Q&A | With David Hilliard Q&A | With DavidInsight Hilliard_ Guide_011
Strategic programs fail for one reason - failure is designed in 2 _Q&A | With David Hilliard
In the last 30 years, Mentor Europe founder and CEO David Hilliard, has been involved in successfully executing 128 business transformation programs in different parts of the globe. 117 of these were “rescues” - getting wayward programs back on track.
In this Q&A with Mark Ward, former CEO of Netcompany (UK), David reflects on why this is the case and what can be done to avoid “inevitable” failures.
“Strategic programs fail for one reason - failure is designed in” published in association by Mentor Europe and Total Telecom, organisers of Connected Britain. www.totaltele.com/connectedbritain Q&A | With David Hilliard_ 3
An expensive education Is it really the case that so many business-critical programs fail?
“Unfortunately it’s true. They do fail. Many had several “resets” beforehand Over and over again. too. All predicting long delays, massive overspends, outright If you haven’t had one of these cancellation and, in some cases, legal frustrating setbacks yourself, let action. me mention a few well-publicised examples: Trustee Savings Bank Yet, on every occasion, the delinquent (TSB)1, Smart Meters2 and the program had been on the go for Emergency Services Network (ESN)3. anywhere between 6 and 12 months, There are lots of others, of course. before someone at C-level blew the whistle. Different elements of these programs worked well – which is normal. But, If people were frank, I’m sure they’d taken as a whole, they were well off be willing to add their own bad the mark. experiences to the list. McKinsey4 put the failure rate at I know I can. This is why I’m so 70%. But I think they’re being passionate about this today.” generous. Over 90% of the programs I’ve worked on involved rescuing programs which had already gone off the rails. What effect did failure have for you personally?
“I’ve had my share of disappointments Yet, time and again, just as it felt safe in the past. And, if my program to go back in the water, momentum had already experienced a costly stuttered, and confidence melted. “reset”, the feelings of personal Simply put. This was because the embarrassment and frustration were root causes of failure had not been always more severe. vaporised and put to rights. Each “reset” brought fresh hope But if the program was to continue complex problems had been cracked. – and invariably they did - one more And this time, we’d finally found a “reset” was inescapable. way to move the needle again. Not gradually, but noticeably.
1 https://www.tsb.co.uk/news-releases/slaughter-and-may/ 2 https://www.nao.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Rolling-out-smart-meters.pdf 3 https://www.nao.org.uk/report/progress-delivering-the-emergency-services-network/ 4 https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/retail/our-insights/the-how-of-transformation 4 _Q&A | With David Hilliard
My work colleagues used to mutter Did reputable suppliers not deliver? and grumble with discontent. Even Should I abandon the program – or try questioning my competence and to recover it again? judgement. It was really hard for me to confront Then, I really did start to doubt myself these questions. - and wondered what I could have done differently to avoid such severe One thing was certain: I wanted to personal discomfort. Who wouldn’t? make sure I would never have these experiences again. Was the program too ambitious? Did I bite off more than I could chew? These horrible incidents set me off on a path to discover what the root Was my plan naïve? causes of flatlining programs were. What tell-tale “distress” signals did I But I wanted to do much more than play down or ignore? this. Did I choose the right program I wanted to find a failproof way to director – the right team? Did I put far completely avoid execution hazards. too much trust in a few people who Outwitting them permanently.” had done a good job for me before?
Tragic design So why does this happen so often? And when it does - why are senior executives blindsided by the size of these eye-watering delays and overspends?
“Working with my partners, Mike 1. Misalignment: Executive teams and Ian, at Mentor, we took a long are not as aligned as they like to hard look at all the programs we’d think they are seen over the past 30 years, learning 2. Ineffective organisations: Many from our own experiences and other program “organisation structures” people’s too. are typically misleading and And we made some intriguing unworkable discoveries. 3. Naïve plans: Most program “plans” are targets, based on someone Significantly, there was always a clear else’s view of what “ought to be and consistent theme. A cluster of possible” “age-old” failure patterns repeating over-and-over again - causing these 4. Poor supplier management: programs to pinball all over the place. Reputable industry suppliers are just as prone to program We noticed, in every case, five “bone- misadventure as their clients, crushing” factors were at play: possibly more so Q&A | With David Hilliard_ 5
5. Weak dependencies: Fragile The companies themselves didn’t dependency management can consciously intend to do this, of hobble any program. course. And it wasn’t always their fault And that wasn’t all. - yet this is exactly what they were doing. We saw in every situation, program failure was “designed-in” from the We found it astonishing. With start. Not just on a few programs – but old-style execution doctrine – it’s on all of them. literally just a matter of time before a business-critical program goes into an Causing damage to company irreversible stall. valuations, financial results, reputation and brand image. The only question is: how long does it take for the downward spiral to start?” We noticed, in every case, five “bone- crushing” factors were at play.
So how can you avoid the inevitable failure being “designed in”?
“You have to start by taking a The most senior deeper look into the 5 “bone- people in the crushing” factors at the heart of every business-critical program failure: company (Mentor) Executive misalignment; Ineffective know that the organisations; Naïve plans; Poor organisation really supplier management; Fragile dependencies. needs to face up to They’re all deeply interconnected - the reality of what and any one of these five factors can it’s doing. take a program down. We discovered when all five combined together – this Paul Donovan, former CEO, is when things really went off-piste. Eircom And if a business doesn’t tackle these areas accurately, at the start - some type of breakdown will be “designed in” to every program. This is guaranteed.” 6 _Q&A | With David Hilliard
Sounds like an easy thing to fix then? Just check against the 5 “bone-crushers” and your program will succeed?
“If only it was that simple… the right things - overspends, delays, cancellations and expensive court These labels are not new. In the cases would not be so widespread. strategy execution world, people talk about them all the time. Let’s be clear: the three programs mentioned at the beginning of this - But they all have one major drawback. TSB, Smart Meters and ESN - made Each label means different things a complete hash of the 5 common to different people. And when we factors. communicate with others, this language irregularity has deep This is not just my view. Each of consequences for everyone. these program teams have publicly acknowledged their failures. Check around with your colleagues and see how, exactly, they describe What’s more, the top executives each factor. Take alignment, for sponsoring these programs all said example. I guarantee the differences they received incorrect and misleading in interpretation will startle you. information at various times about the true state of the programs. Executive And they are not at the nuance level management believed everything was either. The differences are very wide. going well. And there’s something else at play It’s worth remembering too there were here too. several industry-leading suppliers Most organisations would say, without involved in these programs. They’re much thought, they’re aligned; well all highly regarded organisations. But organised; have solid plans; robust they still got a lot wrong. supplier relationships - and their And these incidents are just the tip of program dependencies are well the iceberg. There’s a ton of calamities nailed-in. you never get to hear about. Most And while many executives may feel companies would not deliberately their teams do a good job in all these choose to wash their dirty linen in areas, the evidence from across public. industry is pretty conclusive. It’s So, we set out to get rid of the extremely rare. ambiguity and broke down each Think about it for a moment: if word into meaningful specifics, in an companies were consistently doing execution context.” Q&A | With David Hilliard_ 7
Way too many most organisations. organisations You have to decide underestimate what is core to your operational own business, and requirements and what you need to execution. They deliver, and also look at massive what is not core strategic projects and where you need and programs expertise to help. that are critical to their success I think there was a and they assume real hybrid with us their organisation and Mentor, which can deliver them - was that we didn’t without the right have the experience people with the right and they did.”
levels of experience Jeff Dodds, COO, Virgin and knowledge. That Media (former CEO, Tele2 is a massive gap in Netherlands) Aligned to achieve Looking at the 5 factors, what can you tell us about what you found on Alignment?
“What we found, when we scratched well-led, and there is ambiguity on the below the surface, was some direction they should take, the teams members of management teams will make whatever decision suits were only superficially aligned. them - and this can create havoc in And, typically, they had a limited the execution phase. understanding of what alignment Middle management are inclined meant - and what it takes to get it. to be too protective of the status You can probably recall a few quo - any clandestine inter-group situations in the past where one of conflict causes logarithmic effects your colleagues appeared to be on downstream. board yet, in truth, they were barely The truth is: alignment is binary. You’re going through the motions. either in or out. It’s dangerous too - because It’s relatively easy to get alignment misaligned executives always lead around things like Vision and Strategy. to misaligned teams. If they’re not But (and this is where things start to 8 _Q&A | With David Hilliard
unravel) management teams do find it Is the program hard to get the gritty things done. properly organised, Like investing the right level of time, funded and fully resource and funds in vital programs – resourced with even when they have all agreed to do the right number it! They’re all utterly convinced, they’re and mix of skills – committed, tight-knit, cohesive – and, without caveat? If oddly enough, aligned.” it’s not, how can any management team claim to be aligned?
Why organising isn’t enough How does organisation affect the success of a Program?
“Business-critical programs are not to the Program Director - and only “business as usual” (BAU). They work on the program when they’ve need to be treated differently. Many done their “day job”. companies intuitively know this - yet So, how much of an individual’s time still do everything they can to limit the are you really getting? Not as much as programs’ impact on normal business you think. operations. Most senior executives would have Typically, they shoehorn the program seen this self-defeating scenario organisation into a functional structure played out more than once before. which always has its own “higher priority” work to do. Typically, Program Directors are coordinators or “war correspondents”. This mistake virtually guarantees They’re at the battle – capable of the program won’t hit its objectives, seeing what’s going on - but that’s it. because BAU always dominates new They just can’t exert enough influence programs. on what happens. What’s more, most of the critical Instead, a Program Director program resources are part-time and should be a “General” - with all the controlled by someone else. Often, organisational power and resource they just have dotted-line relationships essential to success.” Q&A | With David Hilliard_ 9
Can you expand your thoughts a little on the Program Director?
“This is one thing companies can do And they project themselves as which will lead to greater success, “lightweight”. faster. Surgeons and pilots put in thousands Think about it… of hours of highly relevant training before being let loose on real people – Would you want to get operated on because failure could be catastrophic. by a surgeon who ISN’T certified – and who couldn’t guarantee skilled This is a massive opportunity for help would turn up in the operating companies to make better decisions theatre to assist with your heart about program leadership and bypass surgery? dramatically improve execution performance. Would you want to step on a plane with a pilot who ISN’T licensed – and Program Director roles should attract who didn’t know how much fuel was the same level of attention a new “C” on board, if it was correct - and who level executive appointment would.” checked it?
Correct, you wouldn’t. Does the Program But guess what? Many companies Director have do exactly that. The parallels are undisputed striking. authority to deliver They appoint untested Program the business case? Directors to critical roles. They may Are they the right have been terrific functional leaders person for the job? - but don’t have “heavyweight” Do they report at the program execution experience. right level and have unrestricted access to Rising stars and Directors who are available are also fashionable the C-group? And do choices for the lame duck club. they have sufficient resources – funding, In tough cross-company roles they people and services struggle - because the program job – to match the has little in common with what they were doing. They no longer have authority? their power base - and they don’t have the hard-won experience to tackle “the north face of the Eiger”. 10 _Q&A | With David Hilliard
Planning saves time in execution What did you discover about the characteristics of Program Plans?
“We know a Program Plan is really and made-up numbers which swing three interrelated plans. Crucially, all between “wild” and “semi-educated” three - the Work; the Schedule; and, guesses. Initial plans tend to be naïve, the Budget - should be consistent and unrealistic – and riddled with heroic synchronised. guesses. Yet they rarely are. This simple truth is at the root of every Schedule debacle. As a rule, the description of the Work plan is the most thorough. But if It’s important to keep in mind just how the program is transformational, it’s “sketchy” Schedule information is and obvious at least 80% of the initial hold off making high-risk decisions Schedule will be highly questionable. based on first-cut plans. For two main reasons. Plans are also announced publicly too early at some company “set piece” First, because it’s usually based on event – often when there is no urgency unrealistic expectations and rough-cut to do so. This immediately creates estimates about future work - which external expectations which have to be is not well-understood. This means managed. And needless organisational fundamental risks will not be highly pressure. visible and, in truth, may not have even been identified. Compounding the challenge, schedules are normally based on the crazy notion And second, because some executive nothing will go wrong. And when things may have an irrational “bee in their do go off-piste, the business has zero bonnet” about getting it all done faster surge capacity to handle the crisis. and sets “run faster - jump higher” targets – in the hope things will move But the most disturbing feature of sooner. They seldom do. first-cut plans is they take for granted the company will also achieve And, rather than be called a bunch standards of delivery brilliance it’s never of chocolate teapots, the team go achieved before. And this relentless underground and try and meet the optimism doesn’t change much until a improbable moon-shot. And live to fight breakdown strikes.” another day. Finally, the Budget depends on the Does the Program accuracy of the Schedule, and if this is Plan recognise inaccurate the Budget will be suspect. that the Work, the And, there’s always pressure to Schedule and the manage the initial “guess”. Budget plans are We found companies put far too much separate planning faith in preliminary plans. Remember, activities? they’re based on untested assumptions Q&A | With David Hilliard_ 11
We rely on suppliers Why is Supplier Management so vital?
“It’s hard to find a business-critical their métier. program which isn’t built on a major Don’t get dazzled by the supplier’s deliverable from one or more hardware brand name and historical reference or software vendors. cases either. Build positive relationships Increasingly, vendors are offering “out- with suppliers - and remain vigilant for of-the-box” solutions. Yet, often it’s not the many tell-tale distress signals that clear what’s “in-the-box” and what’s hide in plain sight. “out-of-the-box”. Sometimes, there’s a Practical considerations mean every lot less in the box than clients expect. client can’t have a supplier’s “A” And this causes unexpected and team. Just remember, there’s always a expensive program delays. genuine chasm in experience between Typically, suppliers provide only partial the “A” team and the “C” team. visibility of development progress. And Clients should be clear about which this can mask development delays individuals worked on those reference until very late in the day - and cause cases which clinched their deal. It’s complications with system integration always good to test this as it would not activities, at the worst possible time. be unusual to find none of them did. This comes about because Supplier Finally, Liquidated Damages and Management, as it’s practiced today, Service Credits are a very poor tends to over-accentuate commercial substitute for strong supplier and procurement activities, at the management. And they can never fully expense of the gritty business of compensate for the commercial and delivering the technical features of the reputational damage of a failed/delayed program. The stuff that makes solutions program.” work. The trend toward outsourcing major chunks of “program management and Which people are solutions” to suppliers – and not just working on the products alone – mean they should program and, be managed with the same rigour and specifically, how is attention as internal plans. No sense in each relevant to your inviting a pointless shock. challenge? Do you And clients should make sure their have the “A” team internal organisation and resource or the “D” team? Are plans dovetail with the suppliers. supplier planning methods as robust But this is getting harder all the time because of the increasing dependence as your own internal on the supplier’s program management processes? skills - which historically has not been 12 _Q&A | With David Hilliard
Silence isn’t golden, it’s deadly Why are Dependencies so troublesome?
“Dependency management is the Disconnects are hazardous and can No.1 blind spot in any program. It’s a easily cause a program to come to a program killer - literally. And not many shuddering halt. companies do a good job on them. Half-hearted dependency management No business-critical program can always leads to heartbreak. Especially be delivered in isolation. It relies on where legacy systems are involved - work packages - or dependencies and where the number of dependencies – completed by different projects is usually prolific. from within the program; from other There must be a formal “airtight” programs; and, from other functions framework – which provides within the business. documented confirmation to the Not to mention external hardware and program on the work supplying software vendors. functions will complete, by when and at what cost. This framework has to In fact, each work package is a mini include Suppliers.” project. And if these are not identified, understood, negotiated and managed, Is there a recognised big holes in the program plan are inevitable. program dependency register (in print) But the depressing truth is the level which is the definitive of informality around dependency record of what management on major programs is contributing functions breath-taking. must do to support the I’ve lost count of the number of times a program? Has each Program Manager has said “I can meet contributing function my dates, provided that group do this committed “in blood” by then – and this other group do that to do the work – by then also. It’s not my job. It’s “theirs”. funded and resourced When asked if these other groups know - by the required what’s required – the answer is always dates? Are there any something like “I think so. I’ll have disconnects which another “chat” with them to make sure! could jeopardise the That’s way too many maybes for me. program? How do It’s not enough to casually “agree” these disconnects get dependencies over a natter and a resolved? Is there an handshake. If people have worked official escalation together for a long time, and the culture mechanism to resolve is relatively informal, this can lead to disconnects and inter- serious omissions, mismatches and functional wrangles? complete disconnects about what’s needed - by when, and at what cost. Q&A | With David Hilliard_ 13
The mess that we made There’s a lot of good stuff to chew on here - so, the obvious question is - what happens if the 5 common factors are badly covered?
“The most important thing to keep It’s pretty clear that Supplier in mind is these 5 factors are not management does not receive standalone. enough attention. Industry-leading suppliers are just as prone to program There is a high degree of misfortune as their clients are. interdependence between them. And, candidly, in companies where Finally, weak Dependency coverage is not up to scratch, management can – and does - hobble program failure is designed in. Without any program. doubt. And there’s no clear evidence yet that The evidence from the work we’ve program management “certification” done on over 100 business-critical is reversing this trend.” programs - with many companies around the world - indicates we have I learned from to face some ugly truths. Mentor that when First, executive teams exaggerate you’re embarking how aligned they are. Also, many program “organisation structures” are on a major complex misleading and don’t work. program, don’t wait Wishful thinking is rife in program until you encounter plans. They’re usually targets based difficulties or on what a small group of people feel challenges, until you “ought to be possible”. engage the experts.
David Sangster, MD, G.Network (former GM, Airwave UK) 14 _Q&A | With David Hilliard
Lessons are for learning What can we learn from other industries about successful program execution?
“There’s always a lot we can learn from elsewhere. Perhaps the US space program can teach us a lot about making good decisions right at the start of highly complex programs. We are now told that rocket science is easy - and it’s “rocket engineering” that’s brutally hard. And here’s why. Each of Nasa’s legendary Saturn V rockets, which launched the Apollo moon missions, contained over six-million parts. Add to that - the stresses inflicted by gravity, crosswinds, and the combustion in the rocket – and it gets badly shaken up. Things fail. Sometimes the consequences are minor and have no effect on the launch. But at the other extreme, catastrophic failure can result, as everyone knows. The point is that almost every component must be working nearly perfectly before the Flight Director can say: “All systems are go. We have a go!”. In the space community, launch “holds” are common. They’re an accepted and unremarkable fact of life. They understand it’s better to hold than suffer the loss of a rocket and its precious cargo. Consider this: it’s almost unheard of for a business-critical program to be put on “hold” because a company needs more time to get its program design right. But perhaps it would save a lot of exasperation and grief 6 – 12 months’ downstream, if some programs were “held” until they were ready to go.” Q&A | With David Hilliard_ 15
Stop getting in your own way This all sounds fascinating. Can clients implement Mentor’s scheme themselves?
“Clients can, of course, use these A company can change principles. They have smart people and could figure these things out for its approach, by themselves. Eventually. making a decision to “turn pro” in execution Yet, if a program is already under management, instead massive pressure, it will probably take of staying amateur. too long - by which time the program will be even further behind schedule, have run up more costs and could be We’ve been doing this type of work even more difficult to salvage. for over 30 years. And we’ve built And there’s another important point to a framework around the 5 “bone- consider here. crushers,” to crack the most common execution problems fast – before A company can change its approach, anything starts. permanently, by making a decision to “turn pro” in execution management, We call our execution framework instead of staying amateur. All they have The MentorBlueprint. to do is change their minds - decide With it, we can forecast the outcome enough is enough - and make a positive of any program in days – rather than decision to no longer work as amateurs. months. It provides certainty. And it Turning pro doesn’t cost anything - but works.” it’s not easy. It means really getting to grips with the 5 factors – and If we think we have walking away from a way of working a strategic gap, we that everyone has become extremely wouldn’t think twice comfortable with. about employing Companies leave amateur behaviour behind when they turn pro. And, as a strategic long as they don’t behave like someone consultancy to come who’s had three of four karate lessons in and help us bridge before deciding it’s too hard, this will make all the difference. the gap. But very few organisations And one more thing. think about it Without help, it’s doubtful the team that led the program into crisis – often with operationally. That 2 or more resets under their belt - can is a big gap and then lead it out of trouble. without question. It’s possible, but not likely. Jeff Dodds, COO, Virgin Media (former CEO, Tele2 Netherlands) 16 _Q&A | With David Hilliard
Success begins with a blueprint Can you say a little more about the background to The MentorBlueprint?
“We wanted to help busy and frustrated At its heart are the 5 factors I’ve spoken senior executives to supercharge their about. For each factor, we have a set of execution performance – so that, next acid tests to gauge the extent to which time, they could safely set programs off a client program matches up with our on the right track themselves. success profile. That’s why we created The We work hard with clients to make sure MentorBlueprint. they are tackling them properly – and to the required depth. It’s clear very quickly We wanted to build something that was whether something critical is done or not. new, safe, easy to follow and would deliver big benefits for their businesses. One thing is certain. If you put the work in – it will deliver big benefits for any In practice, The MentorBlueprint is a rich business. It’s safe and easy. And it’s fusion of accumulated wisdom, patterns, guaranteed. relationships and pragmatic know- how - gleaned from dozens of program It’s a fantastic opportunity for clients to debacles we’ve seen over the years. start building these skills. It’s safe, saves masses of time and Working with us, there’s no reason why any helps clients and our team to stay on business-critical program should fail.” track. It underpins program success with certainty.
Program organisation
Planning Supplier management
Executive Dependencies alignment MentorBlueprint
What evidence do you have that the MentorBlueprint really works?
“It’s quite straightforward really. because their multi-million-pound program was running 6 months late. Each of the 117 program “resets” we Not only did we recover the delay, but worked on was successfully salvaged. we also brought their service launch And the 11 that started from scratch all forward by three months. hit their original business targets. And the value of that 9-month saving A good example would be: where we for this client was £40M.” were brought into one client situation Q&A | With David Hilliard_ 17
Is there a way a client can try out your approach, so they know what to expect?
“Every program rescue is different. And It’s not a serial process. each one is critical. On the other hand, if someone just When a program is hopelessly off wants a second opinion on the state of course, clients must act fast. In a their program - or to get a feel for what case like this, we’d suggest a full it would be like to work with us - we Healthcheck - which could take around offer a shorter, low-risk option which we 4 weeks. And we would create a full could complete in 5 days. Obviously, recovery roadmap to pilot the program this would not be in as much depth as back into calmer waters. a full Healthcheck – but it would cover all the elements of a solid get-well plan. Clients do worry about investing 4 weeks in a Healthcheck when a For this option, the client would need program is under pressure. But we do to make key people and information have a track record of recovering delay available for the 5-day period.” - and accelerating delivery - while the plan is being reset. Experiences teaches us everything How would you summarise the results of your experiences?
“It’s a fact that the vast majority of worked on, failure was also designed strategic programs fail. And it’s not in. Not on some of them - but on all of getting any better. Let’s not debate them. whether the number is 70% or 90% - We discovered 5 “bone-crushing” the number is far too high. common factors that were not properly Many have had several “resets” dealt with at the start of each program. resulting in long delays, massive 1. Executive teams were not as overspends, outright cancellation and, aligned as they thought in some cases, legal action. Not to mention the personal dead-weights 2. Many program “organisation around the necks of key stakeholders. structures” were misleading and unworkable TSB, Smart Meters and the ESN are 3. Most program “Plans” were just a few recent examples. There are targets based on someone’s view many more. of what “ought to be possible” In each of those cases, failure was 4. Supplier Management did not designed in. receive enough attention. And Of the 117 program rescues we’ve reputable suppliers are just as prone to program adversity as their clients are 18 _Q&A | With David Hilliard
5. Weak Dependency Management before a business-critical program can – and does - hobble any goes into an irreversible stall. program. The only question is: how long will it And the results were inevitable. Just take for the downward spiral to start? waiting to happen, lying there like unexploded bombs. Yet, with a lot of focused effort, clients can liberate themselves from all that With antiquated execution approaches pain and misery.” – it’s literally just a matter of time So how do you build-in success?
“The MentorBlueprint will help any I’d sum up Mentor as business to shape a program for basically having two success. things: It’s extremely well-researched, practical and, more importantly, is proven to deliver results on a wide range of One is industry technical complex programs. expertise that really The MentorBlueprint is not a box-ticking understands the industry. exercise - mechanistically stepping through the 5 factors. Once a program And then this upfront is kicked off, people are inclined to go on a lap of honour - before critical method of executing issues like alignment, planning and programs, that means organisation are bottomed out. as a senior stakeholder, Guided by our seasoned practitioners, it I am really clear from demands that companies work through the start what is going to the hard questions – and answer them - to stop any chance of an expensive happen. And I know that rescue situation developing. when they set out to do The beauty of The MentorBlueprint is: something, they will make it forces executive teams to have those sure it is done - and that tough, but necessary, conversations before anything gets started.” includes making sure that I am making the decisions They weren’t shy at the right time. in telling us what we really needed to So expertise, great do even if we didn’t methodology and really want to hear ultimately reliable that at the time. delivery.
Tim Pennington, CFO, Millicom Derek McManus, COO Telefonica UK (Former CFO, Three UK) Q&A | With David Hilliard_ 19
Can you guarantee success?
“Yes. The first thing about As long as people accept our proven Mentor is they’re a advice, we will guarantee success. great partner. Absolutely. And we think this is a unique offer. When Mentor come in, There’s no reason why any business- you know, they know critical program should not deliver its what questions to ask, expected results.” and they go from top to bottom.
Simon Beresford-Wylie, CEO, Arqiva How can people get in touch with you?
“Anyone can call me on I’d be very happy to have a confidential 07860 222282 or email me at talk with anyone who may want [email protected] reassurance and support. And to explain how we work with clients to They can also find out a lot more about guarantee success.” us on our website too: www.mentoreurope.com If I’m unavailable at the time, people can leave a message and I’ll get back to them within 24 hours.
About David David is Mentor Europe’s Founder and Chief Executive. He is a trusted hard-core specialist with encyclopaedic skills on strategy execution and works behind the scenes with CEOs and senior executives, helping to crack problems blocking high performance. He is a down-to-earth practitioner, with over 30 years’ experience in the telecoms and service industries and has helped many client’s setup new businesses. Some clients included Arqiva, Cable & Wireless, CityFibre, Energis, Eircell, Virgin Mobile, Three, Telefonica, 5 Television, Tele2, Airwave, BT, Digicel and Colt Technology Services. About Mentor
Mentor has three solid decades of experience in running difficult, business-critical programs in the UK and European telecoms markets. Breaking new ground by helping to create some of the first wave of Alt.net deployments, Mentor worked behind the scenes with most of the UK’s infrastructure players. Today, Mentor is helping mobile operators, fibre providers and infrastructure players to figure out how to respond to the huge opportunities presented by 4G densification and the move to 5G. Specifically for: • Mobile operators – crafting new design, deployment and IT schemes for fibre networks and optical solutions across their core and access networks • Fibre providers - designing solutions that meet the unique architecture, operational and business case requirements of the mobile operators • Infrastructure players, and their investors, as they look to earn new revenues from the opportunities presented by the move to 5G. With our strong industry relationships and independence – combined with deep design, operational and commercial experience – we will work with you and your team to provide the people, resources and expertise to get your business-critical program over the line – with certainty. We call it the Mentor Way. Results. Guaranteed. Get in touch: www.mentoreurope.com
Mentor Europe Associates Ltd. Davidson House, Forbury Square Reading, RG1 3EU +44 (0) 118 900 1252 [email protected]