 We have a few questions coming. I'm sure that there will be more. Suresh took a couple earlier. Let's see, pick one at random here. Thank you. Do we have any approved tool in the current situation which collaborates in the system of engagement system of records area? Yn y ddod, dydyn nhw'n rhan o'r Ffender Certificatio'r Programme yw rhan o'r cyfrion. Felly mae'n rhan o'r ddod o'r cyfrion sydd yn cyfrion i IT mae'n IT. Yn ymgylch o'r Gweithio'r Ffender Cymraeg, ychydig i'r IP yw IT yma, ac mae yna'r stag o gwahanol mewn gwahanol, sy'n ei ddweud a'r pryd yn hynny'n ei ddweud? First let's take the concept of iterative application, right? You can't eat an elephant in one bite. You've got to eat it one step at a time, right? So if you're going to be making this transition, I think what really is a benefit of IT for IT and in fact it is stated so, is that you can do parts, right? And the part that is going to give you most value is the one that you should do first, right? So it's just like any agile model, right? You don't want to start with the roof, you want to start with the foundation. So I think that the best way to go about it is to look at the value streams because the concept of Potter when you say that there are multiple value streams, what is the concept? The concept is that each value stream is going to add some value and pass it on to the next value stream. So as the value keeps adding, the end value becomes much larger, right? So one way in which you can decide where you want to start is to look at the value streams, right? Where do I want to get my value from? So for instance, in some of the customer sites, we found that, you know, for instance, what are you doing about request to fulfill, right? I'll be talking a little later about CIO organisation versus a service provider organisation. There are some things which are under control, some things which are not under control. So the question also matters is whether you're asking it from a CIO organisation viewpoint or from a service provider organisation, right? In any of these cases, I think that if you're really looking at where your real pain areas are and which stream you really want to address that core problem, you can do that one step at a time. You can do it iteratively. You can take some components and say, look, I'm not, for instance, my service blueprint, right? Many of you are from, you know, service provider organisations. You go and take a hostile takeover of some application, right? An application service. Do you really get all the information? Right? Rarely, right? So when you then look at what is going to be your, and what is the job that you're really doing is R2F and because your service request and your incident and stuff which is in the detect to correct. So now the question is who is going to give you that document that IT for IT is talking about? It's called a service blueprint, right? So you've got to look at what you have, what you don't have, what's going to give you value and because it's organised by value stream, I think it's a pretty straightforward decision. In any organisations we start, one of the things we need to be aware is there is already something existing in place, right? In terms of process, in terms of tools, in terms of compliance. So first, leverage the best of what is already existing. You know, you save a lot of time. We call it as value harvesting. You know, the moment you understand that there is a wealth of information that already exists in your organisation, let's leverage the best out of it, right? And then use and see how it fits into pieces. So many times we always think we get fascinated about new frameworks, methodology and standards and we undermine ourselves in terms of what rich repository we belong. So I would say that please do due diligence to the existing way things are working and try to fine tune before even go and adopt something new. That's my first point of approach. Of course, what Sugumar said was the thing but just another perspective as well. Great. Thank you. Next question. How does IT for IT impact the EA discipline? Does this require a learning curve for architects or the ability to adopt and adapt to change? So I would say that IT for IT is the enterprise architecture for running IT. So if you look at the Togaff definition, Togaff says that you need an enterprise architecture for every business. So you have business, you have an enterprise architecture for a telecom business, for a healthcare business. Similarly you need an enterprise architecture for IT and IT for IT is the enterprise architecture for IT. That's the way I would answer it. How many of you have done Togaff? Many of you have, right? So what's a reference architecture? How many reference... In Togaff passing exams they say reference architecture arts, right? That is for... What is for telecom? So how do you use that when you use enterprise architecture? Is there a difference between E-Tom and enterprise architecture? What is the connection, right? So the way I see it is that the enterprise architecture and the ADM gives us a methodology, right? Which gives us certain standard approaches, certain set of documents, certain policies, methodologies that you need to follow, right? It doesn't tell you what to do. So you use E-Tom for this thing, you use IT for IT for IT service management enterprise. That's simplest. Okay, thank you. How do you see IT for IT fitting to the agile model of execution? So I think working with some of the organizations across different continents, one of the things is everybody asked the first thing is, okay, we have now moved away from the waterfall to agile, you know? How does IT for IT things? I think Steve mentioned about a white paper coming across, but then if you look at really understanding, in terms of agility, in terms of how you run your sprints, how you actually look at your sprint backlog, your product backlog to the time that you have that iterative improvements, right? The minimum viable product that we're talking about. It all boils down to actually talking about value, right? So if you look at the underlying principle of agile is to come up with iterative minimum viable product that gives them a kind of it. And the aspect of use case is again relevant here in terms of IT for IT value stream. So there's a strong cohesive energy between what we're talking about as kind of user stories as part of use case here in IT for IT. And also from the point that you're saying is you have to deliver value as part of your existing sprint, that again gets applied in the context that what value chain are you going to focus currently? S to P, R to F, whatever. And see what will be the outcome for that particular value stream in what duration and stuff. So it's kind of already blended nicely into that kind of model. When we talk agile, I think it's just multiple waterfalls. You just do them close together. So the model is agile or it is the same. The idea is to deliver value, which you can see because you're talking a lot about flexibility and speed to market. So what they're talking about also is that the way you're going to be building products is going to change. Today what happens is that you have a business strategy that then throws some requirement over the wall and then IT creates a strategy document. And then you take the money and you spend the million dollars and then you go and give you 80, which nobody accepts. So whereas when you're talking about the methodology they're talking about here is prototyping, incubation. It is much more than just agile. Agile is building the whole product. Maybe you won't need the whole thing. Maybe what is it that you're trying to do? So this kind of long drawn out like what Ash was saying earlier. Lakshmi is saying I'll give you two rollouts. No, no, no point. My customer is gone because somebody else comes to the app and takes him away. So we need to get something out there as quickly as possible because there's a big threat to CIO organisations. The threat is the business is not going to come to you. Business will go to somebody else directly get this because they want to run their business. So that is why agile is very important. Basically it means multiple waterfalls in short spans. So cost of poor quality, you find the error closer to the source cheaper. So you do agile, you do multiple releases. If you don't like it, throw it, get the next release, which is where I think it works. There was another additional question. The qualification at that point. So in the reference architecture 2.0, where do we see the agile is something which is fitting inside? Because we have something like project management component inside. But it does not really prescribe how do we achieve the agility inside the framework? If you see that, when you say agile, are we losing ourselves in some lingua franca kind of a story? Or are we saying that agile doesn't require builds, agile doesn't require quality check, agile doesn't require testing, are we saying that? No. Then everything is there. It's only that your major project, if it's a two-year project, it's not agile. If it's a two-week delivery, it becomes it. So it is like inherently all the entire framework, how it is integrated to each other is something which is achieving the agility, isn't it? Precisely. Because what's happening is that in this case, for instance, your strategy to portfolio is going to determine what is going to see because you have to look at the capability increment story of open group, right? You're not building a solution. You're building an organizational capability. So with every release, if you're releasing a new capability, then you're agile. Right. Thank you. Question initially for Laxmi. How do you define small, medium and large IT organisations? I would say that if I say a large, that's it. A large IT organisation, it would have a budget of upwards of $1 billion. So an organisation like Shell, which is a budget of IT budget of $5 billion. So, yeah. So large IT organisations, I would define as upwards of $1 billion, but that's my assessment. Any other comments from Will? Yeah. I would also look at different diamonds and obviously the dollar value makes a difference, but also in terms of your geographical spread and terms of the volume of people. It could be IBM, it could be HP or whatever, right? So the geographical presence and the kind of widespread that we do could also be a way of looking at large enterprises. So, thank you. Question around ITIL. There's concern in the ITIL community on the introduction of IT for IT. How are we integrating with ITIL subscribers? Are there any case studies where ITIL and IT for IT work together at this stage? So I can probably attend because I've been closely watching what's happening around the ITIL. If anybody knows that there is an ITIL practitioner that is launched and that's coming up on 25th February, which is a live webcast, I'm also speaking on that. Now, if you look at it, there is already a post. If you are in Facebook, join back to ITSM group where Charles has already posted a clear differential of how IT for IT and ITIL can be complementing each other. So I would strongly recommend you to go through that. If you could just connect with me, I can do. But if you look at primarily ITIL, as Lakshmi really pointed out, it's a process-centric approach, right? We are talking about all of those 25, 26 processes in silos. And of course, it's talking about a service life cycle more from an abstract terminology. There is no definition of a prescriptive guidance. We have lacked heavily on ITIL because it did not have any prescriptive guidance. But if you look at IT for IT, the level of prescriptiveness from the models that you've talked about makes it more tangible. So I think you should look at ITIL being as complementing but not... IT for IT has got a broader umbrella of what it does over and above what ITIL operates. So actually rightly said about enterprise architecture and other stuff. So ITIL is just one piece of process stream. But there is another stream that we all talk about in delivering value. But I would strongly encourage that there's a lot of work to be done in order to come up. So let's not try to mimic IT for IT and then get ITIL go there. So it's not just adding value. I think there is a huge difference between a reference architecture and a library. I don't think we should compare the two first of all. But the market being what it is, ITIL has been sold as a standard. Which you become compliant to, which I never believed. But having said that, it's not the time against ITIL. But if you look at what actually the IT for IT is doing, is that what they are saying is that each of those components that you saw, those blue boxes, they are saying that is the minimum piece of technology that you need. It is basically something like each of those components. For instance, when they say incident management component, they are talking about what is going to be the incident ticket data. Now what ITIL is teaching you is the stuff which is connected to that. In fact, I will be showing you some stuff in the afternoon about that. Because there is a data component, which for instance is your remedy tool or whatever. Remedy is not incident management. But remedy has an incident ticket or CA or whatever product. So when we are talking about a component, a data object or a technology component, we are talking about the ticket data and how it is going to be moved or whatever. The process which is going to operate that function, IT for IT is kept out of scope. But they have given you scenarios, they have given you guidance on what could be those processes and how those could be evaluated. So for instance, if you take ideas from IT for ITIL or from COVID or from any of these models, you still need the data model, which is why the reference architecture stands. It doesn't matter what standard you are doing, what approach you are doing. Also, whether IBM is following some incident management process, somebody else is following something else, what is the commonality? It is a data component. So that is what IT is talking about. And I think all this talk about comparing ITIL and COVID and all that, it's not a comparison, they co-inhabit is what my opinion is. I agree. Anything to add? No. I would add that certainly the ITSMF community that I've experienced so far since we introduced IT for IT has been not so much threatened or concerned but rubbing their hands thinking, great, this is something else and they are a big part of that community. So I think there may be some concern, but I think there is also great excitement too. Next question. For an organisation which uses third party tools for IT, what should an approach be for implementing IT for IT? Any suggestions? So I think if they are already using third party tools, unless the tools don't get vendor certified, they won't be able to implement IT for IT completely. But for new services that they are developing, like I said, they can take an approach wherein they can put a requirement in their RFP saying that the tools that you come in with should be IT for IT certified. So it will be more of a step approach for organisations which are already using third party tools because unless the tools don't get certified, it will be difficult. So they can start off for new services that they put there in the RFP, that okay, for me, this is one of my requirements to be able to qualify you. So that way they'll be moving slowly, they'll take a step approach to move towards IT for IT. Any other options? To that point, one of the things we heard at the last open group conference in San Francisco was represented from Microsoft saying that he couldn't even begin to explain the number of calls since it was launched from their account teams with customers asking for IT for IT to be used in their service provision. So I think as word gets out to customers, it will become part of, as you say, RFPs and if the customers ask for it, then the providers will have to. Next question. How do support functions like HR and Finance fit into the reference architecture? So I think as far as finance goes, it plays a very important role because finance is basically about, as I mentioned, it is about the investments that IT should make, determining the total cost of ownership of a service and determining what is the price point for IT to provide any services to business. So I would say that finance plays a very crucial part to ensure that IT runs like a business because unless the CIO is able to determine the total cost of ownership of a service, he won't be able to price it and he or she won't be able to say that, okay, this is the value, this is the money that I'm spending and this is the value that I'm returning in return. So finance from that perspective becomes very important and HR... So I'll just add on what you're saying. So if you look at the entire IT for IT reference architecture, we did talk about value streams but you also missed the supporting services. So if you look at supporting services, there is governance, there is actually financial services there is also something called as resource and project management. So if you look at it, these are supporting services are integral for any projects and business that you do it. I mean you cannot be a certain, for example HR, you're talking about resourcing of people, talent to actually deliver some products or services, right? What if you don't get people on time? The resource is not being deployed on time. They don't have capability in terms of skill development. You cannot deliver a product or service which is delivering value. So you look at this and I just touched upon in my case today as well that HR, finance, these are horizontal functions, right? They cut across entire value chain and if something gets stopped, the entire value chain gets broken. So you just not just look at very IT centric and that's the part of our bigger problem. We always focus towards the IT value chain but then it's the enterprise value chain that we need to think about. Am I getting the right talent, the right staff deployed at the right place to deliver value, right? Beat an agile project. Many times we have problems that people say that you know I cannot pull this guy from another project because he already built. But if you are an agile organisation, how do you get a kind of a talent pool that is actually able to fit in on demand, on business? So I think you should have to look at from that aspect that these functions, horizontal functions which are critical supporting services to enable that value chain and deliver business value. So Surish, thanks for the clarification here. Just wanted to add, I see the value chain is kind of mentioning all the supporting functions but when we talk about a reference architecture or a value stream, it does not really talk about any support functions like finance or HR or any other supporting functions that we have seen in the value chain system. So do we have? I'll just add one and give it to Lakshmi. So one of the things she was telling also is there's not much of work done in terms of supporting services. Accenture is starting to develop from an IT financial service model, service-based costing and other stuff. So we have just launched and it has evolved. One of the things that we need to contribute back, of course we are consuming a lot from the open group is to also come up with that kind of suggestions because you have practically facing that kind of brunt. And give those perspectives as an open group member and contribute to that kind of discussion. Because as a team, one of the things that I love about IT for IT is just because it's a collective mind share. It's not talking about ownership of HPs or IBMs or axingers of the world. It is a collective mind share where people have come in for a common purpose to achieve things. So I think you should start contributing to that piece just to add your discussion. We are not still fully developed at that level of supporting services. Given the fact that the pace of change is rapid these days, more so now than ever, both on the business side and the IT side, how can one ensure that the two parties still sync up and generate value together? How can you ensure that the two parties, business and IT, sync up and generate value together with everything moving so fast? Are we talking more about this later? But I don't think there's any more choice in this matter. Because I think if you... I'll show you some statistics. Already some 35-38% of budgetary control has moved out of IT. So what are you talking about aligning to your business? If you don't align, you're gone. They're going to take somebody from outside. We're all running repair shops. So what we're really talking about is if you want to be participant in the strategy, tell me when was the last time you improved your customer's business? If you're in telecom, for instance, have you reduced the number of bad bills? It comes and goes. So if the question here is what is the value you're going to deliver? So what if you don't do that? That's what we're talking about in the IT variety. You'll see a lot of this mention saying broker. It's no longer a husband and wife. I don't think so. I'm very sorry. I think a broker, consumer and seller relationship is different from a husband and wife. Stand as a middleman and blow a whistle on both sides. That is the role that's going to happen. You look at it yourself from a CIO organisation. We'll discuss this more, but this is what I feel is going to happen. I would just like to add that if you see more and more businesses are using digital platforms, right? They're moving to digital platforms. So business strategy and IT strategy over a period of time is going to converge. They know what's going to be separate things because the business models are based upon digital platforms or on digital ecosystems. So business and IT strategy will be one. There's no choice. The CIO otherwise will disappear. Thank you. Next one. Do you see IT for IT as a top-down or a bottom-up approach? It depends upon the organisation. So I talked about both the approaches. If we talk about Shell, which is a very large organisation which bought into IT for IT, it sees the value that IT for IT provides. They've used a top-down approach. A smaller organisation who wants to test waters before they implement IT for IT, they could do a sort of a bottom-up. So the approach that I mentioned that for new services, they could ensure that IT for IT is ingrained as a part of that and then move bottom-up. So it would depend upon the kind of organisation and their buy-in into IT for IT. I just wanted to just add because what's happening is, you know, the thing that works in most of the organisation is only bottom-up. The reason behind is not many companies like Shell have the understanding of what's happening around in the open group and value. So it's easier for us to start with something and show some quick wins, you know, as part of Detect2Correct, where you're already doing kind of operations, see the kind of value that you bring in terms of, you know, what he said, in terms of billing rate, you know, the false billing and other stuff getting down and saying people are more happier and kind of stuff. And then say, can we move up the value stream from Detect2Correct to move on to request a fulfil and then move on, right? So that means people have seen something happening concrete on the ground in reality perspective that can take them the kind of momentum to build across to wider adoption of IT for IT moving up. That's my way of looking at it. Okay. All right. Thank you. Let's see. It's somewhat related, I guess. How does IT for IT fit with the CXO board in a company? Where does it fit? There's a picture drawn on the question, actually, of CEO, CIO, CTO, thank you, CFO, COO and CMO with IT for IT in the middle. Is that how you see it? That's right. I don't know who did ask the question, but is that where it fits? How is IT for IT aligned with the CXO board in the company? Okay. I think it starts with a strategy to portfolio, right? Because you take a business strategy, today everybody is frightened, right? Business people, because somebody with a credit card and a bright idea can go and buy, you know, free, I mean, go and start with a small amount of money and then if the app runs and then suddenly you're out of business, right? So when you're looking at it, I think the CXOs have to now become IT savvy, right? I used to talk 10 years ago that, you know, business talks, Hindi, you know, software talk, developers talk, Telugu, and support talks, Tamil, nobody talks to each other and all that, right? But it's all gone now, right? Today my grandfather also swipes. In those days when I put machine in front of my CXO, he just kept it there to show his, somebody visiting him that he's got a computer on his table. He didn't even do his own email, right? He'll still call the stenographer and dictate it. Whereas today everybody, right, is using swipe, right? So what is happening is that the CXO is talking to another CXO, that fellow is showing off, see what my app can do. So now who's going to be deciding what they want? So the story here is that the entire thing is changed. Before you talk about what my business needed and then you've got this huge technology guy coming and telling you how to do things, right? But now the CXO is going to come and say, my competition is doing that, what are you doing? So I think that the strategy to portfolio is where the business connection is going to take place and the broker mode really means that, right? That the business is saying, look, how are we going to beat everybody else or before somebody comes and takes it away from us, right? So there is a huge role for the CXO aspect but that is going to be and that is why if you see in your S2P it starts with the first box is enterprise architecture, right? So those guys are going to connect up, people are going to talk about what is value, right? And if you see what is the conceptual model, what is it? What am I going to do? When am I going to do? And how much money am I going to save? And what is it going to deliver to my company? That is the conceptual model. Can you build a conceptual model for business strategy without CXO? Right? So that is where the building of the conceptual model and ensuring that the conceptual model talks about what the business needs, I think that is where the CXOs are going to participate. I just want to add a couple of things. So if you look at York's structure typically, you have a CEO and you have a CIO who is reporting to the CEO, let's say. And CIO now has someone called a CTO. Now the CTO either could be on parallel and reporting directly to the CEO, but most of them what happens is CIO owns the baton and says, chief technology officer come and tell me what is the kind of projects and technology innovation that we need to opt for. Earlier CIO's role was numbered at least for three years. Now it's actually the benefit of DOE is one year. So CIO's are an increasing pressure to demonstrate why they are different. So what happens? A new CIO comes in, he wipes out the previous strategy what is existing and comes something revolutionising. That's happening because everybody wants to prove that they can elongate their period from one year to three years. So that's many of the times we need to think that everybody wants to save their own seats in order to do that. Let's be very honest. Coming about with business and value is the second part. I am playing a role of CIO. Can I exist in this position for the next three years? So I think there is a fundamental shift happening where the CEO just decides whether you're actually trying to align which is relevant to business or you're looking at looking at something which you are having to own from that. So that's a shift that is happening off late and that's going to change the way CXOs are going to be much more demanding in nature. He needs digital. He needs IT because there are digital ecosystems everywhere. So IT has become very important for the CEO to run his business and unless IT demonstrates the value, it is very difficult for the CIO to sustain. So that's why CEO and CIO need to basically work together to ensure that the value is provided. Suresh, related to that question, why are we having the two roles, CIO and CTO? That's a good question but I cannot answer because it's the organization that has to answer. But if you look at it typically, the CIO actually oversees all the initiatives of the IT. Technology is just one part of it. You still have process, you have people, you have skill development, capability development. So if you look at one of the recent, chief recent CTO as a role emerged in the recent years, is to catch up with the growing trends of bring your own device, IoT and other stuff. The CIO asking, guys, what are we doing now? Are we supposed to go on cloud or on virtualization or on best practice? Because the market is talking about it. Now the CIO is not expected to know something on latest of technology. However, he can have a peer who is technology driven, seen how the kind of market trend happens, what's the context of the organization, what is fit for the organization and starts getting that value. So I think there is an increasing importance of CTO today, primarily from the reason that we need to make sure that we are aligned from a competitive intelligence standpoint. CIO cannot do that justice because technology is so rapid, so agile in nature that he cannot catch up with that kind of speed. So you need to have dedicated marshal, I would say, who envisions the whole technology landscape. You're not aligned with the business. Does it answer you? Okay, Silesian Lakshmi, I have a question here. Sorry to interrupt. We're running out of time for questions. Two questions here, quick questions. We're trying to do it from the written questions, so please would you allow the process to continue? Otherwise we won't get to these questions. How do you estimate the cost involved in IT for IT transformation and second part, how do you measure the success quantitatively? So the cost involved in implementing IT for IT would depend on the size of the organization, on the size of the IT organization and the kind of landscape they have in place. It also depends on number of other factors like how many service providers are they using, whether they build systems internally. So it's something which is very, very... It's very difficult to predict a number on what is the kind of investment that's needed for IT for IT. I suppose it's also what you want to do with IT for IT, because there are many things that you can do with it. You can look at your existing products and say, look, are they following this particular flow? Is my data missing? So that's not going to cost you any money. So you can use the standard and start tomorrow. What am I capturing? What are the things that I'm doing? Have I organized myself so well? Now, if you're talking about implementing IT for IT, I think the lady also just now said that so far no tool is still certified. So therefore it's also difficult to say what you're actually going to do with it. So the point is IT for IT is not like your ISO 20000 or something where you can say, I don't believe anybody can give a code for implementing ITILs. But the point is that what you're really saying is IT for IT has got many different value outcomes depending on your approach, your need, your business plans, your strategies, what you're trying to solve. So don't look at it as something that you're going to buy in a shirt that you're going to buy and wear it and look nice immediately. It's not like that. OK, thank you. IT for IT is very interesting, but is it convincing to the IT industry as yet? In other words, how will it affect IT if IT for IT is not adopted? I think that's a question that you will realise very soon. Because the absence of doing something will become much evident when others in the competition is catching up. So the way to look at it is, we can agree and decide of resistance to change because I guys don't see value, but if you look at the kind of market that we are in, if we don't scale up our existing ones, we will be outsourced, and many people who have achieved something substantial have done as an early adopter. You don't have the full picture of what it is, but you have reasonable idea and foundation that could help you to start with that, and that's the only way you can excel in terms of transformations or delivery. If you had everything on a piece of paper saying that this is how it is working, by the time you get to that level of clarity, you're already lost in the race. Many people would have gone much ahead of that terms because they would have actually experimented, failed, learnt and then moved on. So if you ask this question, just wait for another six months and you will come back with the answer of that. That's what I exactly wanted to say, that you will give that answer to us, because once you start looking at IT for IT, and once you start implementing it, you'll know the value it provides. So we as the people who have developed it are not the right person to answer this. I was just, I'm sorry. Would there be a chance to talk to Stephen? Is there a chance to ask the question Yeah, well we're going to, is it related to this question or another question? The only thing I'd like to ask to clarify the question is, you know, what is that distinctive advantage that IT for IT brings? And I think that's the question. And to your point, it isn't true if you say in six months competitors are going to catch up by working by that, for the simple reason that long before IT for IT ever came in, the talk of business in IT being aligned has been a published aspect that has also been implemented in the absence of IT for IT. So it's not like IT for IT is going to be something like a silver bullet that is going to give you today what the business has been pursuing all along. But there has to be something that is distinctive in its advantage. And I think it's that which we really would like to see. I think he's 100% right. There is no magic pill here. But there is something magically different. What is that? That is the value chain concept. That service is, you know, first of all, when I go and work with IT people, I tell them define an IT service. What is the service you're providing? They would only tell me application name. I think the core thing starts with service orientation. It is the outside in concept. What is my business wanting to do? Today what is happening is that there is a clear divide between business and IT. What I think IT for IT is going to do is it's going to streamline this whole thing. Let's take a simple point. You know, some people call it Christmas freeze. Some people, you know, every Christmas nobody should do any changes. It happens in all your organizations. Why they tell you don't do change? Why? Because when you change everything falls apart. So you don't touch anything, IT should not do anything, so IT will run well. That is the concept of a freeze. No changes. Why is that? So I think what IT for IT can bring for us is a complete end-to-end value stream of saying, look, this is how things are connected. It's not that somebody is doing delivery, somebody is doing development. They give all the known errors to support who is fixing the problem. How long is this going to continue? How long are you going to survive like this? Where you have to stop working so that no fault will happen in your IT. Just look at that. So I think that what we are really seeing is not about how I am fixing things or how I am doing things. It is a service orientation that we are talking about. And the service supply chain, the service backbone where everything is traceable from what the business wanted, when, how delivered to what is actually happening in the end. I think this end-to-end view is the difference that IT for IT is bringing. So I do want to get to this question because whoever asked it took a lot of time writing it out. Sort of multi parts. It's take a scenario of company X offering multiple services in a multi-tenant hybrid cloud environment managed by multiple vendors. Can you let us know specifically one how IT for IT helps the CIO of company X manage the services better. How IT for IT helps vendors supporting company X to operate better and which components of IT for IT bring multiple vendors and CIO onto a common view of the same page. I think this is a consulting question actually. I would have a task here. Thing is that it's a very interesting question. Now what is the CIO organisation going to do? What I see is that IT for IT is a flat model at this point in time. It talks about everything is a single plane. So if you take for example the S2P that is strategy to portfolio that has some six components, then you have your next six and so on. Now the question is going to be that you can take each one of these components. What is happening in a multi-ten when you're talking multi-ten, let's say multi-sourced environment for a simple word. So what is going to happen there is that each of these components will have a piece of work which is done within the CIO organisation and something that has to be owned by a service owner by a service provider or a component service provider. So IT variety can help you to track the flow through each of these things in the same systematic manner. Today what is happening is that each one is in a silo like we talked about. So the business organisation is in a silo and the service provider organisation also an exact replica of that silo. So what happens is that your CIO cannot really have the view. And when it becomes even in a single plane when much of your thing is being done within the CIO organisation you don't have transparency. Now when it's going across multiple places you certainly don't have transparency. I can give you a lot of stories on that. So what IT for IT can do is it can help you look I take my strategy to portfolio what am I going to do what am I going to get somebody else to do but the components are the same. So what it allows the CIO to do is to have a transparency chain. What we call as the data objects. There are two types of data objects in IT for IT. One is a service backbone object which has showed you the purple coloured ones. They are containing the life cycle of the service and then you have the other objects on the top. These objects can be anywhere. Maybe I think a good explanation of this I will be giving in an actual case study but it may answer this in a much deeper way. Thank you. Do you have anything? No, nothing to add. From a vendor perspective is DevOps agile and combined engineering and digitisation are they the methods to approach the three value chains of requirement to deploy request to deploy requirement to deploy, request to fulfil and detect to correct. Are they the approaches? Now if you're a vendor what's the goal of a vendor is to make more business. So first you understand what will sell you more and what will get it aligned. Your tools, whatever services that you give as a vendor is for profit basis. So first conducting whether aligning with DevOps or agile or Kanban or whatever you call it across is it a need? Yes, it's absolutely an imperative because one thing we have been hearing right from morning is what are the tools that are going to facilitate IT for IT. So even in the start people want actually everything available that's the same thing that we are getting in terms of DevOps. Look at I'm not talking about I'm not specific any vendor but we have like Dockers, Puppert, Jenkins and all of the stuff they are vendors but if you look at that they are providing the opportunity for continuous automation continuous delivery continuous integration which is the concept of DevOps itself. Now these principles that we have has got profound impact on automation so that's where I think vendors play a significant role to to realize the value chain because at the end of the day everybody plays a part in the whole pipe but if you don't get that done at their appropriate time the value that is received by a customer is not achieved so it's absolutely critical for the vendors who are in the market to understand the trends that are happening within the IT for IT the value streams and how you can actually facilitate which is one way you get a tick box and say my tool is actually IT for IT certified which enhances your opportunity to business that's what Microsoft actually told so I'm just quoting that reference and I would say that the value streams basically prescribes a lot of latest concepts like the continuous integration continuous development so if you look at the R2D the R2D has the concepts of DevOps Agile, Waterfall and all that so once a vendor certifies itself for R2D it is mandatory for that vendor to follow to align to those standards which could either be DevOps or which could be Waterfall so the latest concepts are already built into the reference architecture is the point I want to make so a related question from a different perspective, from a service provider perspective what's the, think of the IT department of a service provider, what's the value proposition for the CIO of a service provider I love the question I think it's very straight forward because the providers are going to shut down if they don't change it's as simple as that you look at your own businesses how much money you are making how many people you are hiring by the car loads, by the bus loads you started building everything now what's happening you got all mechanics we know how to fix a problem but what the customer is wanting is enough for fixing give me something new give me something different so when we are talking from a service provider organization I think there is a huge challenge as to what should be the role of the service provider within this kind of a disruptive environment where there are basically two speed IT running so when you look at it for the CIO of the in fact I just did a piece of work for a customer and you know what the head said is that we used to give vanilla services vanilla ice cream vanilla ice cream now we can give chocolate sundae thanks for changing our delivery model and ITV IT can help you do that because you can tell your customer as a broker you do this I will do this so there is a very big opportunity for a complete change in engagement between the CIO organization and the service provider organization because the CIO has to move into a broker model then who is going to do the integration story so I think there are huge opportunities and huge challenges but I think the opportunities are bigger thank you so lastly we are out of time but there were a number of questions about case studies are there case studies where this actually has been done that we can point people to now clearly there are some on the open group site and the shell presentations give a lot about that are there any that you are aware of that you would specifically call out of ITV IT being used so there is a plug for attend the ITV IT tracks afternoon in here one Blacksheet do you have I think there was shell is something that I quoted there was a large insurance company in UK called Delta Lloyd and I think that case study is also there on the open group site so these are the two that I am aware about and since it is initial stages we are in discussion with some companies so maybe over a period of time you will get to know more case studies around ITV IT I think one of the challenges that we have also is the customer doesn't want to reveal his names and you know the kind of things so for example the you don't quote me again the telecom company that I mentioned across was specifically asking not to reveal the names or even a tinge of it which is understandable because they don't want to put them into a poor limelight so I think there is a lot of war stories and case studies available in someone's brain so I would say that the best way to get those things is to network and actually talk with people more than going through the site because you learn a lot by this attending this conference and some private discussions which we can reveal a lot more information about a case study as opposed to do that absolutely so to make sure we have enough time for that we will stop the session and go to lunch so that people can talk to each other but thank you all for your participation and thanks to the speakers this morning and the panel for a really good interactive session thank you