product, where does an incident go to when the portal is not working? It's actually a business process that is incident management. Where does it go if you can't process a claim? Not an IT issue. Claims aren't being processed. Mapping this out and pulling it out allowed us to look at which are the central capabilities the organization needed and which were the IT for IT capabilities that were needed under the hood. How does it line up? Now I've got an improvement plan. Now I've got a roadmap. I'm in a position to identify where my organization needs to improve and I've got a nice consistent language. Also using IT for IT as an end-to-end flow. Here are all the things that are required for a good IT organization to exist. Now that IT organization is virtual. Where are they? And we identified a set of holes where this organization didn't have what it needed in order to simply work. And that's where all the break points were. So we do an alignment of capabilities. Most scoring things, same scoring. Now what is it you want to improve? Are we chasing an efficiency problem? Are we chasing a fitness problem or are we chasing a manageability problem? Every one of those has a different improvement path. So the outcome? When we built this for in-house because they are a heavy consumer of contracted services that exact same capability model is now going into their RFPs so that they're in a position to identify what all of their service providers must provide. What's an roadmap to improve? Plug and play? Because we weren't talking about business IT alignment. We were talking about integration. There's no line, particularly in that public sector organization because there is no IT organization. They don't have a CIL. They have heads of business units who are delivering products and services that are very IT centric. Next step for both of them is look inside at their key service providers. Having identified what it is they need, they've asked us to help them map up so that those service providers are in a position to deliver. So thank you very much for your time. Talk to you later. Hello. Can you guys hear me? How you doing? My name is Luke Bradley. I work for our voting group and my job title is principal architect. For an organization called Technology Sharing Services. Firstly, it's my first time being up on a stage like this in terms of talking to a group of people like this. So apologies if I fomble along a wee bit, but it's probably my best not to. So it's interesting listing to everybody else in terms of the types of challenges that people are having, particularly the last speaker around how the organization they're working with doesn't have an IT organization. Interestingly enough, we've loads of IT organizations. Both of them, as a company, works as a federated model. There's 24 countries, all with their own CIO, of which I work for a group function with their own CIO. And while that CIO and CTO has a degree of control over what those countries do, they can largely do what they want. The CEO locally has accountability for profit and loss and thus, you know, has certain power. So in terms of what I'm going to talk about, I'm probably going to take a bit of a deep dive into detective correct and why Vodafone Group or why we looked at this to adapt why we tried to use it within our program, with that program still ongoing, and then why I'm personally championing maybe to use this broader framework because of some of the challenges we're coming across. So as I mentioned, it's an organization called Technology Shared Services, so it's a pretty diverse organization. It's 5,500 employees. I'm lucky to be principal architect for that organization. I don't know how that happened. But it's part of a wider shared services organization of 22,000 people. I believe it's, despite being a relatively immature and new organization of two or three years old, it's, I think, in the top three or four shared services organizations worldwide. What we specialize in, is a sort of spectrum of IT type services. A lot of it is resource augmentation and sort of extended workbench type of stuff. But we've reached a critical mass in terms of the sheer number of people that we manage for other organizations that we probably were in a unique opportunity within Vodafone to transform. And a lot of that transformation is happening in testing. We have, I think it's 1,100 full-time testers, 1,000s working for outsourced organizations. We have the largest HPE... I apologize. One of the largest HPE ALM platforms in terms of application operations, maintenance and infrastructure management service desk. I think we've over 2,500 people working in that area of business. We have 42 remedy platforms. We have countless monitoring platforms, all operating in silos, all with different perspectives in the world. Most of them are resource focused, that's it. A bit of network and security stuff and in terms of some of the stuff we're trying to do, we're trying to offer value for money for a business that spends a lot of money on IT and a lot of money on technology, particularly on outsourced providers. We're given an opportunity to bring stuff back in-house, but we're doing it quicker and more often than not we're doing it with higher quality. In terms of the specific program that I'm going to talk about, I mentioned the broad set of accountabilities. I have a responsibility for architecture accountability for testing transformation program, monitoring transformation, service desk, analytics. I'm going to say DevOps, even though I die a little every time I say this, and a few other bits and pieces that are going on. In terms of the monitoring transformation and some of the operational application operations transformation that we're going through, that gives an idea of some of the challenges that we had and we still have and that we're actually trying to fix. In reality, and it's probably a key point, is what is a service and what represents a service and what represents value is completely lost within the organisation. There is no, even beyond an architecture perspective, I could say there's no definition, but it's trying to hurt cats, to be honest. It's very, very difficult to discuss value within Vodafone when, sorry, press the button, when talking with this sort of stuff. In terms of the transformation that we're going through, we have four main areas. I've done my very best not to put people in, even though it's probably the most important bit, because it would have been a bit cliched to mention the typical tree. The service model that we're working with is probably the single most important thing. This monitoring transformation has a scope of 16 countries, has 30,000 servers, 3,500 applications, and within that estate you have pretty much every flavour from an infrastructure management perspective, Windows, Unix, blah, blah, blah. There's a couple of thousand Oracle databases in there, and then an application level, from an application platform, Java, blah, blah, blah, every single challenge you could have there. There are 85% of which is over six years old, so there's a lot of it, a large legacy estate there, and we're increasingly trying to move to more of an agile DevOps type approach. From an operations perspective, we have a challenge of managing an old legacy estate, while also bringing in a lot of things very, very fast. The service model is a critical aspect of it. From a process perspective, I mentioned we have 42 service desks. That is 42 incident management processes. So as part of this, the monitoring transformation and bringing together the application operation perspective were very much in the process of standardising that incident management process to a single framework. Change management is the same. Every market or every country uses Remedy, the change management module within Remedy in a different way. From an underlying reference data perspective, there isn't a CMDB that you could call trustworthy. For maybe an asset management within our data centre, we have something but we're really, really struggling to understand. The fact that we've got so far within some of these programmes is an achievement itself. It's pure blood, sweat and tears very often. That's it. So in terms of what are we doing, so I mentioned the scale and the challenge of our having. So this is essentially a high-level logical representation of what we're doing with monitoring. That's not displaying properly, but sure. That's fine. So given that the scale and the complexity of the environment that we're talking about, interoperability is the challenge. When we discuss with local markets, with CIOs, with the various operating countries, it's very hard for us to, given the complexity of the architecture and stuff that we're working with, it's very hard for us to discuss what we're doing and why it's valuable to them. And I'll dive into this a bit so that on the next slide we'll detect it correct and why that helps us. But this is pretty much a largely, from an architecture perspective, the deepest that we're able to go when discussing with local markets and CIOs. And essentially what we're trying to basically say here is, look, we're building a standardised layer, or all these three or four layers, at the middle where the red boxes are, it's shamelessly stolen from HP to slide. But that is essentially a set of off-the-shelf integrations that we use into multiple tiers of service delivery. Whether it's, and it's centre around the monitoring service catalog. So whether you want to do infrastructure management, log management, or you want to go into advanced application performance management use cases, we essentially, we'll work with you to whether we use our standard toolset, or whether we, or we'll do a sort of analysis on what those local markets have. And again, there's hundreds of tools in all of these areas. And depending on the level of risk, the scale of coverage, the cost of those platforms, we'll either work with them to integrate those into this wider stack or to replace them with one of our standard capabilities. I'll skip, no, let the animation go through. So this is, you can see I'm probably, when I'm talking about this, it's quite difficult to talk about it in 10 minutes. I normally have a set of slides, 30, 40, maybe 20, 30 slides, that I can spend two or three hours talking with this. Going through it very, very quickly with a CIO, or a CIO is a similar enough challenge to talk to you guys about what we're doing, particularly sometimes when you lack the context of the challenges we face. And I found that this one slide, and it's a variation of detected correct slide from IT for IT. And while not using this in the most literal sense, and following through, when we started using it a year, a year and a half ago, it was still quite level. This has probably been the single most valuable slide that I've used at various stages through our program. And it immediately allows us to demonstrate to what is hundreds, and even sometimes thousands of people within the organisation that we touch with in all these countries what exactly we're doing. And in terms of that bottom level, in terms of that our client-wise manager, the HPOM agents, blah, blah, blah, we can just swap those out into whatever technology platforms are relevant, or tool platforms are relevant to that country. But how all of our various platforms, and when I said 32, or 42 remedy platforms, I was serious, they are the considerations that we have to solve. How do you do knowledge management in that context when within a company who's won the headline stats that our office IT organisation used to give us an indication of how big we are, is that we have 80,000 SharePoint sites. So when you have 80,000 SharePoint sites, and that is apparently a positive... I don't know what I do. And that's apparently a positive apt truth. I mean, how do you discuss consolidating knowledge management into one known error sort of database? All it is sort of bits and pieces as you go through the chain, where you bring close to the loop in terms of taking that incident management movement into continuous service improvement, management defects, I mentioned the ALM platform, how that brings in the change management, but eventually how that finds itself back into production. I went through that quite quickly. I'm looking at that clock, it's cutting in very quickly. That is essentially the most valuable slide within our programme. And thank you for listening. Cheers. I hope you enjoyed the idea of projects. Over the last two and a half, three years, we've been doing some stuff with the UK regional service provider. Now, this is a provider whose plant, some of it, is over 120 years old. So it's not apps that we're dealing with particularly. This is serving a lot of individuals, and if some of the stuff falls over, people don't get to eat. So it's a very, it's a thing we have to be careful about. And overall, if you include the distribution medium, we estimate there's something like 80 million serviceable things. That is, somebody can phone up and complain, my thing has gone wrong, send a man, and it's one of 80 million things that needs to be fixed. Some of them are 150 years old and a depth of 100 feet underground. So we actually can't afford to differentiate between the types of service that we supply. And we have got every kind of IT as well. We've got business IT, we've got SCADA, we've got embedded, we have, you name it. Coming back to the point about meantime between failures, from the view of the customer, once in every 40 years, that's fine, that's the end customer. But that's actually not hellish great. It sounds good once in every 40 years. But that means we've got five and a half thousand failures every day. Something goes wrong. It could be an IT process. It could be a billing issue. It could be something. We don't differentiate between IT services, provision services or any other service. They are all things that have to be fixed. So there is a significant load and when we say help desk calls, what I mean there is the combination of help desk calls and trouble tickets. So 17,000 a day have to be sorted out. This then is the issue and it's been mentioned several times, a customer experience. The issue with customers is that they can be internal or external. And again, we actually don't give a damn. We should be treating them equally, internal or external. If you start doing stuff with projects, the big problem with projects, traditionally, you have a long spin up time. You have cumulative risk. You have delayed delivery. You have the problems of people. And then, the thing fails and you've got a great big restart cost. This is especially true, certainly in this country, with government projects. Some countries can run government projects other than we do it, shall we say. But this is very typical of what you get when you think about projects as a whole. And that's how the business feels. But in fairness, that's also how IT feels about the business, trying to get answers and responses. It works both ways. So, the culpability is across the board, if I can put it that way. Because business are providing IT with a service, the service of provisioning them with instructions of what they actually want. So, this business that we have of IT somehow being subservient is wrong. It was mentioned before that people don't like to discuss time between failures and stuff like that. But from the position of this corporation, this is absolutely critical to understanding what we mean by a service. Let me just get this forward a bit. So, if you look at the lifetime of any bit of plant, any bit of hardware, any system, any process, you have three areas, you have the infant mortality bit, dead out of box, if you will. That tends to be fairly high. Then you come to a prolonged period where stuff is okay, and then it begins to fall over. And it's the falling over. It's the end of life bit that we actually have to, where we have our problems. Useful life business as usual isn't a problem. What we then do is we look at the number of intersections by the customer, whatever that means, and we find it's absolutely related to the age of the plant. That is to say, the older the plant is, the closer it is to its end of life, the more likely we are to have a call about it. And again, this is independent of the kind of plant it is. It can be IT plant, it can be a process, it can be a valve, whatever. So we don't differentiate between these things. The only way to handle this is actually to get away from bulk renewal projects. Big chunks of things that have lasted the last eight years. Now, if you have some plant that's buried 100 feet underground and it's a kilometre long, then obviously it's a big project. However, it's the smallest sensible building block size. And that really is the critical thing is you have to analyse your services to the smallest sensible building block size. Therefore, there is no rule. It has to be done by people, live. So this is the challenge, basically. What we have to do is we've got to move agile to the left. Pretty much. Strategy has to be delivered in an agile way. That's not something that corporations are used to. It's not something they enjoy and it's very uncomfortable. Therefore, it's good. So what we'd like to do is... I suppose this is a bit like agile sprints if you're in that world. The process cycle is by what we call now accelerated delivery. We don't call it agile because that's a real turn off that word nowadays. We call it accelerated delivery. It was mentioned before, I think, by Dave. Exactly the same thing. There is nothing new. And you put guys like you all in a room to think over the same problem, you'll come up with similar stuff. It's inevitable. So this is what we're trying to do. We're trying to have multi-disciplinary teams of experts that we can get together, who can sit down in a short period of time and fix the problems. And these delivery streams, which is what they are, we found out recently, map exactly onto the IT for IT framework, which is good news for us because it means that we've now got something to hook stuff into, standards-wise, that people will understand worldwide as it happens. So we're looking for assets, customers, money. It's all about money. I'm in doubt, follow the money. And then we hit this bottom thing, which is business value. And it has been mentioned, business value, its beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Who knows what business value is? Nobody, especially accountants. Now, this is the way it works. From our point of view, basically a service is the intersection of a capability and a customer. And the customer can be inside or outside. It really doesn't matter. In fact, externality is merely interesting if you're serious about doing this stuff at all levels. So what we're trying to do is we're trying to get the business directors to understand that we want to do short cycle works. We want to deliver bits at a time, the smallest unit of service that can be handled. If it's a big, major project, a huge replacement, that is still the minimum sensible thing to do. Now, there's various ways of doing it. We can drop stuff through the pipe. On a continuous basis, or indeed we can have a more continuous process, which is in here, you get these slides afterwards, so it doesn't matter. So here we identify the capability. We then decompose that cross-functionally. We prioritise it using capability champions and then we put it in the hopper, waiting for it to go. The product owner prioritises the hopper cards and the team does what has to be done. That's just to juxtapose projects to work streams. The whole point is that a project basically says here's some money, spend it evenly over the period, whereas the work stream said, here's some money, how quickly can I see the value from it? It's a slightly different way of looking at things. Accountants don't like it, therefore it's good. So it might feel uncomfortable and maybe not. Continuous delivery, continuously evolving, incrementally and constantly. Service catalogue, IT for IT is for the IT service catalogue. It's no different from any other service catalogue from any other part of the business. We extend and use the principles of IT for IT right through. The fact is IT is purely incidental and therefore we can understand why it relates to IT for IT. As a result, this is how we feel and this is how our management feels. So, there we go. Thank you very much, all of you. If you could please take a seat while we get some questions from the audience. Hand is in the snow and pigs in muck. Nice, perfect management description. Okay, so we do have a few questions coming from the audience. Start off with what does IT for IT mean for the IT-SMF community, do you think? I have no idea. I'm guessing IT-SMF is IT service management. Yes, I can take this one if you don't. So, I think IT for IT is really going to be the next generation of IT management frameworks for the IT-SMF community. I think it's going to build on top of and work with what Idle has done so well for that community. I think it's going to really elevate and take the practice of that entire community to the next level To me, it's a perfect fit with the goals and objectives of IT-SMF. It covers the same scope, the same space that they're after. I don't think you could ask for better alignment between the two. We'll move swiftly on from that one. We've heard how IT for IT can be used to transform IT management. What's your experience on how this affects sourcing your vendors to deliver on and support the new IT management approach? I can answer that. Sorry, I went through that the slides are on quite quickly. Probably somewhat a little context, so I appreciate that it's just somewhat struggled to follow. The platforms that we have are, the largest platforms are certainly in the top three worldwide, in stuff from HP, from BMC, and blah, blah, blah. The challenges that we bring to them and the scalability challenges and the interoperability challenges that we bring to them are far greater than the encounter in the vast majority of their customers. The slide that I showed is a very good way of communicating our vision, or is a very effective way of communicating our vision of how all of these products work together to them. That, in itself, you would think that the HPEs and BMCs of the world would understand and immediately understand how they fit into a wider ecosystem, but they really struggled to map into the complexity of Vodafone on the ground. The program that we're doing, we opted to deliver it ourselves because HP struggled to take it from a high level consultancy perspective down to the reality on the ground and the same with Accenture. So we're starting to work with them. That's part of the reason why I'm here is we're working quite closely with HP to figure out how we can leverage IT for IT internally within our organization, but within their product teams. We're doing a bit of work with them on the product propel at the moment as a possible solution to integrate our many remedy platforms and all of the adapters that they have within service exchange for propel are built to the IT for IT framework in terms of interoperability. So it's little things like that. It's not necessarily major jumps. We really want to build in requirements to RFPs and stuff like that, but just in terms of starting a discussion around basic improvements has proved very, very useful. Yeah, I sit on the IT for IT steering committee and this topic is an important one that we've talked several times on the steering committee. And if I had one of those road map disclaimer slides that people give, I'd put that up there right now because this is a future forward-looking statement and no promises as to when it will be delivered. But within the IT for IT forum, what we're working on right now is trying to take the standard to the next level of detail to be able to drive interoperability between vendors to be able to kind of lay out what are the APIs that we need to have between functional components to enable tools to work together more effectively and efficiently. So as this standard continues to evolve, and as I mentioned in the very first slide that I presented, this is an evolving standard. But as this standard continues to evolve, we will see more and more detail available that will help drive the vendor community to be able to work together more effectively and drive interoperability across the tools. I think that's an important aspect of where we're heading with IT for IT. The other aspect of it, we're using it immediately to line up to what vendors must provide. IT for IT provides a business reference model for an IT organisation or an IT service provider. If you need different functional components or different elements of the value stream, you can identify what you need and also your interaction points, whether you are having an interaction in strategy or in fulfillment or in detective, correct. Now you're in a position having identified what full service or end-to-end organisation needs to provide. What are your touchpoints? Different organisations will have touchpoints at different points. I may not care about my service provider strategy. I may only care about my service provider's incident response because that's my interaction. I may not care at all about their incident response and I may care completely about how they manage their portfolio because that's the services and where I'm engaging with them. We use it right now. For the public sector client, the mapping of what are the services that are absolutely critical is what they're using in their ability to assess their service providers. For the financial services organisation, it's about to embark on a half billion dollar transformation project. We're building exactly the same map for all of the service providers. We are starting to see some companies start to incorporate IT for IT directly into RFPs using that same context that Dave was talking about. That was a somewhat related question that we had in which is how can IT for IT help me as my organisation increasingly moves to a cloud, software as a service type organisation and should I be requiring my vendors to use it? I don't know if you should require or necessarily require your vendors to use it, but if it's how you think about your cloud services, so if you're acquiring cloud services, where are you on the journey and what services are you assembling? Are you buying cloud services that are being assembled or are you doing self-assembly? If you're doing self-assembly, you don't want to care deeply and want to engage in their roadmap and portfolio plan. If it's being assembled for you, you're probably more concerned about how they fulfil. It's painfully obvious. It's why my practice rapidly adopted it. It's like here's a complete description of what you need in the business of operating an IT organisation or a service provider. It was shamelessly stolen IT for IT and used it for other service provisioning that have nothing to do with IT. Take all of the IT references off and you've got I need a section on my strategy, I need a section on my portfolio. Yup, exactly that. It's just a good generalised framework just the same way that enterprise architecture came out of IT and crawled out of the mud and went into the business. IT for IT does something similar as far as I'm concerned. It's just a jolly good thing. Jolly good thing, excellent. Presumably when architecture was in the mud, it was meeting the management, rolling around in the mud. Very much. Okay. This question was specifically aimed at least to start with, ultimately at Luke. Has the use of IT for IT and detector correct improved value inside Vodafone? If so, what value and how do you measure it? Yup. So when I touched on the service model or what we call the global business service catalogue internally, the multiple organisations is probably quite relevant. So each of the local countries have accountability for the business processes within that organisation. The local IT organisation tend to have ownership for application operations and then there's a central infrastructure operations organisation. And what each of those layers describe as a service and how to measure service are all very different and what value to each of those is all very different. So in terms of our global business service catalogue that we've done has basically integrated those tiers across those organisations vertically but also we're standardising each of those countries onto a single definition of a service. You know, if you're in Ireland or whether you're in the UK or Spain or India, you're going into a Vodafone shop to buy an iPhone or you're going onto the website to do a change your package plan or change your address or blah, blah, blah. But each of the countries described them as something different and then the central infrastructure organisations just taught servers where the world ignored why they were there. So going back to the question we track availability and performance and just report on that very basic KPI at a business process level. So we're only three or four months live into the programme. For the first country we've 20 out of 150 of the business processes live. So it's a bit of a it's trending in the right direction but we're tuning and refining the data up and down where the real solid numbers are and the value are is within the operations functions themselves. So within the application operations level the actual number of instances largely stayed the same despite the number of monitors and what we're looking at increasing dramatically. The overall number of events at that despite the number of incidents that we need to handle being largely the same, the number of events that our global monitoring organisation that we're also setting up are actually handling for the first local market is down around 30% so it's down from about 80,000 a month down to 60,000. But it's on the first time fixed within that organisation where the real benefits are. So up to this point that organisation maybe we're able to fix around I think it was 12, 13% of incidents within the first level function so I think that's up to 48% now in just four months and then the infrastructure organisation the number of events are down from I think it's 4.8 million down to 1.4 million events to handle in four months after that number remaining pretty solid for the last five or six years. The number of incidents is down but I can't think of the figure off the top of my head but the real solid number again is the first time fixed so it's gone from 0% to 47% again in that period of time. So within a shared services organisation the business touch up the various different value levels are senior execs who measure the success of shared services obviously it's largely a financial discussion so our employee pyramid in terms of skill levels etc is actually up to this point it was quite top heavy it's starting to actually flatten out at the bottom of it. We have a lot of graduates doing a lot of work to prove to the high skilled people often unsure what to have to do so yes absolutely. Thanks Luke. So just time for one last question and if you can the question is if you can pick one thing about IT for IT that you have seen resonate with your customers what would it be? The fact that we had to define what we meant by a service One thing that it would resonate it's the value chain a piece that resonated most strongly with the conversations we had is what the definition of value is if you look at the value chain it says the thing of beauty on the right hand side it says what the value of IT is everything drives to its two words agility and efficiency everything else's noise He's still mine so I jokely say we used to we have everything we've enterprise license agreements every tool vendor in the world literally everything you could possibly imagine but there's no value being extracted from them there's been countless attempts to try to get value and standardise and simplify and centralise they've all failed because it's a very complex organisation I said that one slide has allowed me to I'm going to say very simply sell within the organisation very very effectively and it's got us to a point significantly ahead of where any of our attempts was gotten I would build on it the value chain for me I've talked with over the last 18 months probably 100 plus people from people that have just started in IT to very experienced CIOs and that IT value chain resonates with every single one of them with sole exception of one out of all those people one person didn't get that and when you run in that kind of a percentage over 99% there's something there that's working it's really pretty powerful great thank you gentlemen we're out of time we're going to go to the break but before we do please round of applause for Mike Foulton, Luke Bradley