Massive changes in the business climate and customer expectations have forced companies to rethink everything they do. As a result, there is a need to innovate consistently and implement changes quickly to realize the value in a much shorter timeframe. So what is the recipe to enable such time compression for increasingly higher value creation?

Contributor

• • Ann Dunkin, Chief Information Officer, U.S. Department Of Energy (DOE)

Transcript (Delivering Higher Value in Lesser Time)

Sanjog: Hello and welcome to CTN, to learn more about the show, please visit www.ciotalknetwork.com and today’s topic is, ‘Delivering Higher Value In Lesser Time.’ So, we are seeing some huge changes in the business climate. You talk about customers, they are essentially shifting their priorities, what do they want in terms of value created by the people who they do business with and all of that combined is forcing all of us to think, or rather rethink everything, reimagine everything that we do. Now with that said, we also want to make sure that all the innovation that we do, they are not going to be, brought to life in four years, it should be done yesterday if he could. But the point here is can we continue to compress this higher value creating products and services and keep putting them out there in lesser time than the last time we did. What would that recipe look like? What would you do so that it does not bring us all down just because we wanted to do things faster, cheaper, and better? So, to discuss all of this I have with me Ann Dunkin, who is the Chief Information Officer at the U.S. Department of Energy.Hey Anne, how are you?

Ann: I’m good. How are you doing?

Sanjog: Can’t complain, so as I’ve set the stage, right, so businesses and in finite games so the question here is what’s the hurry? Why are we getting crazy? Yes, of course we want to grow, yes, we want to go a hundred miles an hour faster than yesterday, but do you want to do more with less or more with nothing and also get more done faster at a point where we are almost risking everything. Is this really going to get you what you want? This mindset?

Ann: So, it’s an interesting question and I think from a government perspective, I don’t think that by going faster, we’re injecting more risks. I do think there are organizations where they go fast with great abandoned and we don’t go fast to great abandoned the government, we just try and go faster. I think that, there’s a couple things that are important about trying to speed up our delivery of technical. The first of all is, we need to better serve the public and I need to better serve the public next month or next year, not in five years or 10 years, so, we do need to have some sense of urgency around delivering products. The other thing we get when we create a sense of urgency rivalry products, is it in fact, we can do more with less, and here’s why we can do more with less at least, based on the historic way that software development was done, forever. So, historically, you would design, you would go out and you’d write your requirements. In the government, we would go in and hire a contractor, which was a lengthy procurement process, then we’d start building something and we’d finished building something, and then we deliver it and maybe it was late, maybe it didn’t work, maybe it was not what you wanted anymore and this timeline might be five or six years by the time all said none and even in the private sector, if you pull out that procurement process, which is long, it still took a long time  and so, the point really now is that, if we take a piece of that and we deliver a piece of complete functionality, in three or six months or a month or two, depending upon where you are in your life cycle because those early places are going to take a little longer, the later ones, we can deliver value right away, and we can do that at less cost because we’re not building all the overhead of the pre-planning, as well as we’re getting much closer to getting exactly what you want. So, this is really a place where you can actually be, you talk about, do you want it cheap, faster, good and this is a place where you actually can get a little bit more of all three.  Now, I’d argue that if you’ve already optimized like this, there was a limit to how much faster you can go but certainly within the government, we can still go faster than we are and that’s really we’re trying to get to is to go faster so we can deliver value sort of in real time.

Sanjog: So, it’s interesting the way you mentioned that you can go faster, that is good, so faster is, okay, you go from point A to point B faster, but what did you produce in the process? How much value did you create that becomes important? That’s essentially the topic, right? So, creating higher value in lesser time.

Ann: Right, and I think if we go faster in this case, we can create higher value. 

Sanjog: Okay, so, would you say that when you are saying, if you’re doing something faster yes, by virtue of you getting there, you’re creating higher value because you are dividing it by the amount of time that you used, if that’s the factor or would you say qualitatively if suppose you had all the time in the world, which could you have built it any better?

Ann: Well, if you had all the time in the world, could you have built a better quality solution, maybe? Perfect is the enemy of good, right, so I don’t need perfect, I need good quality software that meets customer’s needs, but more importantly, that immediacy increases the likelihood that you will actually meet the needs of, in our case, the public or the vet or, or the parts of the government that we work with when it’s another government group that we work with, or our employees, the longer the lead time, the more likely those needs will change between the time I started at the time I finished. So, a piece of speed is doing the right thing as much as doing things right.

Sanjog: Since you mentioned governmental, let’s talk in that context a bit. It’s taxpayer dollars, they want us to be living a comfortable life, a safe life, a healthy life, that’s the basis and then your department, which is department of energy, which is essentially has a spotlight on it because of all the different ways energy can we produce or should not be produced for us to go into a sustainable future ahead and still have all the energy we need to live a good life. Now, all of that being the manifesto, if you will, what do you think is the citizen today, who we are all serving in the government asking, which is driving you to go faster in a given realm or in a given aspect of what you guys do in department of energy?

Ann: So, the public does not interface with the energy a whole lot, so I’m going to reference my experience at APA at Santa Clara county, even at school district where I was much more delivering services that went directly to the public. Well, we do, most of our services come through a third-party, right, we deliver will power to the market, for example, we protect the nuclear stockpile, for example, those things now don’t have a lot of public interaction but when you look at say my role as a Santa Clara county CIO,  and I had to provide a good system to allow people to vote or, the ability to, get a building permit, those sorts of things, in those cases, my job, the reason why I want to go faster is  that we want to deliver those services to the public sooner, rather than later, we want to get them from paper or from a less optimal solution to a better solution, faster,  and because the public expects that, they will get services from the government that looked like the services they get from the private sector. This was really clear to me working in Santa Clara county which is the heart of Silicon Valley, which is where all this tech development happens in a huge chunk of tech development happens in the United States. which means that, we all have a lot of people work in that industry have very high expectations, so that’s one example, but the pandemics, another example, we took public services online, we delivered new capabilities fast, and now people expect that we can continue to replicate that. So, to me, that’s why we need to have people to be able to move fast and be nimble and deliver quality services quickly is because the public expects us to look more and more like, the private sector.

Sanjog: And when, in your context, when you see value, like lets deconstruct this word value, is it that you’re getting the same thing done at a cheaper cost because that increases the Delta, which is the value, or you may not have shaved cost a whole lot, but you fundamentally or radically or quantum leap was made in terms of the outcome, where is the focus?

Ann: So, I think the answer is yes to both, so the real focus is, better outcomes. We want to deliver better services to the public, however, I’m a taxpayer, you’re a taxpayer, we all pay taxes somewhere, my goal is to make the most efficient use of taxpayer money and one of the things that we have figured out is that really long lead time projects, big monolithic solutions are very expensive, they cost a lot of money cause you do a whole lot of planning upfront, they need to hold that development in front and then you’ve probably found that you’ve made mistakes you need to fix, and so, by delivering pieces incrementally, using agile development or whatever you want to call that solution of staged X amount of delivery, you’re going to be able to be more responsive, which means that if you do something that’s not right, if it’s not going to meet needs, you’re very quickly going to get that feedback and be able to revive to deliver again on something better, right. Then you’re going to be able to, oops, I made a mistake that’s not going to work, I’m going to go back and I’m going to change that and a back and deliver something that’s better and I’m only giving a waste a little bit of money instead of a lot of money.

Sanjog: So, as you are getting everyone to jump on this band wagon, do you get active or passive resistance that we didn’t sign up for this?

Ann: Sure, so, the number one challenge in changing the way we do IT, the way we do development, we specifically, we buy, build and operate IT Systems, it’s culture, number one, it’s not the technology, it’s the culture. So, we absolutely have to, change from the top, change from the bottom and change from the middle, and so their senior leadership needs to be on board, your staff need to be on board, but also the middle of the organization needs to be on board as well.  So, the big thing is that, we need to convince people one at a time, that this is valuable and useful, and there’s a good reason to do it, and there are different methods of convincing. Whether it’s the senior leadership or the staff or middle management. Middle management is the most challenging because it really changes the way that managers manage their staff and, in some cases, you’re basically creating a self-managed team and those managers sometimes feel like they’re really not as empowered as they work, to lead their teams. So, we have to make sure everybody understands, everybody’s on board and get a critical mass of people who are excited and then move the organization forward.  So, the answer is absolutely, yes, there’s pushback and that’s the job of leadership is to get past that pushback and to help people see why.

Sanjog: Let’s take a quick break listener, we’ll be right back, and let’s talk about the costs and the risks. When you try to do something faster than earlier, you have to change, which means you are removing the stability, maybe you are trying to innovate, or you’re trying to skip steps or doing something to achieve that speed. What are we giving up?  Please stay tuned, we’ll talk more.

Sanjog:  Welcome back, so Ann, isn’t this a formula that when you try to do anything faster, you are disrupting the status quo, which means the stability, you took some time to establish, which allowed you to run it in the optimal way and not just the speed part of it, you also are minimizing as part of refining it in terms of the cost and the risk. So, when you rethought to say, we are going to go faster are you going to maybe do a creative destruction or you will rip it apart and see how I can reassemble. Is it a cost or is there a prize you’ve seen people pay when you do that and what to do to watch out for that?

Ann: Yeah, so I think, there’s an assumption that might be true in some organizations, but certainly not been true in any organization I’ve worked in that, the monolithic development process, where we do requirements, we do procurement, we build, we deliver, we build, we test, we deliver that’s optimal and that minimizes risk is a flawed assumption.  That process creates a lot of risk and a lot of expense, so, this is where I said a minute ago, you actually can get, we always say better, cheaper, faster, pick two. This is a case where you actually can get better, cheaper, faster because there was a whole lot of suboptimal work in the old process. So, I think what you are giving up is we talked about a minute ago is the comfort and security people have with the previous process, so, they liked it the way it was, they knew how to operate in that world.  So, what you’re giving up, is comfort and security, understanding of how the world works and you have to rework, we have to redo that, which is why it’s such a cultural change issue. But I actually do believe that you can in this case, and this is what we’re seeing, we can reduce the total cost of these projects. We can reduce the total time and we can get things that are more responsive to customer needs, because we are delivering more in real time.

Sanjog: Now, when you are getting these people in and I did a talk about the burnout and everything, but then people will, push back or maybe you’ll have a way to somehow get them to work, but there must be something which is more often implicit, or intrinsic motivation versus extrinsic motivation, right?

Ann: Yes, absolutely, so a lot of working as a public servant is a lot about intrinsic motivation, so, we rely on intrinsic motivation to get pretty much anything we get from our employees. We do not pay the kind of money that’s going to make people come in to work and be excited about working at the DOE or EPA or wherever, just for the money. So, the intrinsic motivation of these jobs is I’m going to deliver something, that’s going to make the world better. I’m going to make the taxpayers feel better, or excuse me, that’s going to spend taxpayer money better, hopefully make them feel better too, because we delivered them something and by doing that faster and less costly, I get to see results. You used to have people who might work on a project for four or five years and never see anything delivered to the end user and now people can work on a project for three months and see their products in the hands of users. So, in terms of intrinsic motivation, being able to see your work being used by the public quickly, that’s great. I mean, I’ll give you an example during the pandemic I was still in California, Alameda County, which is a county just adjacent to ours, their board of supervisors, which were the governing board for the county, decided that they wanted, so one of the things counties do is, they issue marriage certificates, marriage licenses, and then, if you want, you can get a wedding service like at county hall, and so they couldn’t do that during the pandemic. So, what they started doing was they said, we want to do this online and over a weekend, the CIO, figured out how to collect payments online, how to issue a marriage license online and how to officiate services online, so they got a payment solution, a signature solution and a video conferencing solution, over the course of a weekend and they saw results and how motivating is that for you, if you’re on that staff to say that on Friday, people couldn’t do this and on Monday we could deliver this service. So that’s why going faster in delivering results can be so intrinsically motivating to people.

Sanjog: You know, you just mentioned pandemic and I was just about to ask you a question that if I had had this discussion with you, pre-pandemic and now, what should have or what has changed, which would have, which is making you think differently about the same agenda, because the agenda hasn’t changed, right, more value in lesser time.

Ann: Yes, so I think what’s different is how much we demonstrated during the pandemic that we could do this, right, we were already demonstrating that we could go faster than we used to, but we have a lot of constraints in the government in terms of how we buy things and there’s a lot of politics around how things are done and what we saw during the pandemic, particularly early stages, so much of the procurement rules got loosened, a bunch of politics went away because everybody was laser focused on the same result and we demonstrated the potential to go very fast, even faster than we had already demonstrated we could go. So, to me, that puts the stake in the ground and says, Hey, we can actually go this fast and we’re not always going to be able to sustain going that fast, but if we have to, we can. So, what can we do to accelerate, to go as fast as possible between where we were before the pandemic and where we were in the early days of the pandemic and there’s someplace in between that we know we can go, which was faster than we were before, because we’ve shown we can. So, to me, we proved many of the things we said we could do during the pandemic and we proved just how fast government can operate and that story about marriage licenses, I have stories about people setting up call centers over the weekend, people developing applications really quickly and following that at the beginning, when the beginning of Ukrainian war not pandemic, I mean, we’re still taking money to stimulate 22:41 a pandemic, but not in the throws of the pandemic we were two years ago. We’ve stood up an application to support DOE’s response to the war in a few days and so we learned a bunch of stuff, we learned before the pandemic, we learned some stuff during the pandemic, and now we’re applying those things to go, sure not as fast as we did March 2020, but way faster than we were doing maybe in January before.

Sanjog: So, one is that you got things done when people were working from home and, or we had to take an empathetic view because you got fear of people who have got other things on their mind, besides what you want to get them to do as projects. What shifted in the way you, envisioned the project, to allocate a project, to checked on them, whether things got done to actually seeing value and the expectation setting for everyone involved?

Ann: That’s an interesting question, there were so many variables, right, you sent everybody home, as you said, some people had, childcare, eldercare, whatever it might be distractions, we normally didn’t tolerate during the workday and then we took constraints off, so I think there’s a lot, that’s hard to pin down on what changed. But I think one thing that really fundamentally changed for government in that time, is that government has historically measure productivity by a butts in chairs, right, who’s sitting in the office, they must be being productive and a lot of government leaders were very resistant to telework and remote work at all because of the fact that they couldn’t see someone and so I think we demonstrated that in the short term, people can be extremely productive, in a remote environment and that, we can achieve these results that way, and we can find ways to virtually work together to achieve the same results. I will add that, I don’t think that a hundred percent remote forever is a healthy solution. I think that people actually do need to see each other and I think that one of the things you saw as the pandemic went on and as teams changed some of that cohesiveness and that understanding has declined, because the new people in a team don’t have quite the same level of engagement and understanding as people who’ve been working together for a long period of time. But I think the fundamental shift for the government, which I think is less so for the private sector, is simply that understanding that, you don’t measure productivity by who’s sitting in their chair, you measure productivity by the outcomes of their work.

Sanjog: So even when anything was created like in the recent past or distant past, which you try to rethink and reimagine and try to, compress the timeframe within which it would create value when the intent was earlier also to do what was best for the citizens and even today, what would you do, to rip apart something which was created with that intent so that you can indeed every time when you rip it apart, you bring an incremental change making sure that the energy and the time and the effort that you put in, and the dollars you put in is well worth it, because you could get crazy with touching every process only to find you could tinker with it only and get limited value out of all that so-called reimagination. How do you determine the candidates first and then how do you go about it?

Ann: This is a good question because yes, you can over-optimize right and get very little value, so, I think that it’s important, well, so first of all, I think that most of us have many, many processes and many tools and, if we spread the wealth of our time and attention around, we won’t have that problem, because there’s so many things to work on that we should be able to not over-optimize, but there certainly are places where there are dedicated teams where that’s possible. I think it’s important to start by looking at your process, right, you look process and then technology. So, optimize your process, develop your technology and then two things I think are probably important. One is building out your technology in such a way that, it’s modular and it’s easy to make incremental changes to it. So, you’re not really truly ripping the whole thing apart when you go to make an incremental change, that you are simply, adjusting a module, or redesigning workflow, by doing configuration. So, but I think that the real answer but most teams don’t have the time or the resources to over-optimize and that the real key is to get it right the first time and getting it right the first time, the key to that is really that fact that you need to, design your process and then the technology.

Sanjog: Let’s take a quick break, we’ll be right back and we spoke about risk a bit, but let’s dig deeper on the security risk and other kinds of risks, which could come up and even compliance risk as you start rethinking some of those areas where you want to deliver higher value in lesser cost and compliance is very big especially in your world, and compliance is a very big aspect. How do you prevent potential risks and not over invest in it and by designing or rethinking a solution so that whatever you’re going to gain is offset by the additional cost of you getting, compliant again with the solution that you put out? Stay tuned listeners we’ll be right back.

Sanjog: Welcome back, so Ann, it must be an interesting journey, when on one hand you’re supposed to be answerable to the people who want to keep things compliant and also security nobody wants a government to show up on a newspaper to say a government had a breach, and you’re supposed to also show innovation and also show that incremental or quantum value leap that you took by reimagining something. What’s your approach or what’s your posture to paneling security and compliance while you are running a hundred miles an hour on this innovation straight?

Ann: Yes, we very much are focused on taking a risk-based approach as you mentioned, lots of compliance, if I were to spend my time complying with every requirement, I have from the federal government, from the ops manager 31:09 budget the white house, CIS-31:12, that’s how we do and obviously we can’t just do that because we have the business of DOE to take care of. So, we very much look at where our risks and where our risks are a combination of what the severity of that risk is and the likelihood of that risk. So, if someone were to, take advantage of this vulnerability or to do something, how likely is that and how serious would that be for us?  That’s how we prioritize our risks, so, as you can imagine, we put a lot more attention on security for our nuclear facility then we do for open science facilities. That doesn’t mean that you can walk waltz right into an open science facility and log on a computer or log onto them remotely without credentials. So, we have some basic levels of compliance that exists everywhere, like multifactor authentication and data encryption and then we layer on top of those, more intense, requirements for compliance, for security, and we make sure that we limit how much we spend in that space, so that we can continue to deliver our mission needs too.

So, we have more mission needs than we can meet, we have more, securities need than we can meet, and we just balance those and there will never be a lack of work in any organization, but especially in the government, there’s always more to do, to support the taxpayers and we just have to make good choices while what we do.

Sanjog: I totally see the amount of work that it would take for us to be compliant with every requirement or mandate that spot and you said you balance it, now, there is some obvious housekeeping kind of things, like you mentioned, you go to a facility plan, just go ahead and log in, but then there are a lot of a nation state actors and other folks who would want to, while you will put on the news that we did great things by squeezing time out and getting more value, but they see it as an opportunity because that means you are disrupting status quo, you are shaking up your system, there may be vulnerabilities, which they would want to exploit. How is your, while you say you’re balanced, but how much is your risk tolerance going to increase while you say, I want to go onto this innovation path, do you do become more tolerant to risk because you say, yeah, we cannot totally avoid it, so might as well take a little more of it in the interest of maybe creating more value without, or maybe at the same time you’re increasing risk, which could come and haunt you later. But how does this conversation even happen internally?

Ann: Well, we’re pretty risk averse in the government and we’re pretty risk averse, in DOE and in spite of the fact that I tell folks in my organization that I want them to take risks, this is not where I tell them I want them to take risks. I want them to take risks, in terms of trying new things but we have a very robust process that we go through before any new system gets an authority to operate. So that’s really how you balance innovation, and risk is that robust process and we do things that minimize risk by, for example, working on low code platforms. So we have a plan and that platform has a bunch of security controls that it’s already passed and so we know that we’ve met a bunch of security controls just by using that platform and that reduces risk and then we do development on top of that platform and then we test for compliance with the remaining security controls for the application that we have developed on top of that platform.

So, we do not consider innovation and opportunity to increase our cybersecurity risk posture. Now, our risk for failing, yes, that’s where we want people to take risks. Oh, you try that, the application, it was awful and no one liked it, okay, that’s fine, we’ll throw that away and move on, which is not to say that we don’t care, but we all know that you’re not successful a hundred percent of the time and innovation is a risk and innovation sometimes if you’re not failing, you’re not innovating. So, it’s okay if people fail on the innovation side from the standpoint of not building the right thing or trying to build something and finding that we don’t have the capability to make it work, the technology isn’t robust enough yet it doesn’t meet our needs, but we’re not going to, slack off on paying attention to our security controls.

Sanjog: See, one is to work with, the team that reports to you, another is to work with partners, ecosystem players, vendors, you name it, who, yes you have a contractual connection with them, or somehow you can think that you can control, but they have their own agendas as well. You can at most influence, but when you are saying, I have this vision of doing something which will create higher value at lesser cost. Well, they came to make money. So they might have a conflicting agenda, that’s one, second is they may not be as motivated to help you meet your agenda, I know they want you to want you as their customer, but your influence or level of influence not control is what’s going to have them aligned to where you want to go, not any other way. So, what’s a special set of things that you feel an organization needs to do, I would actually go the spenders are extended beyond just government into any other organization. When you’re working with partners, what would make them tick and work in the best interest of what you’ve set out to do?

Ann: Well, there’s a couple of things, when you’re talking about DOE and the government, we’re a big customer, so that’s of number one is we are a big customer, people want to do business with us and so that gives us sort of, certainly a leg up in terms of expecting our vendors, to deliver quality, and secure, platforms and solutions. Second is, we have a very robust process to certify that our vendors are meeting our compliance requirements for cloud services and that’s called FedRAMP and so, there’s an initial and an ongoing certification process to demonstrate that systems are secure enough for the government to use them, but beyond that, the Government and the private sector, anyone else, if I’m a vendor and I’ve been on that side of the table, during my career, it doesn’t do us any good to have our products get hacked, have our products fail, if I’m a reputable company, I want to make sure that I’m delivering a quality product that my customer can use successfully, and I don’t want to be on the front page of the Washington post any more than my customer does. That doesn’t change the fact, that here are a fly by night companies, but, we’ve got not only a federal process, but we’ve also got our supply chain risk management process and our secure software bill of materials process, all of which are designed to really go in and look and make sure that, our vendors are exercising their appropriate behavior and doing their due diligence, not working with companies we don’t want to work or have components that are insecure. So, we do everything we possibly can and there’s always a risk, right, there’s always a risk of a vendor having a problem and we know some of those that have happened, but we try to do everything we can to ensure that that we’re going to be successful.

Sanjog: So, one is to put an SLA on them and of course you said that you’re a big customer, so they would like to comply or step up, but then when you have a rather broad agenda of saying anything that you’re touching you, going to try to create more value for lesser money, how does that sit with those partners, even though they want you as customer? Do the really, when you say jump, they ask you how high?

Ann: No, of course not, I mean, our vendors are here to make money, so there’s always going to be negotiation on what things cost. I think from our stand point though, we expect that they’re going to deliver the quality and we expect they’re going to deliver secure product, and then we’re going to negotiate with them on what that costs, so I think that’s really the bottom line, is that, we know that they want to maximize their profit and we want to pay as little money as possible and that’s where the negotiation comes in, but what’s not negotiable is the quality of the product, from both a functionality stand-point and a security stand-point. 

Sanjog: One last question for you, which is an important question is, we are asking a whole lot from you in your position as a leader and from your department, because IT is becoming the very DNA for any organization now, what help do you need to be able to, kind of step up to this challenge and continually deliver meeting and exceeding expectations?

Ann: Yeah, so delivering results is very much a team sport, so what I really need is, and what we have at DOE is a great team, to support me and that means not only my staff, but the federated staff throughout DOE’s department elements in labs, as well as our partners across DOE in the various organizations, that aren’t part of IT that we work with to ensure that what we deliver meets their needs and then our vendors, so we work or, and in fact, all of the federal government, because we work closely with people across the entire government, in many cases to deliver a value. So, really that’s the number one thing we need is everybody engaged in the, process of delivering, and really ensuring they were able to meet the needs of the public and that’s what we’re here for, right. We’re here, to deliver value to the American public.

Sanjog: Ann, any specific leadership chops, you need to develop more than what you have today for you to deliver higher value in lesser time as a leader.

Ann: Well, I’m always, every day I come to work, I’m learning, learning about DOE learning about leadership, learning about the team, and getting better all the time. So, well, I can’t put my finger on the specific thing on any given day, there’s certainly lots to learn.

Sanjog: Once again, thank you so much Ann for sharing your thoughts about how organizations can start looking internally, looking at ways by which they can continue to tweak their processes, develop their people and do whatever else that is necessary with technology to help deliver higher value in lesser time. Thanks so much.

Ann: Thank you.

Sanjog: And listen to us, please connect with us on social media, subscribe to our podcasts. Once again, thank you so much for listening to CTN, this is your host Sanjog Aul till next week, take care and God bless.

Download Podcast

Apple Podcast, Google Podcast, Spotify, iHeartRadio, SoundCloud, TuneIn, and Stitcher. Find other syndication channels here or search CIO Talk Network podcast on any other app.

Explore More

• • Delivering on the Chief Data Officer Imperatives
  • Steps to Delivering Relevant, Resilient, and Reliable Digital Services
  • Delivering on the World Health Promise
  • Delivering on the 2021 CISO Agenda
  • Delivering Smiles Every Time: A Case Study
  • Developing Leaders while Delivering Results
  • Delivering Sales as an Experience
  • Measurably delivering business value through I&O
  • Delivering Actionable BI
  • Delivering Smarter, More Competitive BI