 Rwy'n fwyaf am y cyfnodd, yw Chris Fford, yng Nghymru, ac ymdwylliant ymdwylliant yma, i ddod y gallu eich ddweud o'r cwestiynau ar y ddweud. Chris, rydyn ni'n gwybod. Yn gweithio, wrth gofyn, ar barod, ffyrnes, a Edinbur, rydyn ni'n gweithio. Efallai yma, rydyn ni'n gweithio i Alun, yn ymgyrch yn ymddangos i gydag yma, i gydag gweithio i gydag yma yma yma, a rydyn ni'n gweithio i gydag yma ymdwylliant, litres that this was in going on. I think I was grinning mewn on months afterwards actually. And it was even today the humblness that you have seen if you have seen for example other John or Matthew about we are really sorry we took your stuff off the internet and customized it for our use. Is it OK? It's OK gentlemen, so thanks very much. On to the questions then. There are quite a few. I'll just ask them generally and whichever one of you chooses to answer will be fine I think. Did your journey enable a set of measures, objective metrics, repeatable, reusable for the phases that you went through? Has that been a consideration? And as you went through this process, in the operation space, has it actually changed the way you've built boats? Go for it, John. Yeah, as an ops guy, KPIs are built into me. I've measured everything since the age of 20. So, when the ops director at the time, just prior to all he wanted to get on this journey, as I said before, he was really focusing on the hobbyist, extension of university people that just like doing things. So, he wanted projects in place with embedded KPIs so we could measure the journey right through this process. As Matthew said, there was a lot of in-flight projects going on at that time. We KPI'd every stage, and I've just found out of somebody why some of them KPIs were quite difficult to get through again. I'll be having that conversation later on, thank you very much. KPIs is a major part of it, absolutely is. And as it changed, yeah, it has changed the way that we resource around building the boats. We structured the manufacturing engineering element of this. It allowed us to structure it, pull the scope together. But again, there is KPIs embedded right through. Is that okay? Yeah, I'll just add to that. A big part of our business journey that we're on and operations transformation is at the heart of this. It's really starting to work through more systematically the performance measurement we need for a modern-day shipyard and how we do in a more systematic way measure the performance of the literal throughput. The business has everything from raw flat steel coming in at one end of the shipyard and a fully commissioned, self-sufficient, nuclear submarine sailing at the other end. So it's a complicated set of measures to keep all of that understood. And the operations transformation activity has been key to bringing a lot of those measures to life. And we've still got a lot of work to do in that area. But the systematic measurement of both the core process and the improvement of that process is critical to us. I suppose just to add to that there are some elements of this that are quite difficult. A lot of the 27 projects were aimed at culture and behaviour and 65 sessions brought that out. The X and Y generation, they're not coming together, they're going apart. That really came out strongly. So to get a KPI in around leadership and culture is quite difficult because throughout this journey, as I said, the X and Y generation are really, really going apart. It shocked me quite a lot. Matthew, you mentioned that in the capabilities you were measuring the average target versus the current maturity level. How did you actually measure that? So essentially we took the operations function, as I said, as 10 key departments within that function. It was a qualitative review rather than a quantitative method. It was understanding their best position to understand the performance of their department and their very open and honest conversations around that of where they believed they were against those capabilities on the scale. So we put some nominal kind of sentences around each of the scopes of work to discuss what an absolute minimum level would be. So mobile IT access, for example, we put a nominal statement on there, all team leaders have blackberries. We know today that that's not true. So, therefore, we know we're not even there, whereas an optimum state would be actually in-flight information at the point of execution. Is that what we want? Do we need to get there? And we built that up around all of the 27 capabilities to really drive that home. What found interesting, actually, was that a lot of the issues and were similar in areas, there were key areas that had differences, but actually it was a lot of similarity across them. Great. Chris. Stephen, this one's directed specifically to you for the digital approach, a componentary that was listed earlier, and the EA or the architect approach you've adopted. Do you go as far as delivering architecture descriptions for the technology components if you've got that far? Broadly, yes. We've introduced a full architectural roadmap and a full catalogue of definitions covering the process architecture, the application architecture, the information architecture and the technology. And we call that our enterprise architecture repository. And we use a series of techniques now to create an architectural definition of a project so that we can be really clear which aspect of the business infrastructure we're dealing with. So we're trying to get some consistency across the full architectural definition. And we try and use that. That's now being used as a good framework for all projects, so obviously we're discussing here predominantly a non-technical project around operations transformation. Some of our more technically enabled endeavours use those descriptions to try and keep together a cohesive kind of definition of architecture. And that's been a key part of our maturity to getting an architected approach embedded in the way we work. Pawn, would you add anything else to that? So the only thing I'd colour that with is... ..as an organisation, a lot of the technology is provided by third party suppliers, so capital is an example or CSC. And so there's a level of abstracted architectural definition. But the detail crosses an organisation on contractual boundaries so they're tied up with some of those as well. So BAE Systems operates as the design authority and the design assurer of all of our architected solutions. And we hand over those responsibilities for detailed specifications to third parties where it's most appropriate. So in the business capabilities, you had a couple of things that I wouldn't mind, a bit of explanation for me. Everyone else might have understood it. So one capability was just culture and another one was management by key stage. Can you talk a little bit more about those? Just culture is a safety leadership initiative where it's about recognition for good safety activity, but there is also a route where if it's not going so well, there is a different route. It's a HR safety linked solution, but a lot of the themes today was leadership. Just culture is really focused. It's about talk safe managers talking to people, leading by example. It was a late inclusion to the capabilities so it caused Matthew and I a couple of problems. So that's what just culture is. Management by key stage is how we build our submarines in five key stages. This was about every stage of handover. There is a handshake. This was about better definition of that handshake, better scopes of work. If you're travelling work, what does that mean? So it's like business to business trading, but getting the structure, the business structure in and around that so you're not transferring work without the budget. It's more of an ops thing. If you want me to do something for you, bring your checkbook into one of them. So that's what that was, definition of build stages. The other thing that struck me, I think from Paul in your presentation, it was more the end justifies the means, but Tegaf and everything else that we heard was all about the process and making sure you actually do go through the process and don't just leap to the solution. Say a bit more about the dichotomy of those two. Yeah, so what I meant by that was there's a very real set of challenges for these guys to deliver on. What was interesting is never at any one point were they interested in becoming experts at Tegaf or architecture. I'm not saying that people do, but at the end of the day, I can remember sitting down and doing my first Tegaf-based project and I was worried about the spec, I was worried about the process, I was worried about what I was learning and how I was developing as an individual. That was quite key to me. And so the process and the framework and how I used it was a big part of my development. And these guys were doing it and they were a bit snapping off the sides as they were ramming it through the door, if you like. It was like, it kind of doesn't matter, I've got to let that go because actually what they are doing is getting a whole bunch of people in to an office that's got a load of papers stuck around the wall, lots of charts, lots of very, very rich set of information. I don't want to overplay the stereotypes, but a lot of these people would turn up with their overalls and their hard hats on and would probably not necessarily be in the right mindset to be taken through something that said, this is what you need to be doing, this is what you need to be worrying about. When that very morning they might have been told we've got to finish this task today, we've got these problems out, this kind of issue. So big challenges. So these guys had to kind of bring them in into that environment and make sure that they were getting the engagement, they were getting the message across, they were getting the outcomes that they needed, the handshakes with these people to do the right kinds of things. So it was, they weren't worried about the fact that Togath might have got a bit sort of, it was consumed along the way, if you like. Clearly they used it to structure it so that you can go back to it afterwards and say, actually there's a line of sight, there is a process. If you really, really want to know, the doubt is if they're going to come in, we can lift the lid and show you that we haven't just made it up, it is valid. And that's important behind the scenes. So there is a dichotomy in what you say, you know, you highlight that, but the point was the outcomes are really what these guys care about. I love the pragmatism, the pragmatic. Chris. John and Matthew, I kind of asked John this question over dinner, so I think I know the answer unless it's changed a little bit. How many of you were involved in tailoring and driving this thing since 2013? I mean, I understand that there's a lot of people doing the work at head of department and welder level and that sort of thing, but in terms of tailoring and digesting and regurgitating this stuff into a way that could be digested by the company, how many of the people were there? Right, well, there's some total of this. I need to think about this was me and Matthew. This is it. So we were the ones, you heard me talk about the very late nights and the very dark winters mornings and the books that got broken, that was me throwing them at Matthew and Matthew throwing them back. It was the two of us, but again, we can do that and we didn't really want many more people in that fall because it would have got complicated. The key thing is it's the people that you're dealing with, communicating, engaging. They're the important. We're quite happy, shut the door, let us get on with it. We'll do the analysis, but the key part is the people. So the people doing it, Matthew and I, the people feeding it a lot. That leads me to my next question, which is we heard you talking about the shop floor people, the welders, the scaffolders, but also we heard Steve talking about getting a new, talking about the buy-in at the board level. How are the conversations different in the environment you're in between or are they different with the approach you're taking? I think part of being pragmatic with this is to realise that you've got to communicate appropriately depending on who you're trying to influence and how you're trying to affect an outcome. So the language of TOGAP, and particularly the translated language of TOGAP has become synonymous with how we're trying to organise the design of the company to succeed at delivering against some of our challenges. In the board room, that language has just started to sit and exist quite naturally with the rest of the normal business lexicon that we use when you're doing things like presiding over the complex business under which we operate. So at that level it's become just through practising it and we have formal governance now where we oversee at board level the results of these investments we're making through ops transformation through our other change programmes. And the language sits quite comfortably there and even when we bring on board new directors and we've seen quite a change in the leadership over the last 24 months, we get them on board that quite easily. But we then have to recognise that the guys talked about how we've communicated the vision for the future of the business and through the ops transformation how we've engaged close on 3000 people. You do have to think consciously about how that message lands with those teams and I've done a number of those personally and John and Matthew have done a lot more as well as the team. But I think it's very important that you see it from their point of view and it's got to be pragmatic, it's got to be sensible and you've got to try and empathise with everybody within the organisation if we're going to succeed at getting them engaged and brought into what we're trying to achieve. So the language does change, John. The other thing is all 3000 people I certainly represent and work with that work for all of you, they all want to get better, they want to improve, they want to fit pipes quicker, every one of them these are very, very proud shipbuilders. I still recognise a lot that I started my apprenticeship with. So everything was positive when we sat down. The 8000 suggestions, problem statements that came out of them, sessions, every one of them was digested, everyone was fed back to. So whoever said it was fed back, this is the answer to that, this is what we're going to do. We've got a lot of effort, a lot of effort to do it but you can really disengage people if they don't get this bit right so we put a lot of time and effort into that. It very quickly turns from being a language of intent to demonstrable change and delivery and I think that's the balance. We've got to communicate close to enacting a change otherwise it just becomes promises and empty promises and in our business where we've got, John talked about three decades for a programme our business runs at glacial pace so what we try and do is inject pace where transformation is needed and then deliver quickly on a broad front but in an organised way. So when you're communicating to some of the key talent we've got that do some of the most complex welds that you could conceive in a production environment and we're talking about improving the way they work it's so important to follow through on that quickly otherwise we will literally disengage so I think the language quickly turns into action and that's a key combination we've got to keep the activities closely linked to the communication to deliver value. One of the questions here was are you planning on using this architected approach for the implementations and from what you just said Stephen it certainly sounds like that's a yes. Absolutely, this is a cradle to grave process and we're wrapping it. BA Systems has a project governance method called Lifecycle Management LCM and an architected approach is completely complementary to the lifecycle of the entire programme whether a programme is 30 years designing, building, delivering seven hunter killer submarines or whether a programme is let's change the operation specifically around HR, future services or something so an architected approach is definitely in the delivery phase as well as the thinking stages. So before we go to the next question I'd like to change the conversation a little bit which is that this isn't just a story about a business organisation or about building submarines this is a story about a community. So can you say a little bit about the impact on the community that the doctors, dentists, bakers and everything else in Barrow when there's a big lay-off in this or when there's more employment coming in just give people a bit of context about that community of people. So when Steve told you before about the decline that there was a big gap in submarine building it's really really caused us problems so we had a 10 year gap in submarine orders which we went into surface craft which was quite exciting at the time believe me I was on it. We stopped taking apprentices for 10 years 10 years without an apprentice we are paying for that so badly now the influx of key skills into the town has gone so we've got a 10 year gap in labour skills and to build submarines it's a high top end the area where we live suffered we brought a lot of contract labour in but contract labour doesn't put its money in the local economy it tends to take it back where it lives so we are now we went from 14,500 people down to 2 we are now back up at 7 probably get back to about 9 the successor programme that's coming is very very demanding it's got a higher rate of efficiency it's asking for higher skills it's asking for higher levels of system stuff to support us to do that so the community is on a journey we're all on this journey we take the local community with us we need apprentices now we're back up at I think 300 apprentices coming in this year so it hits the local community very very hard so it's a major part of it and we do keep the community very very close to us because we've got to because you've seen where the shipyard is it's right in the middle of the town we call it Barrow Island it's not Treasure Island so it's there for a reason I hope I think to add on to that as a graduate who's not from that local area the complexity of the product that drives people in is changing the environment that Barrow Inferness has is bringing people from around the country wanting to stay who are setting up home there and actually changing the dynamics of the town in its own right by what we build and that influx of graduates as Steve just said I think we had a 100 graduate intake last year it's a massive organisation and a lot of opportunity for people to do that but I just think that in its own right is a positive thing to drive forward for the local community and then how does the organisation go from 2,000 people to 9,000 people and get everyone singing the same song with some challenge we have growing pains is the way that I described there isn't a magic answer to that it's about being consistent we have long range programmes that's a big benefit we have long term commitments from our customer so that enables us to create an environment where we can communicate a long term proposition so that's all good but then maintaining that day to day in the heat of battle if you like because no plan survives first engagement with the enemy then you've got to really be constantly supporting and communicating the long term plan but delivering in the near term so people can see the benefits that we can stay engaged and we can frankly attract and retain the right sort of talent and develop talent for the next generation of submarines because we're also looking at planning beyond successor we're now looking at the maritime underwater future capability so it's our intention to build a truly world class long lasting shipyard but the proposition has changed in the digital era people have different ambitions over work style work location, flexibility levels of capability the general hour skill requirement has gone up since the vanguard class of submarines and the Trafalgar class in the 80s and the 90s and as the guys have just reflected on that gives the town a different skill based challenge to meet so we're working really hard now handing glove in partnerships with academia starting out at effectively key stage two so that's year six and seven at primary and secondary so that's where we start supporting the local schools and then all the way through college we're a major user of the local colleges on the Barra Peninsula and the South Lakes and then through strategic partnerships with universities so at every stage of the education process we've got quite intended designed interventions to help again deliver an outcome around our skills program that is required for the business Chris How did you identify the existing capabilities in order to turn them and map them against different activities and project stages and identify the gaps? This is kind of that 2x2 that you guys showed I think How did you go through that process Matthew? So I think the first point was to identify what projects were in flight in the first place and that was part of all these three months kind of go look, see, understand how the business is operating what programmes are we trying to change already what areas are the gaps and we're not doing anything in once we kind of had that baseline of understanding of what exists today it was understanding ok for example the ability to understand where business with a profit and loss was one of the abilities under a modern attitude but in order to be able to do that actually you've got to have some leadership changes you've got to have the right behaviours you've got to have some manufacturing engineering capabilities to be able to understand what the cost of this thing fitting cost management was another one of the capabilities so the step really in that area was to go through and understand would this project as the scope of we understand it today help deliver this ability the question wasn't will it deliver the ability in its own right the question was will it support or enable or be part of that transition to that ability once we've kind of done the review the question then was to understand if I now put those five capabilities together and all of the areas that we're talking about will that deliver the ability then we know that we've got that first stem sorted if the answer was no we then need to understand what aspect of that ability is missing in order to develop and define the capability to fit the gap if that makes sense we did that 756 times so I kind of know the interdependencies quite well because I spent a lot of time looking at them I think the other side Paul mentioned before was the boxes and boxes and boxes of data that we went through and there was a lot one of the guys we worked with a colleague who keeps everything for years ten years with the data of every objective everything we said we were going to do every change initiative that we've ever done was all brought out and analysed over we started to group it and group it and group it down until we got to where we needed to be but it takes time you can't skip that bit I think when we were presenting it out people didn't get that they skipped past it but it was months of reading so that bit you have to have the data at hand and you have to take the time to do the analysis if you don't you're going to miss something you're going to answer a question that you're probably not really ready to answer Can I just add an interesting context to it because in a lot of ways you would want to shortcut that by understanding who else in the same industry has had similar problems but guess what there aren't very many comparable industries certainly not many that are willing to share how they do it starting from scratch if you like but starting from the heads was quite relevant and a couple of things that are really key to that was to me that sort of haven't been mentioned today but so conditioned the whole setup there are very very few of each class of submarine built so it's not a big repeatable process and there's no prototype there's no thing as a prototype submarine not like a prototype car or anything you don't have a test track you drive it round or anything so the first one that's built goes into service and that first of class is the one where you iron out all the problems basically and so that there's a lot of need to have done it from first principles which was useful for these guys to go through because they learnt from it but necessary they couldn't steal an example from an industry standard and I think that's very very relevant and just to kind of just one other part on it the lifespan part and it makes it fascinating they're about to do another first of class build in successor starts next year it's been two decades since the last first of class submarine was built roughly so the people who were there if they haven't left were only very junior pretty much so the experience of doing the same task again is just not there so having to do it from first principles is quite key you said to me Paul when we were initially having these conversations about were we willing to approach each other you said something that stunned me you said Chris do you realise that the young men and women that will man these vessels are not born yet it's a staggering time scale from my perspective from a number of the questions there's an impression maybe that you have secretly got a whole bunch of technology tooling in your back pocket that is somehow supporting it can you talk a little bit about whatever tooling you use not for building the product but for the architecture approach you've taken and what tooling you've used if any not a lot is the short answer to that we have BA systems has every single architectural repository tool do we use them effectively for our business architecture I would suggest not really where we're using architecture approach literally in the business as we've been promoting in this conference this morning it is with sheer hard work and let's say more traditional methods under which the definition and the analysis and the scoping is done and I think you saw some evidence with the pictures there of course we've got to get smarter with that and as we're going forward with an architecture approach my gang of IT teams are bringing some better capability to bear with some advice from people that want to sell us some software and we are starting to look at how we can get slicker get more effective at exploiting tooling capability to deploy capabilities like Toga but I would say today we're still quite Heath Robinson with the actual automation and the sophistication in managing the process of architecture but we'd rather put our efforts at the moment on the outcomes and the results and then we'll fine tune our architectural method and that's kind of the next frontier and I just got to answer a phone call to the salesman at some point who's trying to sell me some software and then okay so what was the aha moment that led you to map the Toga phases to project management terminology and did you I think the moment was sat with a copy a black permanent market sitting there thinking I've just been asked by the head of transformation to work out what this means and I haven't got a clue and I sat there and looked at it and at that point went I need to simplify what it's asking me here and that was literally my approach was get a pen cross something out, literally was anything more than three syllables cross it out and it started to make sense I could digest the pure context of what was being asked without the wider terminology around it now there was a danger and a worry that I'd cut that much out of it that I'd made a new sentence and actually just made it say what I wanted to say which was why it was important to get John involved and also to get Paul to refer back to what we'd done but I think it was there the moment where we crossed something out and we I could not comprehend what it was trying to ask me to do and then we crossed something out and it just said define your vision well we can do that and that was the penny drop to that moment well we can do that and if we can do that with this stage then actually we can do that with the other stages and that's the thing where we started to pick up the process I think there's I need to set a bit of context with this that please don't think we had lots of time to do this I had an ops director banging on the window of an office screaming at me what's the answer every day, every single day and when I mean screaming at me he needed the answer now because there's funding behind this there's programmes there's people, there's efficiency so when we did that that was done with an ops director with his face against a glass wall like that saying get a move on so that was quite tensioned that wasn't just free thought it was free thought with a thumb on my forehead so just to set the context that's what you call motivation something like that you mentioned earlier about in-flight stuff change things like that how do you balance you went through this problem you mentioned both of you dealing with developing the strategic intent at the same time you've got product delivery going on with in-flight or projective projects how have you dealt with that and how are you dealing with it with great difficulty to be truthful because again the same ops director was the same guy throwing in-flight projects at me so what we did was run out manufacturing engineering which is something the business has started to change through into an authority based solution we took that out we realigned it we did some things with it tactically but we then started a Torgath Torgath approach on that so we have now four or five projects coming off the main pack that are all going down a Torgath route so to align them yeah we had to do some tactical things while Matthew was away beavering in the room going through books I had to go out and do the not so nice thing which was called managing and go and sort them out which means we had to take people on a journey I had to move people around I had to change some things certainly the manufacturing engineering world so we had to take it head on to be truthful and just deal with it but it is an interference it is a primary strategic goal so you have got to be careful with it and it happened on more than one occasion where Ollie was in a room trying to do something and the ops director came in and we had to quickly take stock change direction for a couple of weeks firewall Matthew to keep doing some of the analysis while I went and sorted out plan B and then get back on track get that sorted out but come back on track but don't mix the two because it is disastrous Is the ops director now on board? The ops director has now changed to Ollie so that has made life a lot easier The last ops director was on board anyway he really supported he supported really well and he was a strong character so it is what it was needed we said in the presentations before that the leadership through your peers and either the director or the key stakeholder is absolutely vital for this if you don't have it you've got no platform so you've got to get that platform of wide change and get noddles saying it you want the ops director saying that and he did and he said it loud and clear to all 3,000 people he stood in front of 41 sessions all in two weeks and he stood up for an hour in every one of them and gave that transformation message out and the slides he used were Matthew slides that he put out before so that's the level of commitment you need but we need it How do you apply that level of kind of sense and respond and adjust to the vision I mean do you go back and assess I mean and how many times did you go through figuring out you got it wrong before you've got it right and have you got it right for how long The early stages to be truthful it took us a couple of months to get through the early stages and once we nailed it we nailed it good and hard we've kept that strategic intent we've never gone back and changed one of the abilities or one of the strategic sort of messages we haven't gone back we've changed the project aligned it back to that because fit for the future is what we've got to be and we've actually changed some of the prejudice quite a lot but we've put the effort in at the beginning to hold the strategic intention really put the effort in which was a big lesson to learn I think one of my worries around the strategic tactical headbut was around it's okay to put a tactical fix in place if we need to do that and that's what the demand from the business is, that's the right thing to do we've also got to ensure that we keep our strategic intent in place there's so much danger to be able to go oh well actually the strategy is to do a but at the moment something's happening we'll fix that problem and we'll forget the strategy that's what we didn't do we've ensured that yes we've put tactical fixes in where we've needed to which might have changed the scope of work but we've still kept that strategic intent so we're working towards that strategic intent as well as putting those tactical fixes in place is there you mentioned the HR organisation within the maritime submarine systems area is there any interest outside of your own division in adoption of this approach across BAE yes one thing BAE encourages through our operating framework is to share best practice and LFE learning from experience and the life cycle management process I mentioned earlier helps facilitate that all the way across the PLC and there's already been engagements within the operations areas into military air which is where we obviously design and develop and deliver the fast jets in the Royal Air Force and our sister businesses in those that make ships, not boats and those that service ships so there's a high level of appetite for the business to continually learn and I'm glad to say that in the past the Barrow business has sometimes been seen as a little bit behind some of those other businesses but now we're right at the forefront of practicing, promoting and sharing some of these better practices and in fact I think Paul you are with some of our colleagues in maritime services just helping them with some of the learning and adoption so we do that quite robustly across the company I have just one very simple question Paul how much was your engagement here in terms of time and investment as a reference point negligible really so you know I wouldn't want to take any of the credit away at all from what the guys think because I didn't do it so the model was a bit unusual in that actually I was working for Steve around digital strategy and innovation pieces and Ollie being a bit cheeky and someone I once knew kind of just sort of poached me every now and then in my spare time because I was around on the site in a lot of ways but even then a very small amount of number of conversations and kind of distilled guidance pieces I couldn't possibly come up with a number I think one of the key parts of it all though and I know it sounds it must not but the key part was there's a lot of context that you have to understand about the problem and the challenge so really it was about not letting that get in the way because if you didn't have some empathy for the situation and what was trying to be achieved and have any understanding of the business it wouldn't have mattered how good the architectural advice was because it wouldn't have wouldn't have taken root so that was the part and frankly that's taken nearly five years worth of investment That was the end of the written questions Ollie Yeah so I think that's been fantastic the whole morning has been fascinating for me and I can see applications for other businesses so just to wrap up given your respective positions in an organisation what's the one piece of advice you would give to your counterpart in another organisation So from my point of view I think it's determined and don't give up those are probably two overwhelming characteristics but also it's you've got to move forward with credible delivery and always be prepared to to take the challenge if you like because businesses I'm certainly in our business businesses are very good at jumping on the next problem and just dealing with things tactically it takes a bold business a brave business to try and confront things more strategically so never give up on those messages be pragmatic with your application don't become academically abstract from the real problem I mean otherwise you will literally become irrelevant so stay practical stay near-term and ultimately it's about delivering benefits and delivering value so really think about how you measure that, how you communicate it and how you can then influence and gain confidence and trust through demonstrable application of a pragmatic use of TOGAF and principles like that I think for me being a very junior member of this organisation it's about taking a risk and I was asked to look at something and review a document that I'd never heard of and digest it and come back with my interpretation of it and I think from a junior member of the team the opportunities that that's now opened up for myself being sat here today doing these presentations and taking these questions having that ability to take a risk do something new and actually interpret something into a new manner and I've definitely taken a lot from the architectural framework and as I've said any jobs constantly firing questions my way projects and the first thing that I ask myself is why am I doing this because once I can contextualise what I'm doing I can move forward with my delivery of the strategy and the implementation of it God I could be here for hours on this one the key one for me is I've said it you've got to get the beginning sorted out you've got to get wide change sorted we're on my fourth main tourgap project but there's loads of small ones underneath it and we always start with the wide change you get it nailed poor mentioned earlier before getting to write it down what does it mean, go back, check for understanding then move on there's the clarity needed when you present in this stuff back you've got to keep your eye on it because you can lose people present, we stealth this in all over the place so we present to people a lot about this is what we're doing, this is where we're going we don't mention an architected solution but we present it in the same structure so we've got people used to saying where's my change at why haven't you done my change first we've got them doing it but it takes a lot a lot of effort you've got to commit to this we committed to it, Ollie looked at us and asked us to do it and we gave him our commitment and again one thing you'll know about Ops people is if we commit to something we'll see it through so we aren't emotionally connected and yes it was emotional that's what I think I was just wondering which hat to wear in answering the question so I think it's fairly straightforward it's interesting to be asked this in front of my client but what I'm going to say actually in all seriousness and sincerity for me it's do not tell them what they want to hear I think you have to tell them exactly what they need to know however palatable that is at that point in time and that's the only way to maintain that kind of integrity with the piece that's it thank you I hope you all enjoyed that as much as I have the whole morning has been absolutely amazing so please show your appreciation to our great speakers and panel