The Readiness Problem No One Owns

Paul Turner: Welcome to today’s episode from the Institute of Commissioning and Assurance. My name is Paul Turner, and we’ve got a very exciting presentation for you here today announcing our technical committees.

Now, the Institute of Commissioning and Assurance is a nonprofit institute. We’re conducting research, and we’re really setting the bar for project delivery to not only deliver outputs, but deliver operational outcomes on projects, which is, of course, the most important part, right? So today I’m joined by David Tain and Alan Cajuiero. How are you guys today?

David Tain: Doing good, man, thank you. Very happy to be here.

Paul Turner: Awesome. Yes, we’ve got a discussion today announcing a new initiative from the Institute of Commissioning and Assurance on the launch of our technical committees, with the first one being discussed today on operational readiness. So, David, why don’t I turn it over to you, and you can tell us a little bit about the initiatives we’ve got going here at ICxA and the technical committees?

Paul Turner: Makes sense. Tell me a little bit more about the technical committee structure.

David Tain: Thinking about committee structure is about 3 branches, right? So the first branch is the branch of commissioning, the second branch is operational awareness, and the third branch is about outcome assurance. And one of the things that we find is that it’s really important for us to capture this collective experience across the world because this knowledge exists.

One of the things that I found is that this knowledge exists all across the industry in different sectors. What isn’t it is not integrated, right? Depending on where you go, you’re going to have, and actually I’m facing that right now, you’re going to have different understandings of how to do commissioning, how to do operational awareness and what actually effective transition to operation is.

So many areas you’re going to find that they are super technically savvy, but also, our regions don’t have a basic understanding of how to conduct commissioning. If you park that aside, and you also now introduce the variable of the rapid advancement of technology. You can see this technology is also advancing at different paces, at different geographies, different industries, right across the world.

We are here oriented to interconnect all this knowledge and distill the best of it in the form of standards and best practices. That’s exactly what we’re trying to do. We are actually witnessing that and particularly with my year that have been with with the ICXA have actually seen that in my region, I’m from Latin America, the Caribbean and the Mediterranean.

We have professionals from, you know, multiple industries. We have power systems here in Canada. We have an outcome from the oil sands. We have professionals in the oil sands here in Alberta, but you also have professionals in the mining industry in Chile. You do have data centers and green buildings, smart buildings, sorry, in Mexico.

We’re actually working in electric vehicle production, but we also have natural gas producers in Brazil. We are so we even have some so sophisticated areas that to me are new in Scandinavia, particularly Norway. We do have the aquaculture industry.

So that is bringing me our Vice President in Scandinavia, James is actually comes with that level of expertise that you know brings that. So the idea is you take the best of these. All this knowledge you put in a pool, you distill into the form of best practices and global standards.

Paul Turner: One of the challenges we definitely see in the industry is our wise experts that have been doing this for years, they’re retiring and they’re taking all this knowledge with them, right? So let’s talk specifically, Alan, about the Operational Readiness Committee – what are we doing to actually capture that knowledge so that it doesn’t disappear with our wise experts and have that knowledge base to pass to the younger new generation?

Alan Cajueiro: Yeah, now that’s a great question. Even within the same company, we see those siloed informations, let alone across all industries. So documenting I think, is very relevant to capturing what we have as available because we do we are not reinventing the wheel, the technical committees are not bringing up new knowledge is mostly around what we do best within our industries that we could disseminate and cross pollinate and standardize together.

And we also, as a technical committee being a sad way collecting real-life product information. So we’re documenting practices and going to cross-reference them. I know you’re going to mention something about benchmarking in future comments. We’ll just get a segment to that conversation, lighting up.

But we have the documentation with the practice and the results that we’re seeing. And I think this is one of the key roles of the initial conversations we’re having with the committee. We’re going to have much more expanded conversations, but documenting what we have is really solid. I’ve been working on it for the past 20 years with Operation Readiness.

I know some of you are also spending more time than that, and all this knowledge is not well registered yet.

Paul Turner: And not well established in organizational practices either, right? It’s kind of ad hoc, and some do it well, and some may leave it as an afterthought. So, building up this body of knowledge, how is this really going to help the industry to standardize processes and set that benchmark of what organizational excellence looks like to deliver projects?

David Tain: ICxA’s Mandates: Bridging Capability Gaps Through Global Initiatives. What I can tell you is in terms of the mandates of the technical committees, and we’re actually doing this all in practice. Because it’s really important to put this in, how does it look in practice? The first thing I can see is this from three perspectives.

The first thing is to document all these evidence-based practices and methodologies and converting to a global body of knowledge. Converting all these experiences into formal framework standards and guidance, and of course, strengthening the ICxA standards. Eventually, as we advance in time, as we gather more experience, all these standards are going to be more robust, and the frameworks and the methodologies are going to grow exponentially, right?

Another important thing that I see Paul building on what Alan mentioned about that is these technical forms are incubators to of ideas, and they collect and analyze real project case studies, right. By doing that, we are trying to help professionals and industries and organizations are going to be able to identify training patterns and even more.

You know, we’re going to be able to, or the entire ecosystem is going to be able to identify capabilities gaps, which is exactly the core, the core concept here. As we mentioned, we repeat over and over that operational reliance is a capability.

And that’s where the efforts of the ICxA are as well, with the benchmarks, right? All this knowledge is peeled over into this benchmarking that organization can access and see how they’re sitting with their peers, right. So it’s really, really an ambitious and really exciting initiative that we are opening, and you know, I think with tremendous technical potential across the world.

And also one of the things that I find, and building on what I’ve mentioned about the different understanding by doing all these, we’re going to end with a global combo terminology and conceptual models that are going to actually harmonize the understanding and equally deploy all these initiatives across the globe, across all the industries.

So we’re not going to have these divergences that we have right now. We’re now essentially leading the global standards of commissioning, outcome assurance and operational awareness.

Harmonize understanding, that would be wonderful if everybody had the same vocabulary and spoke the same language. It would make working on projects so much easier, for sure, if everyone had that common understanding.

Paul Turner: Now, you mentioned that capability gaps, and I think that’s important because lots of organizations, of course, have strong capabilities to track and manage cost and track and manage schedule and safety, and all of those things are very important, right? But we often find that there’s a capability gap in actually governing, managing outcomes comes and getting through that transition from construction to commissioning and operations and into an operational asset.

How are the technical committees, Alan, going to help kind of bridge this gap and maybe help organizations understand where some of their strengths are, or maybe some of their gaps are and get access to this body of knowledge to help address some of those gaps in organizational capability?

Alan Caquiero: Yep. So one of the words I like to use in those situations is that we are raising advocates. We are raising people who will come to the technical communities, get the knowledge levelled up and become evangelists of good practices in their organization, even peers, because they have connections with other companies in other departments and be the people who disseminate that back to their organizations.

And not just about what’s in the house, but also the winds. I think the awareness of what we do is important, but understanding the early approach to operational readiness is very striking to some people see that hey, the last six months are great. No, the last six months, you’re already too late for a lot of operation ratings activities.

Alan Quiero: So we can advocate for the watch houses, especially the winds. And also we want the technical media to be able to support our members into creating a value proposition. We know it’s true, we know it’s necessary, but we don’t always have the tools within ourselves to say, hey, your impact is going to be by that much. That’s where benchmarks are going to play a key role and say, ” Hey, you’re going to probably miss by that much in cost or schedule or be at risk.

Because we have the support of this is the value proposition of operational readiness. We want to empower our members to go back and say I’m advocating for that because I know the consequences, I know the value proposition. And thirdly, David mentioned we are going to be a multi-cultural, multi-geography and multi-industry body, and that’s very powerful because we can learn a lot from each other.

n some practices, I see not only geographies, but also industries are far more advanced than others. And having that opportunity of having that conversation. We won’t embrace everything from multiple images, but there are a lot of things that, hey, you guys are on to something that I’m not. I can just leverage that and start building on that, and that’s adapting because David says a very powerful thing about tools.

Tools can only do so much, as we know that we need the KPIs that we need and the process that we need to manage. So create that awareness of languages, geographies and industries because you might be siloed in a country where, in your language, you don’t have the material available. We have a lot in another language and we, as a multilingual committee, can understand.

And also, this cross-cultural thing is really about how we approach things. In some countries or some cultures, we are more like execution driven, highly technical or not always prone to organizing things. I, I admit that this cross-cultural approach to my career opened my eyes to different ways of approaching things that are more process-oriented.

So I became a more process-oriented person with a stronger educational background. And some people are backwards. They have nice documentation, very well organized, but they don’t have the grit to execute. And this cross-cultural environment is going to be very beneficial. And my key message with the committees is like, you are not alone.

You are not alone in your journey as an OR practitioner. You are not alone in your journey to convince organizations that those things are necessary. And you’re not alone. In building cases, operational readiness is a key success factor for project execution and for the healthy, safe operations.

David Tain: If I may add, you’re absolutely right, Alan, and one of the key things that you will articulate in terms of the, you’re not alone, and the transformation, we are right now witnessing a really important transformation. And I kind of emphasize that we’re transforming the, the whole execution ecosystem, the whole global execution ecosystem from being cope delivery driven to outcome assurance oriented.

So all these structural environments that we are fostering, all this incubation is, is actually going to this to this cross pollination to raise that bar and something that comes here off to my mind from this cross-pollination. One of the things, the first thing that came that I realized when I came to Canada, we have a lot of constraints where their cost prohibitive costs.

One of the key things that I realized surely, when I came almost 20 years ago from Venezuela, is how concepts used offshore in terms of modularization are being used to make more effective model reconstruction and cheaper, I mean more cost-effective model construction up in the North Vera, where the temperatures and the conditions, the environmental consciousness are so aggressive.

So any second, anytime, any moment that you save is critical for the organization and value can leak a split second, any mistake that you make. So raising the bar is engaging in this transformation, in this global transformation of the entire execution ecosystem.

And notice that I don’t talk about the industry, I’m talking about the entire execution ecosystem, right? So companies, vendors, professionals, right? So it is an entirely changing mindset that the ICxA is successfully achieving across the world.

Paul Turner: There are a lot of smart people out there with lots of years of experience. ICxA Engagement, Benchmarking, and Executive Advice on Operational Readiness. How do they get involved, David, in this transformation? If they want to get involved in the technical committees, if they want to contribute knowledge, if they want to build on this body of knowledge that we’re putting together, what would you recommend?

David Tain: The first thing is just contact us, right? So I mean, you contact the ICXA, contact your local leader, contact us directly, right? So we join the movement, become a member and start participating in this. Having access because one of that’s one of the key benefits as a member that you have not only access to, you know, standards and practices, but also access to this powerful global network, right?

You’re gonna be sitting, getting knowledge and sharing summation at the beginning. You’re gonna learn and contribute at the same time. It’s a two-way street, right? So where you’re going to share ideas, you’re going to have access to this network of global professionals. And as a matter of fact, right now we might have them, and yesterday we were having a six AMI, mean so some crazy hours.

But yesterday, Paul, you and I were at 5:30 AM with a meeting with Scandinavia and Australia. So we’re sharing ideas. We’re seeing what’s happening on the other side of the world that we can implement here and vice versa. Snd cross pollinate and integrate all this knowledge.

The first thing, Paul, is to join the movement, join the ICxA. Have a look at the web page. It’s a lot of resources. And if that resonates with you, we’re here to help.

Paul Turner: Excellent. I’ve got a few slides I want to show everybody on what our benchmarking program looks like. And then I see there are some questions in the chat that we’ll go through after that. So if you do have any more questions, shoot them in the chat. We’ll definitely get to them here shortly.

So it’s clear from this discussion and from projects that project completion is no longer enough, right? We need to get past just delivering the scope of building things, but we need to actually deliver operational outcomes, which is the reason that projects are started in the 1st place, right? So this is what we’re putting together is the knowledge base that’s out there and combining this with our technical committees in the body of knowledge to help people get through this complex trans position at the end of projects.

And this is what organizations get when they get involved in ICXA is our benchmarking program. It’s easy for us to gauge and gather some information on capabilities across the organization, whether there’s strengths in governing outcomes. We can evaluate and monitor that strengths for a system integration for operational readiness, of course, performance validation and ultimately outcome delivery.

This is what organizations will receive is a material, pretty map like this that maps out strengths and weaknesses across the organization to actually deliver project outcomes. This is super helpful for organizations to know where they compare to the industry baseline, where they compare to maybe other industry peers that you’re working with, to know what areas are you strong in or what are some areas that ICXA can help to advance and elevate some of those capabilities.

And this is often how organizations get involved with ICxA is first becoming a corporate member. That kind of opens the door to access all of the knowledge, all of the systems and that also gets organizations access to their outcome assurance index score, the chart that I just showed on the previous slide, there to understand your capabilities. That’s an easy first way for organizations to engage with ICxA.

And then, as time progresses, there are lots of other ways to engage as well. For example, getting involved in the technical committees, there are certification programs, training exams to elevate some team development, a full benchmarking and capability report. There are lots of resources when organizations become members. And I definitely encourage you to reach out and get involved.

Before we jump into the questions, David, if there was one thing that you could tell organizations out there about operational readiness, technical committees, what would you say to an executive AVP that’s sitting across from the table that’s about to embark on a large capital project?

David Tain: The first thing I would say is that the most important thing is that now we are in a transitional stage. So we are now developing organizational capabilities. We’re not here providing tools, we’re not at the execution level, we’re beyond that. We want organizations to be successful execution through formal processes, through former methodologies, through well-established evidence-based processes that they can implement, right.

So, to me, ultimately the main interest of an organization is to stop any possible possibility of value leakage and predictability, right. So predictability is one of the key descriptors of organizational success. And the more you are able to predict how your operation is going to be, how your transition is going to be, and where your gaps in value are, that’s going to make your increase your competitiveness as a peer, as an industry and across, as I always mention, across the execution ecosystem.

Paul Turner: And how about from yourself, Alan, if you were sitting across the table from an executive that’s about to embark on a large capital project, what would be the the word that you would leave them with or the impact you would want to make to help set them on the right direction for operational readiness?

Alan Caquiero: I would say that Operation Readiness is the risk mitigation tool that you need, but you probably are not well aware of it right now. So I would caution them to say, hey, it’s a small investment now that it was a lot of risk afterwards, that’s totally worthwhile to invest in it.

Paul Turner: Yep. And it’s critically important to agree. OK, I see there are some good questions in the chat. So let’s jump into some of those questions. And as we’re going through those questions, anyone that’s watching, if you have other questions, shoot them in the chat, and we’ll be able to get to them.

Q & A

Paul Turner: Ray’s got a question. I’ve seen in the past that the construction is near completion. We are pushing the button tomorrow. But here are the procedures checklists that need to be completed prior to. Also, you need to transition to customer procedures. I see this gap that can be closed, and maybe should be closed. So what are your thoughts on that one, Alan?

Alan Caquiero: So that’s the early engagement that we are not always aware of. At this time, he’s already too late because they embark on operations in most cases three months prior, two months prior to build all those things. So, this is we need to be more preventative in our approach. We need to give them the message that this is an effort that was not measured during the product phase. That will take a lot of time, and it does take a toll on the ramp off to do, unfortunately.

David Tain: The first thing I would say is that the most important thing is that now we are in a transitional stage. We are now developing organizational capabilities. We’re not here providing tools; we’re not at the execution level; we’re beyond that. We want organisations to be successful through formal processes, former methodologies, and well-established evidence-based processes they can implement, right?

So, to me, ultimately the main interest of an organization is to stop any possible possibility of value leakage and predictability. So predictability is one of the key descriptors of organizational success. And the more you are able to predict how your operation is going to be, how your transition is going to be and where your gaps in value are, that’s going to make your increase your competitiveness as a peer, as an industry and across, as I always mention, across the execution ecosystem.

Paul Turner: And how about from yourself, Alan, if you were sitting across the table from an executive that’s about to embark on a large capital project, what would be the word that you would leave them with or the impact you would want to make to help set them on the right direction for operational readiness?

Alan Caquiero: I would say that Operation Readiness is the risk mitigation tool that you need, but you probably are not well aware of it right now. So I would caution them to say, hey, it’s a mall investment now that it was a lot of risk afterwards, that’s totally worthwhile to invest in it.

David Tain: Generous, interesting poll. I mean, I just interject here for a second because a lot of people, and the cost factor is really important. So a lot of people say, ” Well, how much is this going to cost me. Even though there are some of the tractors in multiple areas, say, well, this is going to cost money. Normally, the commissioning and operational awareness effort in a project in large-scale projects, asset-intensive projects, would not represent more than 5 or 6%.

OK. So this is the key thing. But the criticality of this function, and this is something that executives and professionals at the equality need to understand, is that the impact of this 6%, which doesn’t even actually equate to the normal contingency that you have when the cost estimate, right? So that is 10%. So it’s less than that you’re trying to save money, or you’re trying to cut, not even say cut capabilities that actually are going to impact your asset in multiple ways.

This 6% is what is going to save you, as Alan mentioned; the risk is going to save you either from blowing up a $20 million piece of equipment or, even worse, killing somebody. I mean, that is that 6% right at the start of the transition of operations.

Paul Turner: All right. Next question, individuals working with Shell and now with BP, I have seen the Operation Red News team is a bunch of specialists and act as subject matter experts across functions, we know the end and make it happen at the earliest safety reliable and for a steady operation. Do you have any follow-up comments to that one, David?

David Tain: Yeah. I mean, as I say, that’s interesting when you talk about BP Shell, I mean, they do how they’re the industry’s LED practices. So you do have the flawless execution from Shell, the M cap from ExxonMobil, the system from I mean me, particularly that they work as well with both, and in total, right. So you have their personal system. I mean, all of these systems are industry are are company based, right?

I mean, we’re talking about large multi-billion dollar super majors. So definitely, you know, they do have, but still, when you actually look at the details these projects deliver, but you know, trying to maintain value, trying to sustain value once you push a button and building in the into the previous questions, right? So they are experts, but it doesn’t mean one key example is cash, a gun you you can see multibillion dollar cash again, right.

So could see there was a multibillion-dollar value leakage in that project. So big corporations, although they have, and I can tell you that they have tremendous experts, they’re not immune to this. They’re not immune to operational awareness because, so, so talking about, you know, processes, these multi-local operations, they do have strong corporate processes because they have a huge financial muscle for sure. And also they do have their own research and development areas.

Areas that have become goalposts in the industry. But we cannot confuse that, the fact that this expert exists, these experts are also at the mercy of the organization and the technology, technology and systems. So we’re talking about a social technical problem, right? So that no matter the size, no matter the project, no matter the organization, and no matter how well established the system is, you will always have some potential for value leakage.

Paul Turner: Malaria’s got a question on the pulp and paper sector. So Brazil is experiencing one of the largest modernization cycles in pulp and paper with increasingly complex and integrated assets. We are currently investing heavily in automation, digitalization and new assets in Brazilian mills. In your view, is the readiness challenge more related to technology or the human factor? And who should ensure that both are truly ready before startup? Alan, what are your thoughts on that one?

Alan Caquiero: Operation Redness is a team but also a responsibility across the product. So who is responsible for these should be a team within the project working as one body; it should be a one team approach, and early enough, like we always discussed. So, technology or the human factor, I would say that’s both because David alluded to technology’s response to processes, the process responds to people and then how we think what we’re going to need to operate will define the technology, not the opposite.

We need better processes, stronger processes that are developed by the operational teams, working in harmony with the project teams.

David Tain: In terms of responsibility, as well as operational awareness, 2 things are an overarching function that goes from because it’s a breach from, you know, from the projects to operations, but also in terms of what is a problem if human is technical operational, when it is by definition a socio-technical challenge.

And that’s something that we need to understand. So by doing that, you see that, as I mentioned in the previous answer, you can have the top experts in the world, but if you don’t address this interface between humans and technology and address this sociotechnical challenge, you’re going to have league value, right? So that’s the thing. So it’s an operational function, but also we need to conceptualize that as a sociotechnical challenge.

Paul Turner: Anna’s got a question, or are is about confirming the business case of a project. You can build an asset on time and on budget, but if it doesn’t deliver value, then your business case is eroded. What are your thoughts on that one, David?

David Tain: Yeah, that’s exactly. And I you’re absolutely right. So you pretty much have the potential to erode the, the, the value, the value generation potential of your asset. So, therefore, your business case. So, when you start developing a project, when you start developing an idea, you come from a set of value generation assumptions.

You cannot realize that until you push the button and emerge in this dangerous transition from a relatively controlled environment to a dynamic environment where commodities are coming and real-life conditions are happening. So, this is really the most important reason why operational awareness and engaging progressively and early enough and operational awareness effort is a robust effort is important because it actually is going to preserve the business case, it’s going to preserve the value generation of your corporation.

It’s going to preserve assumptions that you generated upfront at the front end of your project, right? So I can’t overemphasise enough how critical it is coming from this transition from, you know, static systems to actually a dynamic condition where pushing a bottom and a lot of things happening, and improvisation happened.

As soon as you start hearing that or as soon as you start engaging in improvisation efforts, your business case is eroded, and you’re going to have a recovery effort. It’s a totally different conversation; we’re talking about a totally different conversation.

Alan Quiero: Just one thing interesting in that comment that’s very well pointed out by Anna is that we started with the business case. We get lost in the process. We’re here to build. We’re here to put 25,000,000 tons per annum of OR in a ship in the beginning, and we’re building a project for that.

But as we’re building the project, it becomes about completion, about delivering the equipment. But the actual business case is sometimes forgotten along the way. So the value proposition is what began with and what we carry. That’s the end goal, and we get lost in time as organizations, unfortunately.

Alan Quiero: Just one thing interesting in that comment that’s very well pointed out by Anna is that we started with the business case. We get lost in the process. We’re here to build. We’re here to put 25,000,000 tons per annum of OR in a ship in the beginning, and we’re building a project for that.

But as we’re building the project, it becomes about completion, about delivering the equipment. But the actual business case is sometimes forgotten along the way. So the value proposition is what began with and what we carry. That’s the end goal, and we get lost in time as organizations, unfortunately.

And there’s a lot of risk that’s involved in that transition process, the risk that ultimately, if not managed, erodes the business case. So it’s, it’s critically important, of course, to have that outcome focused at the beginning, not have it get lost along the way and focus on preserving that value and delivering outcomes in the end. All very good points for sure.

Paul Turner: All right, Lionel’s got a question for OR the biggest starting point is the operating strategy. I’ve seen this missing on a lot of projects. If we don’t know how we want to operate the facility and define what we want to achieve, then how will we ever be able to plan the activities for operational readiness to achieve this strategy? Very valid point for sure. The operating strategy can drive both the project design side assets as well as the operation readiness side, people processing systems and is critical as a starting point and should be developed early on in the project. I absolutely agree with that one. What are your thoughts, David?

David Tain: It’s interesting because Common actually brought me to my really early times in my career, my, my first time, my first step as a project engineer. And of course, as I said, you know, I had really great bosses and great mentors. And I remember I was actually in this 30% more than the review. And I remember I started just taking the attendance, and I saw the operations team was not there.

And of course, I was torn because I mean, all these teams were, you know, coordinated. Everybody was in the room. Maybe we were waiting, and I made a really risky call early. I mean, I’m talking about literally 20 years ago. I just cancelled the meeting. I just said we can’t have this meeting, right? Because I’m not going to wait until the design is already, you know, just start discussing operational philosophies or even assessing the field operation parameters, yelling off PN IDs, and you don’t even I’m not sure if I can resonate with the operations conditions.

I mean, I don’t have real-life experience. So I was actually, it’s interesting because that comment brought me to a, to a really stressful moment in my early career, but I knew somehow that I was doing the right thing. So I cancelled the 30% model review, and it was not until I was highly supported by the organization that I was working for.

It was not until the operations team was formally invited and confirmed that we actually started doing that. And we’re talking about 3% model review in detailed design, the operation team, and the operational readiness team need to actually start defining. So you can’t enter detailed design if you don’t understand or you don’t have at least a basic understanding of your operating parameters, how you’re going to operate the facility.

You can’t move towards that because eventually, this is not about constructing a facility. This is not about putting a bunch of concrete and steel in the ground or pipe. It is about operating a facility, but it’s about getting a throughput, and well, that’s what the project is about, not having a beautiful exotic building, right?

That’s exactly what Alan mentioned. It gets lost in the process. It’s about producing. It’s not about constructing.

Alan Quiero: That I am excited to be part of this technical committee and this body we’re building globally and across the industries is going to generate exciting documentation and conversations. And I’d like to invite everyone to be part of this conversation. It’s going to be good for all of us.

Paul Turner: About from yourself, David, what would you like to leave the group with?

David Tain: With the group, I mentioned really excited to be part of this global movement. We’re topping everywhere in the world in different geographies. And as I mentioned at the beginning is a transformation of the execution ecosystem from being a cope delivery driven to outcome assurance oriented, right. So that is the most important message that I think, and all these technical committees are going to help is stealing all the information, cross-pollinating from multiple geographies, from multiple disciplines, from multiple perspectives with real case evidence experts to steal and cross-pollinate this knowledge to create the most optimal solution that can be applicable to specific projects and specific cases.

Paul Turner: And these are the organizations that will win and succeed in the next decade of projects. Delivery is the organizations that is focusing on outcomes, not just output. So I definitely encourage everyone, if you’re watching live or if you’re watching this replay, to reach out to ICxA, become a member, see how you can get involved and see how you can tap into this institutional knowledge to elevate your organization’s capabilities to deliver project outcomes and deliver project excellence.

So thanks everyone for joining today. Really appreciate all the questions, lots of good feedback. Thanks, David, and thanks, Alan, for the great conversation and looking forward to next week’s presentation. Watch your e-mail, watch LinkedIn, and hope to see you there. Everyone, have a great day.

Thanks for joining and everyone, please have a great day.