Formatted Text
Speaker A I'd like to shift a bit to talk about grouping of work. And as you've probably gathered up to now, as Ro has evolved, there have been some changes in terms of how people do things. So I think that part of the value is making sure that you get the fundamentals and them in a way that is quote unquote correct. On the other hand, I think it's also important, at least for me and my colleagues may have other opinions on some things which would be fine. I think it's also important to talk about the evolution and I think it's also important to talk about what perceptions are, what my perceptions are in this particular case of some of the strengths and weaknesses, because nothing's perfect and if you're going to be part of a profession, the profession grows and evolves. So I think understanding some of that and some of the questions is a good idea. So in terms of our work, just as a context, the core pieces that we've been talking about so far in terms of strata, in terms of time span, and in terms of information processing capability, which we'll get into more, for us, that is a core of both our practice and research. From my perspective, that's really fundamental in terms of what levels of work is about and we've just got enough practice and research and so on and so forth, that I'm very comfortable with that. On the other hand, there are some parts that I think can be further strengthened, some parts that I think are not as strong as they might be. So if you look at functional alignment as opposed to the vertical alignment, my sense is that in Ro that's not as strong. We talked earlier about kind of starting with strategy and then moving from strategy to the alignment of the organization. So if you think about the alignment of positions vertically and functionally that provides the spine of the organization, our view would be to the extent that the spine is misaligned, everything you overlay on that will be suboptimal. It's really a fundamental first piece from our perspective in terms of having organizations that operate effectively in terms of the starting points. The starting points are understanding the strategy and then also understanding the work. We really talked so far today about some of the pieces of understanding the work, but it's really like rolling up your sleeves and getting in there and understanding the stuff. If you look at functional alignment, how you organize functionally, one of the big questions which is not addressed as much is how do you make choices around what a primary way of organizing is and what secondary or tertiary ways of organizing are. So for example, when you think about organizing work in a big company, one of the questions is if you've got a corporate group and you've got a whole bunch of business units in a very large company, how do you set up the business units and what's the role of the corporate group. So there's some work that's been done by Gould and some of his colleagues and they really look at that specifically and I think that's useful work. In terms of the functional alignment. One of the questions coming out of strategy is, okay, so I could organize primarily by geography. So each of the line people reporting to me will be accountable for a geography, could organize by customer type, small company customers, medium sized, big ones, could organize by product or service type, could organize by function, marketing, sales and so on. So we've got different ways that we could organize and a key strategy question and design question becomes how do you prioritize those? How do you make a decision on which one you want to go with as your primary way of organizing? And I think that question and that interface is really critical historically. I don't think we spend as much time on that question as it deserves. One of the implications is, and this gets into cross functional accountabilities and authorities, one of the questions then becomes, or one of the implications becomes whatever you decide as your primary way of organizing, let's say it's customers, then by definition you've got a secondary and a tertiary way of organizing. So if you organize first by customers and you're fairly big, you may secondarily organize by geography. Okay, so we've got all these customers, this person reports directly to the president, but then within this group we're spread out all over the place. So we're going to organize geographically on a secondary basis. And what's interesting is that that secondary basis then becomes the foundation for setting up the cross functional accountabilities authorities. So the primary way is how you set up the managerial and the secondary and even the tertiary way. I've seen material written on having four or five, six dimensions. I can't imagine how one would do that, quite frankly, effectively. I think there's only so much that one can do, but certainly on a secondary or tertiary way, setting those up becomes critical. One of the things we found so the position alignment then is the foundation. One of the things we found is that to get the cross functional right, if you don't have the positions aligned vertically and functionally, and you don't have the employee and managerial accountabilities in place, very difficult to get the cross functional right, okay, those pieces become foundation pieces for the cross functional. The cross functional is one of the most difficult to have in place, but if you don't have foundations in place, then it's very difficult to do that optimally. One of the paradoxical pieces is that if you think about the vertical alignment, it actually is one of the important pieces to get cross functional right? So if you've got a vertical alignment and you've got an extra position there that you don't need and you want to set up some cross functional work. Which one of the two do you invite to the meeting? Invite both of them. Bit of a waste. Invite one of them. If you only invite one of them, are they going to tell the other about it? So the vertical alignment is actually a significant piece in getting the cross functional set up on an optimal basis. So this piece around the functional, I think we can do better work on it. So, as an example, I think that Jay Galbraith has done more work in this area that's useful than I've seen in Ro. There's a lot of things I don't like, and they're missing this whole vertical piece, which I think is pretty substantive in terms of that looking at strategy and then looking at how you set up the functional alignment. I think they've done better work in that area than Ro typically has, just as I think Gould has done really interesting work in terms of that upper level and how you get that upper level set up. Right. So those would be a few preliminary comments. I want to go to the slides and go through those and then I want to talk a little bit more about cross functional accountabilities and authorities. Before I do, are there any questions or comments on what I've said so far? Yes. Tell me if I get too far.
Speaker B Afar, but when we're doing design work.
Speaker A For It systems, we tend to have goals for design, maintainability, effectiveness of delivery, et cetera. Do those motivations play into that or.
Speaker B Were you just describing structural components that go into it?
Speaker A What I'm doing at this point is describing It in a more macro way, but those all come into play. So if you think about so called support functions, human resources, finance, it is a really interesting one because it's part support, but it's mainly core now the way it's evolved over time. So those areas by definition are set up on a cross functional basis. You've got to get the cross functional accountabilities and authorities right for them to.
Speaker B Be fully effective over both sets of goals.
Speaker A Absolutely. Thanks.
Speaker C Ron J. Galbraith argues for true matrix structures where people have two bosses. Yes, I think I know what you might say from an Ro perspective. And Gould's work suggests maybe 8% of large organizations use true matrix structure.
Speaker A What's your view? Right. So quite simply, there's a part that's right, and there's a part that's not the part that's right. Is that when organizations get to a certain complexity, you need to organize on more than a vertical dimension. That part's right. The part that's wrong is matrix is a really suboptimal system for managing work across an organization. You got some solid lines and some dotted lines and they're not as well defined in the core Ro piece. And we've further evolved it. The core Ro piece and the other piece. One of the questions for us is who's the crossover point manager. So the crossover point manager is the lowest level manager who controls most or all of the resources necessary to resolve an issue or take advantage of an opportunity. And depending on what that is, it could be different people in different parts of the organization. That's a real role. It's virtually never seen as a real role and it's virtually never done properly. So you set that up. That should be one of the first questions. You got a problem. First question, who's the crossover point manager? Once you know that role, then the work is setting up context and prescribed limits, setting up a mechanism to resolve conflict and refine the context and prescribed limits. Make sure that positions are aligned properly, vertically and functionally. Make sure that the managerial accountabilities and authorities are right, make sure that the cross functional accountabilities and authorities are right. And that gives you a full and integrated system in terms of doing that work with some real specificity that matrix has never had.
Speaker C So an organization like Chubb that uses true matrix, meaning two hard lines for some jobs, so they'll have someone who's accountable for selling commercial insurance in the Chicago area and they report to the product headquarters and up the geography. RO's view on double.
Speaker A So the view in Ro, which we would agree and continue to use is that every employee would have one manager but can have multiple cross functional relationships.
Speaker D There's one other principle that we found very useful. As you come up with your initial functional structure, you start to look at which of the cross functional processes are most critical and rate limiting and at what level is that cross functional process. Primarily doing the work is the value stream, let's say it's level three. You want to modify the structure so that the people who are in that process flow, if not on the same team, have the same manager once removed to try to bring the crossover point manager just two levels above those critical functions that must work together. You can't always do it, but that's our null hypothesis.
Speaker A That's good, right?
Speaker B That's good.
Speaker A Okay, so what I'd like to do is run through some slides and then I'd like to talk a little bit about cross functional accountabilities and authorities. So in terms of common grouping issues, overlapping and diffused accountabilities within functions and cross boundaries. So some of the problems, there are all kinds of problems here and certainly having that secondary system to deal with them is critical. Waste, limited energy, prevent, effective integration of work. Virtually every organization we go into complains about having silos, complains about not being able to work effectively across the organization. And virtually no organizations we've ever been into have effective cross functional accountabilities and authorities, which is the antidote for those problems. Perpetuate problem, escalation versus resolution, delay, decision making, increase coordination costs, hamper communication, erode, confidence and trust. So all kinds of issues here. Some fundamental groupings of work. On the top part you've got selling, marketing, provisioning, development. So one of the things you want to do first is you want to get your core business organized. So what is the business actually delivering? And once you've got that in place, then you can get more deeply into the other parts of the business in terms of resource sustainment, staff specialists, resource enhancement, and so on. One of the things, if we go into an organization and they want to do a pilot project first, it's easier to do a pilot project with an intact business unit than it is with a function like HR or Finance. The reason is HR and Finance support the core business. And if you don't yet understand what the core business is, it's harder to know if you've got it aligned properly, it's doable. It's just a tougher way to start with a pilot project for that reason. And we've got some considerations here that I talked about earlier. Geography, interdependence, and so on, um, as much as possible, group light work together. One of the, one of the questions for you as you're looking at the groupings, one of the questions is, if you've got a manager managing an area, can that manager handle that breadth? Say you've got two functions and this manager is managing both of those functions. Can the manager be knowledgeable enough about both of those to do it properly? Some consulting firms go into organizations and use span of control as a mantra. So span of control should be seven we'll go through and we'll set everything up as seven. But they don't take into account what the work is. Setting it up in a way that a manager doesn't know the work and is going to fail is not a very good criteria to use in terms of how that operates. If it's interdependent group, it under a common manager as low as possible. It ties into what Jerry said a few minutes ago. If work involves a number of handoffs put in place, supporting plan schedules, liaison rules, and so on and so forth, and then make grouping and layering decisions concurrently in order to deliver this strategy effectively. And the real key here is you get the positions aligned vertically and functionally. That's the spine of the organization. Everything gets overlaid on that. To the extent that that's dysfunctional, then by definition everything else is going to be subalt. Paul talked about colors here's, some colors of different types of work and how they're matched. We generally find that it's better to put the core parts of an organization that are the business delivery pieces together and put the other pieces together. When you mix and match them, it tends to be more difficult. So if someone's accountable for a business unit, they're also accountable for human resources. We find that tends not to work as well as if they're more discreetly set up. So I'm just going to go back here. We're going to give you an exercise in a minute. But I just want to one of the values, and this goes back to the work that Elliot created. One of the values of this compared with matrix is that there are cross functional accountabilities and authorities, or originally called tiers. And one of the benefits of this relative to matrix is it sets up accountabilities. But for the accountabilities it also has authorities. The problem with matrix, or one of the problems with matrix is there's a lot of accountabilities but not clear authorities. That happens in organizations all the time. I'm going to give you a special project. I want you to improve performance management of the 1000 person organization. It's a stretch assignment, but I'm sure you can handle it. No one sets up the proper authorities. No one sets up the mechanisms for that to happen and to work effectively. Then three, six months later this person has not been successful. No big surprise. Lousy design. And then the outcome is someone says to the individual, well, you didn't do very well on this. Maybe if you had a better personality or whatever you could have been successful. So it's kind of a blame game as opposed to thinking about design. One of the keys is how do you design an organization so that people can be successful? The end of the day, if people can be successful and we can remove impediments that get in the way of them using their full capability, then they win and the organization wins. Most organizations are not designed to do that, not intentionally. Most organizations are not designed to do that. So some of these are advice. With the advice, part of your role is to provide advice to people in the organization. They don't necessarily have to follow your advice, but you have a requirement to provide It service providing services in the organization. The role play here on recruiting. Recruiting is a service in an organization that's provided to managers. Coordinate. If you've got work across the organization, someone may coordinate that work. And again with coordinate there's a certain authority that goes with it. If you have an accountability coordinate, people are expected to attend those meetings and do that kind of work. It's not good enough to say, well, it's not my job. Monitor. Monitor is to check and see how things are going in different areas. You often find this in finance audit. We've actually changed the term here to stop. That's what it is. Audit means stop. And we found this was confusing. So this is the authority to stop work someone is doing. I'm not the boss of the person, but I'm the health and safety person. And I deem the conditions in this plant to be unsafe for these employees. And I have the authority to have the plant manager shut down the plant until these are dealt with. Prescribe. You don't find that as much. You'd find it. In a hospital where doctors prescribe medicines, nurses are required to fulfill the prescriptions. The doctors typically think they're the managers of the nurses. Until you start talking to the doctors about what a manager has to do and they quickly realize they're not the managers of the nurses, they just prescribe and the nurses have to do those things. We also find that in a nuclear plant where someone has the prescription authority to take over a situation, take over a risk, high risk situation, collateral is the members, the team members of the same manager working effectively together. And here's one that's not part of it, but we find it really useful and it's recommend policy standards, et cetera. And what we do is it's not a cross functional accountability and authority, but what we do is we pair it with monitor those two together, become what we call a small g governance function, not true governance. You find that at a board level and other kinds of situations. So it's not true governance, but it's a small g governance function. And if you think about some functions in an organization, that small g governance function is the most important function they have. So if you think about human resources as an example, it's critical for human resources to make sure that there's policies and standards and to monitor if things are getting better or not. If I'm the CEO, I want to know what our standards are and I want to know how we're tracking. Those two things are absolutely fundamental. Now, whether I choose to provide services inside or outsource those, that's a totally different question. But this is absolutely fundamental to a lot of those functions.
Speaker E How is it recommend policy versus advised difference?
Speaker A Good question. This is all cross functional. This one is not cross functional. It's to your boss.
Speaker E Okay?
Speaker A Yeah. So for example, if I'm the vice president of human resources, I would recommend this to the CEO on substantive issues. And then part of my role is to monitor, to find out how we're doing and how we're tracking on those things. So it's not a real cross functional, it's a recommend to a boss.
Speaker B One of the value adds we found with the requisite of the collateral, one where you have an intact team manager with if you take it up to the president level, it's like the root of the word president presides, where a president presides over the whole vice presider. You say, what's your vice? Presiding over the whole work. That's the collateral accountability.
Speaker A In other words, the leader.
Speaker B The president is accountable for having an integrated, a fully integrated functioning system, but no one role can do all the.
Speaker A Work that's required to that.
Speaker B So president really says, I'm holding you accountable for wearing two hats simultaneously. One is the functional hat or the vertical hat to make sure you're running your part the way you need to. But also equally, I want you to be wearing a collateral hat that helps me hold this thing together. And we found it's been a real neat kind of ad to kind of thinking about effective teams. That this whole notion of having collateral accountability and constantly wearing those two hats and holding each other accountable for doing the right things on behalf of the whole, not just the part. That's partly the way. In other words, the silo question is often when a client or prospect will say, can you guys help us get rid of the silos around here? And I get to tease back and say, no, because at the end of the day, no matter what you do, you're still going to have parts. Because every system has parts. You can call them parts or functions or departments or whatever you want. They're still going to have them. The issue that we're not talking about is what is the interdependence that's not being managed? And what we found is if you get those collateral teams really understanding that and internalizing that, a whole lot different happens in the organization. A whole lot different happens because if they're connected, united and integrating the organization, that message gets down through the ranks of the organization.
Speaker A The issue there is that you are accountable to work with the people you have a collateral relationship with according to the context set by your manager. And if you disagree on what that.
Speaker C Context is, then the two of you.
Speaker A Go to the manager to get clarity.
Speaker D And that's really important to root out the myth that you have the ability to hold the team collectively accountable. Each member of that team is individually accountable for working effective collaterally within the context of their manager and team. Working accountability is the death of many organizational projects. You can't hold a team accountable.
Speaker A Agreed. Any other questions or comments?
Speaker C In terms of a synthesis with J Galgraith's Matrix work, he puts a lot of focus on Racy. And whilst it gets often misconstrued as to what the A is, if that's a right of veto, does that at all link to any of these definitions?
Speaker A Let me make a general comment rather than a specific comment. My general comment would be that that's a technology that I saw as a graduate student many decades ago, and I don't find it a very useful technology and it doesn't have the precision of this technology, so I would not advocate using that. I agree with you. The A for accountability or authority is often not well defined in that model, but I don't find that to be a good model to use.
Speaker C Similarly, I find most clients use it. So the nearest I can get is that the authority I write to veto is your stop, because it's the only one of those that seems the best fit. And if one's trying to introduce this concept to Racy, which clients sometimes use, that might be a way to build it on. But I'd just be interested in your thought about whether it's actually something completely different.
Speaker A Could I add to that, please?
Speaker B A client introduced us to a construct and we started to include it when we do the role descriptions.
Speaker A We talked about that.
Speaker B We put a whole section in there on decision authority because we're trying to force those conversation around what decisions are getting made at what level. So this little model is kind of a similar Racy thing. It starts with you make a determination around a particular set of key decisions. Which role has the D, which role is the decision maker at the end of the day? But you also say, well, wait a minute. Now that's not a unilateral. Like you can just decide anything you want. So it's built a little bit in here because it fits in here a little bit. So then there might be a role or other roles that need to agree. Could be a collateral partner, could be a cross functional role, whatever need to agree. So the notion is that the decision maker has to get the agree role or roles to agree. That the three of them or two of them or whatever it is, has to agree. If they can't agree, we do the same thing. A simultaneous escalation to the next level of context setting around, what do we need to do here? Then the other two pieces would be what roles do you need to get input from? But the input does not have to be taken. So it kind of matches up with the advice, all right, but you have.
Speaker A To talk to them.
Speaker B You have to say that you talk to them.
Speaker A And then the other one might be.
Speaker B Some roles where, you know, a decision.
Speaker A Needs to get made, but you need.
Speaker B To have people going off and putting some recommendations together around what the decision would need to be, which would then go to the decision maker and the agree roles. They would pull that together and say, we agree that that's the decision that's going to get taken. And away you go. We found that to be much more useful. We found the racing gets very general and kind of too many cells, and it just gets all created and then it kind of falls apart.
Speaker A Too many A's across one line.
Speaker F Yeah.
Speaker A The other thing just to reinforce what Paul is saying is that what Paul's talking about is he's building accountabilities and authorities on top of a position alignment. Part of the problem with the Racy charts is we build a chart that's correct, but it's not based on a viable position alignment, which in our view would be the fundamental that you need for good work.
Speaker G And what's the fourth one? So the decision agreement input, and the.
Speaker B Fourth one is recommend.
Speaker A Okay.
Speaker B And then there's actually a fifth one called Execute. We found some cases that you don't really need to use that just if we want to write it down. There's a Harvard Business Review article. I think it's 2006, rogers and somebody or other, and it's called Who Has the D? It's a very good little model, and I would recommend you take a look at it soon as we go on.
Speaker D Sunday morning when I do the keynote, I'll talk about another way of configuring this, and that is Ellie and I spent hours debating it. Advising is really a way of informing. Monitoring and coordinating is the authority to persuade, but not override. And auditing and prescribing is instructing someone who's not your subordinate. And if you then think of the metaphor of a traffic light, informing could be either advising or recommending. That's green light. They can do whatever they want, but they have to listen. Monitoring and coordinating is yellow light. So now you can create tension. And if the person doesn't agree, you have to decide whether you delay and elevate, and the red light is, sorry, you're out of standards, and you have to stop. We found that using the green light, yellow light, red light with that behind it.
Speaker B That's true.
Speaker D Just immediately understood by people.
Speaker A I like that. That's really good.
Speaker E When you have consensus decision making.
Speaker A First.
Speaker B Of all, you have to remember, in records of theory or reckless organization, there's no such thing as a group decision. There is no such thing. In other words, the next most accountable role holder in a hierarchical organization can always say hopefully with the right rationale and whatever, I understand. I don't agree. We're not going to do that. There is no such thing as a group decision.
Speaker E But you see that in practice.
Speaker A Oh, absolutely. And what happens?
Speaker B I've got a client right now, and the new president has come in and said, geez, I've got this organization that they want to try to reach consensus on. Freaking everything. Like it's slowing the place down. We're not getting decisions made. It looks like we're having group discussions.
Speaker A Around what should be someone's individual decision.
Speaker E Why are we doing that?
Speaker B Requisite really helps them kind of get the picture around. Maybe Tremble is making some sense here, that we're kind of wasting our time here.
Speaker E Yeah. For some reason, it seems to be prevalent. Right. Like everyone's trying to be nice that.
Speaker B Sort of say it's not about being nice.
Speaker A If you scratch beneath the surface, you usually find it's not really consensus. The organizations I've been into, the last one that I was in that used real consensus was when I was doing my PhD in psychology and I was working in a group home for mentally disturbed adolescents, and they really believed in consensus, and they were prepared to stay till all hours to do it. And it was real consensus. But the stuff that's called consensus, I haven't seen anything that I've even put that label on, even though it's used greatly. Okay, let's move on, then. So what we'd like you to. Do is to go back.
Speaker B Can we hurt the time a little bit?
Speaker A I think yes. Agreed. So stay in the same groups as the last exercise. Use the extant chart that you've been using. Take a look at the grouping of work based on what we've been talking about in terms of the functional and cross functional pieces.
Speaker B That's wrong on the slide.
Speaker A Thank you. Yeah.
Speaker B The one you were working with before.
Speaker A Do you see any problematic cross functional issues when you look at how it's organized, what are the pieces you see that you think need to be aligned properly? Maybe you change the position alignment, maybe you make sure you've got good cross functional accountabilities and authorities built in. Are there any other issues that you see any potential grouping changes? And I think in terms of a time on this fault, 20 minutes. So how about if you work in your group on 20 minutes, for 20 minutes then and take a closer look at the cross functional pieces, both how it's functionally organized, but also what you need for cross functional work in terms of accountabilities and abilities. Okay. Is the past clear? Okay. So in 20 minutes, we'll check back with you. So how about if we start at the back table over there? What are two things that came up in your group that you just like to know? Thank you. Chris not.
Speaker F Okay, well, firstly, we cut a lot of the groupings of the different functions, essentially putting some stuff together.
Speaker C So I'll start there because that's the.
Speaker F Question to say that we will essentially put the consumer banking and business banking group together.
Speaker C Okay.
Speaker F Because it's a similar type of client. It's often a small business owner that has a private account with the bank anyway.
Speaker A Okay.
Speaker F So it may create an easier flow in that environment, similar infrastructure, similar type service being provided in the commercial banking and the corporate banking possible to put those together as well. It is a very different focus kind of service. Potentially a personal business banker that works with you. It's also a natural progression for the client from a commercial to corporate banking space. So it's a natural kind of growth and situation there. And the case of the wealth and the investment banking, put them back together again. So that eases the volume of integrational complexity that you'll have with regards to product development and potentially with regards to sales. Then we start to talk about the fact that the risk is sitting in different places. So there's definitely some discussion on what type of risk do they monitor, where and what would be the critical risk aspect, therefore potentially escalating that to a kind of chief risk officer role. And then asking the question, but where is the thought leadership piece around that is happening? And where is the delivery monitoring of that is happening?
Speaker A Okay, that's great. That gives us several thank you. Just a comment. It's just a short thing, but I think it's useful. Real simple. Specialization or differentiation is not free. Specialization or differentiation is not free. People think that they can split everything up in an organization into as many pieces as they want. It's easy to split things up. What tends not to happen is that at least equal time, energy and thought should go into how you integrate them. If you split them, you also need to think about how you integrate them. Very seldom does the effort go into the integration side. And as a result of that, that contributes to the silos and it contributes to the lack of effective work across the organization. So specialization or differentiation is not free. You need to give equal thought, time, energy change to the integration piece as well. How about this table? A couple of thoughts from this table.
Speaker G Just to add, given the aggressive growth strategy and the multitude of different customer bases that this bank has, it is not logical to have a functional structure at the very top.
Speaker A Okay, interesting.
Speaker G We also just again, in terms of in the line of sort of addition, we thought that the marketing function may have some conflicts because part of it is centralized under marketing and brand management. And yet in consumer banking, product development is actually done not even at the bank level, but within regions.
Speaker A Okay, great. Those are great questions to be raising. How about the group in the center here? Generically, we said, came out center rate, just about everything, hybrid everything except for ordering, keep ordering centralized. Okay. Pretty far along in terms of that type of organization. Really differentiate in terms of business units, yes. Centralization integration. While every business unit would have some marketing, every business unit would have some It, et cetera. Central group integration. We had a good discussion on auditing and regulation too, because we felt that if that wasn't centralized okay, good. Okay. How about this group here? Comments from this group I think we.
Speaker B Can echo a number of the things that have already been said. I think we felt that with the diversity of the customer base and the banking business value chain, that we needed not only the CRO position, but we needed a strong CMO position to get the customer information file and get everything sorted out up top. And if they were going to make the decision to go stronger into consumer and retail banking, that again, the flatness of delegating so many low level resources to the branches did not have enough leadership positions actually guiding decision making in that area. The operations area also looked very, very weak and very diffuse and would need to have much more kind of a technology innovation leader if indeed they were going to invest capital to go in that direction. And beyond that, on the loan side, we basically felt again, you might keep investment banking if you will, separate, but we were going to move more wealth management resources over towards the retail side to kind of take advantage of cross marketing.
Speaker A Okay, good points to be raising and thinking about. Thank you. Group of the corner, please. I can try to say more eloquently.
Speaker E So the bank is schizophrenic. It's organized by multitude right now. Right. Products, geography services, functions, et cetera, completely be cleaned up. They need to start with that vertebrae and they need to align by one and then break it in. And then we got in. I think the only other thing is supporting cross functional roles versus the key drivers. So there's a lot we talk about risk and marketing and there's also bhr from the transformation perspective, even corporate audit from a risk perspective. So those need to be more services driven, kind of supporting the key business operations.
Speaker A Good, thank you.
Speaker B We want a level four human resources officer.
Speaker A There you go. Okay, good issues to be raised. Yes.
Speaker F Just one last comment that I do think it's quite obvious in this kind of environment asking how your business banking It platform is going to work. Because if you've got a single platform that needs to service all your product steps, you're going to have a different view than if you have a differentiated business banking platform. And the kind of risks about that.
Speaker C Is going to create new other dynamics.
Speaker A Good point. What you typically find is the starting point is they've got multiple, multiple platforms and then the question becomes how does one move beyond that? Great point to raise. Let me turn it back to Paul. Thank you.