Procuring complex services – how to ensure activity delivers value

Assessing performance, capacity and capability to take a true extended organisation approach

Episode highlights

How to measure impact when buying intangibles
Tailoring a technology solution for people and process
Starting with the outcome
Building extended capacity and capability

Posted by: ZivioReading time: 89 minutes

With Harold Hendrickx, TransExecutive, Author of "How to purchase procurement"

Purchase Harold's book on Amazon

00:00:00 - Strategic learnings from a military background
00:16:15 - Differences in managing the supply chain
00:21:30 - How to measure impact when buying intangibles
00:29:40 - Tailoring a technology solution for people and process
00:33:20 - Starting with the outcome
00:45:30 - Stakeholder management and communication's role in alignment
01:01:15 - Building extended capacity and capability


Jonny Dunning:        0:02       Okay, so I would like to give a very warm welcome to Harold Hendrickx from TransExecutive. Welcome to the podcast. Thank you very much for joining me.

Harold Hendrickx:  0:12       Thanks, Jonny. It’s a pleasure to be here. So thank you for the invitation.

Jonny Dunning:        0:16       Excellent stuff. Cool. Well, we first spoke at the CIPS Procurement Future’s Event, didn’t we?

Harold Hendrickx:  0:24       Exactly. It was the first and second of February, I believe. 

Jonny Dunning:        0:28       Yeah. So we had a really good chat you a chance to my colleagues, and then my colleagues saying, “You have got to speak to Harold. He’s got some really interesting viewpoints.” And I really enjoyed our conversation. And we have been kind of staying in touch. And I know you have been super busy. And but I am really glad we managed to get together for a conversation, particularly with everything you have got going on workwise at the moment, so it’s very much appreciated.

Harold Hendrickx:  0:50       Yeah, it’s exciting times, Jonny, I think you can also in your world, you can experience that, companies are, I mean, it’s buzzing, companies are looking for help, support, smart solutions to solve problems. So it’s an exciting time to be in business.

Jonny Dunning:        1:07       Excellent. Now one of the things, I want to delve into and talk about today is the book you have recently released, “How To Purchase Procurement.” So super excited about that. And I want to come on to that. But before we do, can you just give a little bit of background on what you do at TransExecutive and also, just a little bit of background of where you come from? Because I think it’s really interesting looking at your background?

Harold Hendrickx:  1:07       Yeah, well, thank you for that. And TransExecutive is actually the, as it stands, now, the final chapter in my life, because things are coming together. I started my career, not in procurements, not in commercial business or anything like that, I started my career in the military. So joining the Air Force, worked in NATO, [Unclear], did a lot of things learn a lot, you know, failed a lot as well, which is also a learning process, which I think is very good, did a lot from operational things to standardization, evaluation, but also staff functions, reorganizations, implementing new systems, new policies, you name it. So, there was a huge solid foundation of you have to take it on to the next phase, which after almost 20 years, when you become a parent, you need to be at home, at least to be a good parent. So that starts with that. And yeah, some other factors decided me for to leave the Air Force, and go into a next stage of my career. And I joined DS Smith, which is a huge packaging company, very complex, fields in 50 sites, 50, 100 company, global, we started to work on various projects. And one of the major projects, if you will, or programs was the transformation of the entire procurement function. So, new CBO came along, I told him what I thought would be the best way to do from a strategy innovation perspective, and a 30 minutes introduction airy goal, it turned into a four-hour meeting where we scribbled on whiteboards and having ideas and also sharing with him what I believe would work and what wouldn’t work. And 48 hours later, he offered me a job to become his Transformation Director, which I took on, and very nice chance, and we rebuilt the entire procurement function at the DS Smith, just before COVID, a couple of years go back. So that was a good stress test. And then I was like, “This is really something I would like to do,” you are helping businesses, whether they are big or small, doesn’t matter. But helping businesses and companies to establish a solid procurement function to obtain maximize value and eliminate risks in their suppliers and supply base. So obviously, you can’t do that with a corporate role. So, I set up my own business, which is TransExecutive, and I started to work on projects with companies to do that, to help them and together with a team and the network of people that I have available, I take on projects to help them establish that procurement function, or to optimize it if they already have it. And that is actually, and we will come to that, but that’s the reason why I wrote the book is that, why would I keep this to myself, I have ideas, I also took concepts and models from the military and apply that into transformation optimization programs to be highly efficient and effective, which has proven to be a very good way of doing transformations. And, I was like, “Why would I keep this to myself? Let me write it down and share it among the people who are interested.” So yeah, that’s a story until today, Jonny.

Jonny Dunning:        1:40       I love it. And I think one of the things that always stood out to me from that first conversation and the conversations we have had following that is, you are very passionate, you have got a lot of energy, you really believe in what you are trying to do and what you are talking about, and the principles that you have seen, you have had success with. And I find that really interesting. And it’s great to see that kind of passion and enthusiasm. I always think when somebody comes out of any role within a kind of military type organization, and goes into the private sector, whatever point they come in at, I always wondered to myself, how do they feel about the private sector? Do they come into organizations? - Obviously, depends which organization they come into. - But do they come into the private sector and think, “Oh, it’s a bit pedestrian, isn’t it? Where’s the urgency?” Or is it like that some companies are like, “Wow, this is really like, being in the military?” I mean, obviously, as you say, many different scenarios, but what was your experience?

Harold Hendrickx:  6:02       Yeah, when you say that, two things come to mind, the first thing is ownership. In the military, everybody understands crystal clear what they own, including the mistakes they make. So if you debrief a mission, for instance, and you said, “Yeah, that’s something when I make a mistake, I apologize. Next time, I will do better, or I need help to understand this because I don’t.” So speaking up and having really that ownership is something which is common in the military, which is not so common in, let’s say, commercial businesses or companies. Yes, people might say, “That is my responsibility,” but it kind of is a shallow layer. The second thing is that in the military people understand, if I fail, then we fail. And if you were in a team, Jonny, if you fail, then I failed as well. So the urgency to help each other is front and center. It’s not about accountability or shouting orders or anything like that, it is about understanding that everybody has a job to do and as a responsibility, but you need to, and if for some reason, a person in the team might not be able to perform that task for whatever reason to this, then others would be, are dare to stand in and to take on that responsibility until that person is okay to take it on again. So it’s really that connection, I would call this team spirits rather than a teamwork, that’s something I think is different. Teamwork is really about, “I have a job to do. This is my task. This is my work.” And then, in a team, you have various members of the team doing similar or slightly dissimilar work to make it complimentary. But the team spirit is about, “We together have this responsibility, and it means that the team member falls off for whatever reason, if they are sick, or they just can’t handle anything,” or capacity wise or anything like that, then others are definitely, no questions asked, they will step in, take over, help them get back on track, and off we go again. So that’s those two things. Team spirit versus ownership, I think is different experience in the military, at least for me than in commercial businesses.

Jonny Dunning:        8:20       And how much do you think that kind of team spirit side of things, is related to the clarity of how strategic objectives are communicated? Because I would assume in the military, it’s pretty clear what the objectives are. Most of the time you are on a mission, you are doing a training phase, you are on exercises, you are deploying to achieve something, would you say that, that is one of the strengths in that environment, is just the clarity of what you have got to do?

Harold Hendrickx:  8:51       Yeah, and I think it’s also explicit. So, they have a clear vision on what needs to be done, what the mission at hand is, what the mission objectives are? But also, it’s a concept that I took off from the military and apply that into the transformation optimization programs as well. And it’s also this in the book is the what they call the Commander’s Intent. So the commander intent, which is a General or an Admiral or something high up in the ranks, will say the intention of our campaign is to achieve A, B and C, and then everybody in the midfield commanders, let’s say, Midfield Management Leadership understands what is needed to achieve that. So if communication fails, or if the situation is there where, say a middle layer management or leadership needs to make a decision, they will make that decision in line to the intent to the objectives of the campaign, and that also comes with a responsibility because in the military, if you have a campaign, the commander’s intent, you have various missions and those missions have a mission commander, which is lower down the ranks, and then all the way down to the second lieutenants who’s always in the fields, leading a squad, for instance, or a platoon of people, they understand what the intent is. So they can make decisions in line of that defense, they will get that authority as well. So unlike what you see in businesses is that we have a lot of steering committees, we have a lot of, “We need to go back to the executive leadership. And we need to have decisions made,” and, all that kind of lot. In the military, the direction is set, not the entire, detailed step, but the direction, the intention is set, but how we get there is something that is trickled down in the campaign and mission planning, where people in, let’s say, the lower middle management get the authority to make decisions there are, rather than going back to the General and Admirals saying, “Is this okay? Because it doesn’t work.”

Jonny Dunning:        10:56     I find that fascinating. I am really passionate about the strategic side of things. And within businesses I have been involved with, and with businesses that we work with, and just in the market in general, I just think it’s such an important thing. Because also I believe, in very much accountability, the kind of ownership you were talking about. But if you don’t pass that message and communicate those objectives and that strategy effectively, then how can you expect people to know what they need to be doing? How can you expect them to know how they are contributing? And, it goes right down to when people are trying to get things done, how can you expect them to really create an accurate requirement for what they need to do when they don’t, if the overall objective is not communicated effectively? So I think it’s such a crucial thing. And maybe a little bit like, in the military, where there’s just no room for error, or there’s very little room for error. Failure is not an option kind of mentality. In startups and scale ups, it’s similar. It’s mission critical. So I think when businesses can get larger and maybe sometimes be a victim of their own success, these things can get diluted a little bit, but I think it’s always an absolute bedrock to come back to say, “Do you have a clear strategy? Is it communicated effectively? Does everybody within the business know how they contribute to that? We are all in the rowing boat, which way we going? Which way we rowing?”

Harold Hendrickx:  12:26     Yes, I like your comment there on scale [Unclear] that failure is not an option. And that’s the reason why I like to be supportive and helping exactly companies that have grown rapidly in the past years, because they understand what is needed to be successful. And also making sure that the foundation of the supply side is a solid one to have even further accelerated growth. So I think, that’s a good comment and a vision and a view that you made there. And I think, it has to be crystal clear. And people might think about, “Oh, but a commander’s intent in the military is kind of like a purpose.” It’s not really because the purpose is far more higher level and strategic and it really needs to be around objectives, and goals and the ambition that you want to achieve in a certain period of time. It was kind of funny, it reminds me of, I was presenting at Process and Operational Excellence Summit in Amsterdam last week. And I was talking about planning, right. So I think, if I say is a certain period of time, then I always like to bring things back to us, human beings. I mean, we all are our persons, we have a private life, we have a business life. And then we were talking about planning, these massive transformation optimization programs, and I just asked the audience, “So anyone has plans for Easter?” And then half of the audience raise their hands. So other half didn’t have plans for Easter. They didn’t know what to do with Easter, which is this upcoming weekend. And then I said, “Yeah, holiday in the summer, summer holidays, any plans? Anyone?” So as far as you go out, I even ask, “So what’s for Christmas dinner this year?” People didn’t... Say, “What kind of crazy question is that?” I said, “Why do we in private lives, see that, I don’t know maybe three months out that’s kind of like a horizon but it feels normally you can plan things in your weekends. But in business, it has to be like 24, 18, 12 months out to have a full blown project plan.” Now what you need to, you need to have the direction, the intention. Absolutely. But lots of project managers are very busy in planning out Gantt charts and iterations and all that stuff, which is, planned to be in 12 months time. But as we have learned the past year, the world can be totally different next week. So why do you spend your time and effort and money on something that is not going to likely to happen? So I think that when it comes to setting the direction, and the expectation, it needs to be on the horizon, where things do feel naturally and comfortably that people actually can achieve that?

Jonny Dunning:        12:26     Yeah, I think that’s a crucial point. And like you say, the world has proven to us, always continually to proving to us that the rate of change of pretty much everything is just getting higher. And when you were talking about that, the kind of team spirit and the ownership, what that says to me is that a strategy is clearly communicated. And you have got a willing group of individuals who are aligned on that common objective. And that’s where things get sensible and that’s where stuff really gets achieved. Just out of interest in terms of how the kind of standard set up in the military for managing, like, supply chain, and maybe it kind of crosses into logistics. But if we just look at supply chain, what are the key differences in how that’s structured in the military versus the commercial world? Or is it very similar?

Harold Hendrickx:  16:24     Well, obviously, the content, that you achieve moment is similar, you need to have the right supplier, the right price for the right level of quality, at the right time, and that’s the objective. And if you have an end-to-end supply chain thinking, it’s all about service, and you are servicing the customer as well. So I think that is about the same objective, if you will, but the approach is totally different. I mean, where in business is people are monitoring. We have our customer base, we have a product or service, we need to deliver that to the customer. What do we need to achieve that? How do we manage those streams and supply chains, coming inwards? Where’s that supply base? Then you go into logistics, transport, you are warehousing, if it’s about products, or raw materials, you are going to source that, and then, we kind of monitor that flow going, from an operational logistics perspective, out of the works out. And that’s kind of like what they want to achieve? And, and obviously outbound towards the customer, it’s kind of similar, you need to monitor that and control that. But that’s kind of like looking into this as waves coming in and going out. Whereas the military, we will always embrace that it is always a dynamic environment. I mean, if you look at the situation in Ukraine is different than Afghanistan, is different than, name any part of the world, right. So embracing the fact that it’s a dynamic world, and then all kinds of external factors are influencing badly, have an impact, negative impact in your achievement of setting up that supply chain is something that the military is common to, and even embrace that, because they have a method where they say, for instance, they will monitor that, they will evaluate it, they will adapt and overcome. And that is a cyclic your world we live in, where they constantly adjust their missions to give assurance of having the right supply, at the right quality and time and place. So I think that’s the difference, the objective might be the same as getting stuff, whatever, it’s a service or product, in the right quality at the right price towards the right party, if you will, in the right location. So the objective is right, but we are businesses trying to establish something more static, and reactive, if something static doesn’t work anymore, then they kind of look into something to replace that, is where the military is embracing that it’s always dynamic, and they will bring in capacity and capabilities and adjusting things. And I think the negative impact from external factors is already in their thinking process. If they are designing a shortens supply chain process, that is the difference.

Jonny Dunning:        19:17     So it’s basically just everyday life is this uncertainty. Whereas within the corporate world, that’s been less so but I feel like, it’s certainly seems like it’s increased to be a bit more than norm in the corporate world.

Harold Hendrickx:  19:30     Yeah, absolutely. And also the need for intelligence. I mean, the military doesn’t do anything without information, without intelligence, what is going on? What are those external factors? What is the likelihood? What is the severity of that impact, that will occur? So it’s also about risk management as well. I think in the past years, businesses have learned that, that is an important factor having near real time information, influencing or providing insights on the impact of their supply chain, so that they are able to react or let’s say respond and react as a more an emotional action, but have a bottom response based on that intelligence. Now, we also know that, you won’t get all the intelligence upfront 100%, it doesn’t work that way. But the more information you can have, the better your decision making process may be, and that comes into governance and structure that we talked about with the commander’s intent and with the mandate and the authority at the at the mid-level, once you have those insights, which might be near real time, then don’t have to have your decision making process going all the way up to the COO or the operations director or the executive board, making sure that you have supply chain middle management who can make decisions, they are allowed to make decisions and saying, “Yes, we are going to switch over from supplier or logistics or even whatever it is,” but it is that closing that, shorten that decision cycle is essential to be successful in your supply chain.

Jonny Dunning:        21:04     Yeah, I fully agree with that, I think it’s a very good way to put it. And I think there are a lot of ways that the experience that you have had, working within massive military organization can apply to both large and medium-sized organizations where there’s a critical nature to what they are doing. And so one of the areas that I was keen to get your opinion on was around how these principles are applied, where organizations are procuring complex services. So clearly, the clue there within the name is, to the level of complexity, that services can be difficult to define, difficult to measure. And you can have a lot of people being very busy. But really, how do you kind of turn that activity into something that’s of measurable value, that really when it comes down to it, an organization can say, “We spent X amount on this consulting work, or we bought these IT services, and the value it’s delivered to us, it’s measurable and it’s great,” because otherwise, you end up with these kind of cost savings situations where organizations may try to cut costs and services without really understanding what they are cutting. But also, fundamentally, if they don’t really understand what they are getting for their money, they are now understanding of return on investment, then that’s pretty scary when you consider how much money is spent on services, which there’s the suggestions of what the global market is worth change all the time. But the figure I always quote is 20 trillion. It’s a big deal. It’s a lot of money. So one of the things that we have spoken about is these kind of strategic objectives. And having kind of clear goals. When it comes to kind of procuring services, one of the difficult things is actually trying to define outcomes, define what it is you need to do. So that kind of layers into that sort of the conversation really, doesn’t it?

Harold Hendrickx:  23:02     Yeah, absolutely. And I think what you just highlight, it’s an area where a lot of companies are looking into and like you said, it cost, if you would have manually so to speak, that it’s a lot of time to go to figure that out. And I think, a technical solution. And what you guys provide is definitely the effective means and helpful there. Also what you just pointed out, it needs to be crystal clear which process are you exactly servicing and enabling? So I think it’s clear to say that an action, a process, which is also by the way, a lean concept, everything we do is a process and the process outcome is delivering the value. Whether it’s eliminating risk, or whether it’s cutting costs or increasing revenue, it doesn’t matter what that value is, but the outcome of a process, that’s what exactly creating value. People understand. They all know the PPT model, People Process Technology Model, but I described in my book is it actually had a shortcoming, and it’s twofold. It doesn’t start with people, people think that people are the most important asset and they are if you have it solidly there, but first you need to understand what are people responsible of when it comes to their action and the outcome at the sort of process. So it starts with the process, not the people you need people to monitor to own, to enable a process to be executed. Whether it’s manual or automatic, doesn’t matter. But people are enabling a process. That process delivers the value. So it starts with process and not people. The second shortcoming of the PPT model is it lacks governance. Governance is crystal clear. It needs to be folded center in everything that you do, you need to understand what is the law or legislation we need to comply with, internally, and externally? What is the decision making? What’s the mandate, the authority? What are we allowed to do? Who’s doing that? Even going down to individual data. So where do you store your data and servers and everything, the regulations around that as well. So governance is not only applicable to the process, but also to the people and also the technology. So now you have four elements, process, governance, ownership, or let’s say, an organization, any technology that needs to be in balance, that is what we call a TransExecutive, the four side of triangle, that’s a model that we use for everything that we do. And if you are talking about procuring services, you need to understand what is that process? So which service do you need to procure or source in this case? What are we allowed to do when it comes to? What are the requirements specifications of that process and servers that you need to procure? And who exactly is only that? Who can say, “Yea,” or “Nay,” when it comes to if a deal? And if you have that clarity on the decision making process, the governance and in this case, which services do you want to source and procure? And what is the desired outcome? Again, what’s the intention? Then you have the requirements and specifications to configure tools like CBO is offering, where you have a successful setup, where actually technology is enabling something rather than being restrictive. So throwing in technology, just for the sake of it, it doesn’t work. It has to be in an order; process, governance, organization, ownership, and then the technology. 

Jonny Dunning:        26:45     Yeah, I think that’s really true. And it’s throwing technology at a problem. If you are automating a chaotic process, you just get automated chaos. And also, just throwing people at a problem as well, without any kind of process can mean that people can be very busy. Not being very productive. 

Harold Hendrickx:  27:08     Yeah, exactly. That’s why when I am on a podcast like this, or when I am presenting in a conference, or anything, I guess, is that I always say that digital transformation doesn’t exist, which is thought provoking, because it does exist, but it’s just to provoke people to think about. You want to bring in technology, you want to digitalize certain processes, which processes and what do you want to achieve with it? And do you have internal policies or external law legislation that needs to be compliant with that, and who’s exactly owning it? And if you bring in technology, and the solution provider is implementing that solution, once they are gone, then you are on your own, you need to understand who’s exactly setting up the user accounts, or who’s collecting the change requests, the items on the service request or anything like that. So it needs to be organized in the proper way, where you can go back to the solution provider and saying, “Hey, this is what’s our experience? Can we solve that to assure that piece of technology is continuously 100% enabling your process?”

Jonny Dunning:        28:19     Yeah, I also think it’s kind of like you are bringing in technology, whether it’s one of the big source to pay suites, or whether it’s a kind of more of an integrated approach with different providers kind of joined together, or one of the big suites, and they are kind of marketplace partners, and that sort of thing. It’s not just bringing in technology, it’s a chance for an all-round upgrade, so actually, let’s look at everything we are doing. At the moment, we have got all this stuff, it’s a bit of a mess, there’s manual processes, here, there and everywhere, people are working more on transactional stuff. Whereas actually, we can really get more value out of the people that we give them more rewarding work to do by digitalizing some of those processes and digitizing that data so that we can use it more effectively. But it comes down to and I have had people say this to me many times, it starts with the process. And I think what you highlight with that PPT, the process, you can throw people or technology at something, but if there isn’t a structure and a clear route forward, then it’s going to be pretty messy. But I think the other side of it is that whether you are talking to one of the big suite providers or whether you are looking at putting together a technology stack, if you have already looked at your processes, and have already lined up, “This is what the ideal scenario working model looks like for us going forward.” That it really gives that organization an opportunity to tailor a solution to tailor the technology solution because what I sometimes see happen is, people will do that work internally. And they will say, this is what the world needs to look like. And I need a piece of technology to do exactly this. And then they will go out to the market. And they will find out that no one does exactly that. Or there isn’t one piece of kit that does exactly that, the way that they see the world. So it’s a great opportunity to have this combination of internal input from stakeholders and transformation experts. But then also this external input from solution providers, technology providers, as well, who are constantly going through this with lots of different clients looking at best practices, and all that sort of thing. So organizations know what’s out there, and how the world is viewed from the technology angle, how they run the processes, and they are also looking at their own unique needs within their particular organization. If you combine those things, then then there is the possibility to plan something that’s, is best fit. There’s real world that’s actually achievable. And like you say, it’s not just about buying technology, it’s a much, much bigger opportunity.

Harold Hendrickx:  30:54     Yeah, And I agree to that. And it’s for both for all parties involved, it’s of interests, for them, you continuously improve on things and to expand that to see what works and what doesn’t, I mean, why do we think it’s completely normal, if you, I don’t know, if you brew a beer, you got to taste of the end product is like, “Maah, it might need some spice or it’s actually good,” but you are always looking to your to have a better [Unclear] going, right? So it is about understanding that you bring all these elements together, to have a better fit in what you want to achieve. But also to respond properly to the world out there. Legislation is changing, we have supply chain disruptions, environmental disasters, wars going on. So there’s a lot of external factors. And that is a dynamic that you need to embrace, don’t look in today, and then say, “Right, this is what we need,” also making sure that you have your mindset open. Again, it’s that same spirit, I think isn’t, Jonny, that you work with your solution provider, as a team spirit wise to come up with a better solution. Every time you evolve, you have new experiences.

Jonny Dunning:        32:04     Yeah, definitely! I think, certainly, I can say this from our experience, but solution providers want to help, they want to enable customers to get the best value out of the product that they are providing for them. You don’t want a customer to use your product and just have a bad experience. You want them to love it. And for it to be delivering real tangible value that makes them really happy. And sometimes that is most effectively achieved when there’s clear collaboration and aligned objectives. When the organization can say, “These are our objectives. This is what we need to improve on. This is the process we want to engage in,” whatever solution provider is, if they are engaged effectively, and obviously, they have got to have the right attitude as well, then they can really help steer that organization to saying, “Well, actually, I know you want to achieve that like this, we have got the opportunity to do it this way, how would that work, because that will be a lot more efficient for you to do it that way using our technology than if you tried to do it the way you have suggested,” for example, but it’s again, aligned objectives. And we can kind of come on to it later. But this extended capacity is all geared up around this overall objective, I think is partly understated. But going back to the kind of the beginning, when you are procuring a service, so you kind of need to start at the end, don’t you? You need to start with what is it we need to do? And I think a lot of, like you were talking about the kind of commander’s intent, and then the kind of different levels or layers within the organization where decisions are being made and responsibilities taken. I think, in a lot of organizations, maybe there isn’t that much clarity on exactly what needs to be achieved. And I think sometimes that’s where you can end up with projects that are engaged on a kind of time and expenses basis, that are just some people doing some work, but there’s not necessarily clarity on the objective. Whereas if a service is being procured under a statement of work, for example, it’s exactly that a statement of work that needs to be carried out. So, one of the things that you mentioned to me the first time we talked was about this concept of kind of back engineering, those outcomes. Do you want to expand on that little bit, just in terms of maybe how organizations can use that thought process?

Harold Hendrickx:  34:16     Yeah, sure. And so it is about again, that’s coming from my experience in the past is that wanted to know what you want to achieve? You need to define and understand what the process is. But you need to bring it a little bit further. what is the ambition? What is the desired outcome of that process? And if you are talking about services, for instance, then it’s like, what do you want those services to do and why? So, you need to have time to think yeah, we are all fully into the default of getting it into a room and whiteboards and idea. So we have everything you are going to, have kickoff sessions or whatever, but it’s probably best if someone with the authority and the mandate is starting to think about so what do you want to achieve with the services. And if that’s not entirely clear, that by itself can be a requirement as well. So it might be that you are looking for a certain service in that area where you say, “We need to have flexibility, we need them to tell us what is the best service they need to provide.” So I think it’s also about crossing off certain things if you... And flipping it around into a wish and ambition into a requirement of specification. So it’s not about having a massive document with all kinds of specifications being laid out, but you need to understand what you want to achieve. And if you don’t, then, you need to ask yourself, what are we doing here? So it needs to be in line, again, with your strategic vision, or the intent or whatever you want to call it, but instead go backwards saying, services, we need certain services for what exactly? And then you backwards engineer towards what capabilities do you need? So the military forms a, there’s a political debate, for instance, the NATO, there’s a political debate. There’s a situation, there’s a war going on in Ukraine, it’s on the east flank of the NATO airspace and NATO territory, we need to defend that territory. So that is the political decision. And then you will have an intention, what needs to be done. And then all the way down, you get through is the missions and capabilities and the competencies and the skills to achieve that. So that trickles down. It’s the same with it, if you have an understanding, once you want to achieve and why, then you can backwards engineer, what capabilities and capacity do I need? And that is based on people because people have a certain capabilities and also a certain capacity. So you will need to understand what do you need from a capabilities and capacity perspective to achieve that mission of yours, and then you can allocate people towards that, to achieve that, as well as technology. So then you have your requirements, the resources, whether it’s human resources, or technical resources to be allocated to that. So I think that is an also an upside down world, if you will, I mean, role busy with our day job. And then we go, many people are involved in multiple projects. And that’s why because they have a job, with a job description, which was written, hopefully this year, but maybe last year, when the world was totally different. But they have a certain role and responsibility, where certain capacity and capabilities are required, certain competencies, but it doesn’t say that that role description, but you are selected, and you are being put on that role. And now you are doing your day job, and all of a sudden, the business needs something else to achieve. And then we have got to build a project. So the project involves certain areas of the business, “Oh, we need someone from IT. We need someone from finance. And we need something from procurement. Harold, [Unclear] achieving from this project.” So now I am involved in a project, which I see as a secondary task, because I have my primary task, where I come from, nobody has a job to do, they are the representative, they can execute certain capabilities and capacity, and then based on the mission, they will be allocated to that. And then you will have your project or your day job. So now your mission, it becomes your purpose in life. That’s what you do, because you have certain capabilities. And now you can allocate that or formed that team once that the mission is delivered, that dissolves and then they go on to new missions. That is a concept in the business world, which is on the rise and it’s called Dynamic Teaming, that concept of Dynamic Teaming is looking into what do we need to achieve, backwards engineer towards which skills competencies, so which capabilities do we need? Do we have the capacity to deliver those capabilities? If the answer is “No,” then you get a third party in, who can deliver those skill sets and competencies and then you shape the team and deliver the mission. That is 180 degrees opposite of what we do in business. Everybody has a role and a job description. And the interesting part is, it’s not only in the military, if you are looking at football, for instance, if there’s a World Cup going to be, obviously in the world, then we all find it completely normal that the national football team is presented based on players, coaches, the people on the bench, even the medical staff, they are presented as being the selection of the national team with a mission to achieve the World Cup. Everything is completely normal that, “Oh these people are selected based on their skills and competencies and their capabilities.” And they obviously are freed up from your normal competition clubs to be allocated to the national team, to have the mission to obtain the World Cup. So in sports and the military, you find it’s completely normal. But in business, it’s like, “This is your role. And that’s it. Oh, by the way, the world has changed, we have a project, can you please attend this project and that project and that project as a side job?” That’s not setting up things for success.

Jonny Dunning:        40:36     It’s very interesting. It’s kind of, if you look at sports, look at military, it’s a high performance mentality. And I can see it in the way that technology is used, that the world is definitely moving more towards a mentality around outcomes. And that’s both like, kind of business to consumer and business to business, how many people get things done through gig marketplaces these days, how many people work on kind of freelance task based offering. The world is moving more towards defining it, rather than just people being employed and paid for their time. It’s filtering through to everything. So I think it’s a bit of a transition. But actually, it’s a kind of reinvention, where traits were much more important hundreds of years ago. But I like the point you made about the fact that defining a service or defining what it is you need to do, might actually be an initial outcome. That’s something that we see a lot. I mean, we see services supply chains being utilized in really interesting ways. When organizations are using our platform, they build their supply chain, they expand their supply chain, but they understand their supply chain. So things like carrying out expressions of interest, going across the supply chain, horizon planning, saying, “We know we have got this stuff coming up in the future, what is the capability and capacity we have within our organization and what do we have within our supply chain? How do we need to build that? Something new has come up, can anyone do that? Do we need to bring new suppliers in?” So that’s one thing that I have seen, it’s really interesting. But the other side of it is that, that kind of more agile approach of actually defining the end outcome, like the first piece of consultancy might have to be defined the outcome. But as long as that outcome of defining the outcome is effectively applied, then it’s a useful piece of work, and it can go on to carry on the next step. Whereas otherwise, you start with no clue as to where you want to be, and no intention of or no clear structure and strategy to find that out or you just don’t do it. So I think, it’s understanding that these are all problems to be solved.

Harold Hendrickx:  42:50     Absolutely. I think that’s why it’s also the thoughts that we have to have is complimentary, right? So you have the solution provider, you need to understand the process outcome, and I am adding towards that clients, will need businesses, will need to think about the governance and the ownership as well. And implementing a solution, doing an optimization program, or doing a transformation is also a different skill set than people in their daily job. So why do you see that they are reluctant to be prioritizing their project, because they are selected towards their primary job. And they are being asked, because a portion of that responsibility of that project lies in their department or whatever it is. So all of a sudden, you have people who are on the project team, who are not primarily responsible. When I do optimization transformation programs, whether it’s bringing technology or whether it’s an operating model redesign or an organizational shift, and it might be going from two FEs or two roles all the way up to 150, or even further. But I always look into and I explained to people, what we do at TransExecutive is doing the optimization and transformation, you know business very well. So defining those outcome of the process that you want to achieve is something we facilitate, but it’s the business, obviously, that would need to determine that. And that’s where those requirements come into place and specifications. And then we help them to set it up and to make sure that solutions like, yours and others are implemented in the best way possible, and working together with a solution provider to make things work. And again, it comes back to that team spirit. If I am thinking about it, then it’s about making sure that together with the client, the solution provider, the implementation partner, we work together in a team spirit to make things work because if one of us fail, everybody fails. I think we have come back to that statement again.

Jonny Dunning:        44:58     Yeah, so that concept of these different elements, joining forces, obviously, you have the best opportunity to deliver a great outcome, which should be the best thing for everybody that’s involved, internal, external, stakeholders, people advising, etc. Bearing in mind, I am sure it’s the same within the military, sometimes you get people or factions within an organization or within a supplier, who maybe feel like their nose has been put out of joint, they don’t feel like it’s the right direction for them. How do you see that being managed within the military compared to within private organizations? Because there’s always going to be people within departments who feel disenfranchised? Is that the problem of a not clear objective? And is there a difference as to how you see that being managed in military versus civilian life?

Harold Hendrickx:  45:52     Yeah, I think and I touched on the change, some people don’t see the need for that change. And that means to me that you haven’t explained enough why that change is needed. So the difference in the military is that it’s crystal clear, that’s crystal clear why we do things, everything we do, is linked towards a mission objective, campaign objective and the commander’s intent. So every single soldier out there, doesn’t matter what rank and seniority, it doesn’t matter, every single even civilian who are supporting the military understand what they are doing right now, is something that is going to do a thing, what we want to achieve in the mission campaign, and the commander’s intent at the end of the campaign. So I think that is about communication. And we all understand, it’s always an improvements point. So it’s always a development, we need to be better in communication, we need to be better at change management. But that by itself is a bit vague. What do you mean with communication? What do you mean with change management? I mean, people need to embrace the change. And it’s about making them understand why it’s needed for the company, for their team, their department and themselves to make this change. People need to see it and feel it, you cannot just throw in some towels and that’s it. It takes time. And people listening to the podcast will say, “Hey Jonny, Harold, that’s all great. We don’t have the time. We also don’t have the budgets to bring in a bunch of implementation experts and solution providers.” But I can guarantee you that if you are looking into a total cost of ownership, or total cost of making that change, implementing the solution, or having a redesign and a reimplementation of your operating models and organizational design, in the end, it will be more cost effective. Because if you I mean, we all know that above 70%, it’s 76 according to McKinsey, Your Business Transformation Fail, 76%. That’s because we don’t spend time to making sure that we can clearly inspire, motivate people to make the change, to embrace the change. And they understand and are explained and they feel that this change needs to happen and yes, that takes time. Does it need senior leadership to go and engage with local people? Yes, it does. But so you need to make that time. If you don’t, you will fail, you will definitely fail! Now in the military, it’s a structure which is, going over and over again. Again, it’s coming back towards embracing that dynamic situation. Because it’s dynamic. People understand, “This is happening, this is the decision. This is why. This is what these guys are doing. This is what that team is doing. And I am doing that to deliver on that situation to have a proper response.” The fact that it’s so dynamic and you embrace that makes people also feel more of a team. And that’s what a team spirit comes in place. And they feel recognized. They understand what they are doing is 100% need it, not only [Unclear], but also need it, it’s an essential part of achieving what they want to achieve when it comes to the mission, campaign and the commander’s intent that’s the reason why I always advise companies if they have an implementation at hand or if they have a programming optimization or transformation to have a War or Situation Room. We call the Situation Room. Some people think War Room is too aggressive, which I can totally understand but call up the Situation Room, it might be virtual, we have many hybrids, we actually have a room with screens, with Zoom calls and with team calls and WebEx things, you can have an interaction, but it’s also a symbol where the team can come together and have the thinking, the brainstorming, but also saying, “Hey guys, sorry, I made a mistake, I need help on this,” you will have on the wall, whether it’s virtual or not, you will have the latest and greatest information. So you can anticipate on what’s going on, what’s going on well, you can use that that situation room to present your solutions, to present progress to leadership or executives or stakeholders or whatever it is. So it is reinforcing that thoughts. And I think that is clear about, again, making that team spirit work.

Jonny Dunning:        50:39     Yeah, and I like the way you break out the mission, the campaign, the commander’s intent, because there’s different factors to the reasons for the change. And they are based on time horizons. So you might have the commander’s intent that is longer term objectives, and then you have got the campaign, that’s the medium term, and then you have got... I am probably getting it the wrong way round. But you basically got the short term horizons, the build up to delivering the mid-term, the build up to delivering the long term. So they have two organizations and the people within them, the teams need to appreciate the value and the logic between all of the steps that need to be taken to achieve the objective, because often those steps will break down to how it’s affecting them individually.

Harold Hendrickx:  51:24     Yeah, and just bring it back to Christmas dinner. If you are thinking about that horizon, I mean, obviously, in my household, my wife is the commander, it’s not me. My wife is the commander special comes to Christmas dinner. So the commander’s intent is to have a healthy and pleasant and great time with family and friends over Christmas. That is the commander’s intent. And then the campaign would be, so what are we going to do on Christmas Eve, on Christmas Day? And then you will get to the mission by saying, “Harold, you need to get me a turkey or whatever this thing,” sort of. That’s how you break this down. So you actually right when it comes to different layers and different visions, and you might call it objectives, or ambition or goals or strategies, or whatever it is. But it’s also a bit about branding as well. So that’s why, if I say, “Task Force,” people immediately feel that it’s about the sense of urgency, it’s about skills, and they are specialists, they have the mandates, do something, to make decisions and to do the actions to make things work. So a task force as a branding, is immediately something is calling up a certain feeling that people said, “Oh, that’s important.” Well, you might have call it, the Project Team. But then, like, “Yeah, here we go again. Some other project,” they might be doing the same thing. But it’s about branding, if you didn’t have a Task Force, who actually has a War Room or Situation Room. Now you really added layer of branding, when they say, “This is something we put priority on.” That’s often why task forces are called in if projects fail.

Jonny Dunning:        53:07     I love that! I think that’s great. And you are absolutely spot on in the way that you describe the way it makes people feel. And I think the key point there is that your branding, and you are using marketing to help communicate why this is important, why people should be engaged in it, alongside the strategic objectives. So you are engaging the emotional side of, “Let’s face it,” it’s such an important thing for all people, to have that emotional engagement with what they are doing, it makes it more rewarding, more fulfilling, makes them more motivated. And I think, for example, for somebody like me, I love getting stuff done. I am a very much, “Let’s just go and do it,” type of person. And so Task Force immediately makes me feel, “What are we doing? Where are we going? Let’s get cracking.” But within some organizations, it might be that the type of language used is totally different. But ultimately, it’s the same objectives of that your branding what’s being done to motivate and inspire people. And to make them feel like it’s not just the day-to-day grind or stuff they have done before that hasn’t been very effective, like you say, kind of project team or steering group, people tend to go, “I am just going to get lost in meetings, it’s going to take up loads of time.” Whereas if it feels like something valuable to be achieved, that’s going to make a big difference to people’s mentality.

Harold Hendrickx:  54:29     Yeah, exactly. And I think if you are just saying, “Hey Harold, you are handpicked to come and join this Task Force to solve this problem,” is different than “Hey Harold, looking at your role, you need to be involved in this project.” That is a total difference. So and I think it’s coming back towards, “We value your skills, your capabilities, your competencies, and we need that, we need you and your competencies to able to help solve this problem,” rather than, “You are doing your role and as part of that role, you should be involved in this project.” And again, you are right Jonny, when it comes to the language, it might be that it’s [Unclear] too aggressive, or, people want to have different lingo use, and that is still fine. It’s about the concept here, but just have another synagogue with every day private life. Football teams, they have a logo, that slogan, and they have their own songs, right. And in the stadium, people feel part of that, in the military, they have squadron patches, they have squadron number, they have a logo, and they have 10 times it’s an English or Latin phrase, you know, saying something about what that squadron is all about. So, in NATO, when guys are getting on the AWACS, which is the surveillance radar plane, I was in Squadron One. And we were proud that we are Squadron One. It’s not two or three, they also had Squadron Two and Three, but we are Squadron One. And that’s a Tiger Squadron. And so we had a tiger as a patch, you feel part of something. And that’s about achieving that feeling that team spirit, again, in business is, is making sure that you set people up for success. And again, if it’s about a project to implement a solution, that’s fine, but it’s about inspirational and motivational leadership, to make sure that people feel appreciated, recognized, valued of their contribution.

Jonny Dunning:        56:35     Yeah, and it keys into that fundamental human psyche, of wanting to have meaning in your life and wanting to have meaning in your work and value and feel appreciated and feel like you are achieving things. And you could you could look at something and go, “This is a technology implementation which sounds pretty boring, and not really that inspiring, and the world’s not going to stop, if it doesn’t happen,” kind of you could take that mentality. Whereas actually, if you can motivate towards, “The business has these objectives. This is what the business’s mission is in life. This is what we are trying to achieve in the world.” And actually how that filters down is like this, “These are the steps towards that overarching intent. And actually, this project is a critical part of that. Because it’s going to make this more efficient, it’s going to allow the business to do X and Y, is going to enable you within your roles to work on more strategic stuff rather than transactional activity, we want to free you up so that you can provide that greater value and it’s going to further the cause of the business in the world. And actually, what that means for you as a team, you are the team that can do this. And you are going to contribute like that. And we are all going to work together.” I would rather do that. That’s a better way to go about your life, isn’t it?

Harold Hendrickx:  57:53     Another story on that journey and something I shared again, in Amsterdam last week is about 1962. I am not sure if you know the story, but President John F. Kennedy visit NASA and he walked in, and he was about to engage with people, obviously, the NASA Director to talk about putting a man on the moon, and the sort of janitor, you are mopping the floor, and he was going over to the janitor saying, “Hey, sir,” he wants to be polite. Obviously. He said, “Sir, what are you doing here?” And the janitor is saying, “I am here to help to put a man on the moon,” rather than, “Cleaning the floor.” Whether if it’s true or not, doesn’t matter. But that’s the team spirits that you want to achieve. And I remember my first lesson in the military academy, day one, hour one, lesson one, the Sergeant Major said, “Your mommy and daddy put your here because you don’t know anything.” So that’s lesson number one. And the reason why you don’t know anything is that you need to embrace that making sure that you can listen to your people. So, to be a cadet and you are trained to become a leader is that you need to understand, “I don’t have the answers. My people has the answers. Specialists have the answers. Solution providers have the answers.” So if you grow in business as well, and you becoming more and more of a leader and less of a specialist, embrace the fact that in my case, let me put it this way, I am too old and I am too dumb to understand what’s going on in the world today on the work floor. Ask the people on the work floor, what’s going on. And if you have a problem, you need a solution, bringing the right capacities and capabilities to come up with the right answers. That’s why Richard Branson said, “We are hiring smart people to do the work, rather than you don’t tell them what to do. They need to tell me what to do.” And that’s exactly it. That’s exactly it! And that is about making sure that you bring it all together. And what we do and TransExecutive is facilitating that, is we are bringing bespoke, tailor made specialist towards what is needed. One client might need to have a technical solution implemented, another client is looking to have a more rigid and solid governance with policies, another clients looking for more data, or it might be a total operating model organizational design transformation, we are always will bring in as per mission and dynamic teaming, bringing the right capabilities and skill sets to achieve that mission. And that is, yeah, I love that. I think that’s a great concept. And I am sure, you guys have similar experiences with working with clients as well.

Jonny Dunning:        1:00:45  Definitely! And as you were saying that I was kind of thinking, that capacity and capability, organizations are pretty agile now and how they resource themselves. But obviously, there’s a limit to the capacity that they can carry themselves all of the time, because they might only need certain capabilities, or certain levels of capacity for particular things, they need to flex that and they need to, as you said before, respond to uncertainty, respond to a changing environment. So I am interested to know how you kind of build that sort of approach and build that thinking into how they deal with their extended capacity, where they are bringing in third party expertise that’s outside the organization, but forming it into one overall kind of entity that’s driving towards an objective.

Harold Hendrickx:  1:01:36  Yeah, I must say that different markets or countries are at different, let’s say, maturity stages on adopting that. So the UK, Canada, US, they very understand that dynamic team. And if they don’t have the capacity and capabilities themselves, they will get external resources and on the mainland Europe, that’s coming. And I think, that’s growing. But yeah, they kind of still fall back to the default, “We need to have this permanent role filled to obtain those capabilities.” With obviously, the risk that you have overhead, and now established ones that mission is delivered. So this is all about being dynamic, it’s about we see a situation, there is a problem, we need capabilities and skill sets, we have 80% of that internal needs, 20% growing externally to solve that. Once it solves, that 20% goes out, and there’s 80% are going back to their day jobs again. So it is about that dynamic approach of doing that. And it is a slowly but steady journey that businesses are going on. So it varies in which sector as well, manufacturing sector is a little bit more traditional, rather than, for instance, in the IT or software development companies, they are very used to you are bringing young people do stuff, and carry on and move on to the next challenge. So it is sector and also region market, depending on what you do there. But yeah, I think it’s inevitable. Companies need to embrace this because otherwise they won’t survive.

Jonny Dunning:        1:03:34  And, all you got to look at is the skill shortages, there are the war for talent, that the shortage isn’t in a talent market, it’s companies, they are going to be forced to get on this kind of thought trajectory.

Harold Hendrickx:  1:03:54  Yeah, that’s [Unclear] anyways. So I mean, people changing jobs every 2, 3, 4, 5 years, it’s the time of having a 40-year career in the same company is becoming rare. And people want to have also the wider experience in other companies and, baby go off for a couple of years and to spend time with family or friends or travel the world, so, people’s personal life also becoming dynamic and work life, it needs to be flowing into that dynamic mix. So I don’t believe that the generations, let’s say after us, we will choose to have a career for 40 years at the same company. I don’t see that happening. 

Jonny Dunning:        1:04:42  You have only got to look at the way the gig economy has evolved. And the gig economy was evolving rapidly before COVID. But, in the consumer space, it involves incredibly... COVID just made it happen quicker, remote working, all these sorts of things have come into play, that have kind of a more suited to the idea of achieving objectives rather than being at your desk for X amount of time in an office. So, it’s been a shift towards what’s important in getting things done is actually getting things done, where you are when you do it? What time it is when you do it? As long as it’s done by the deadline, doesn’t really matter so much. So I think, the whole world is shifting in that direction. And as you said, organizations have to be more flexible, more dynamic, because it’s not really a choice, if their competitors are being more flexible and dynamic, they will get left behind. Because everything’s moving so quickly, everything’s changing so fast, the introduction of things like AI into the process as well, people have got to kind of, they have really got to be sharp and adopting and moving forward with what’s happening rather than rejecting. I just don’t think it’s an option very much for organizations to look at change as something that they can decide to sit there and reject anymore, because it’s happening too fast, that it’s too risky to not be flexible.

Harold Hendrickx:  1:06:07  Yeah, I agree. I think that’s the way we were heading. And, yeah, it reminds me of, I mean, the HR departments of companies should have an understanding, which capabilities and capacity and which skill sets and which competencies do we have in-house, and which we don’t. So, if a problem is challenged, or a project or a task, or a mission, or whatever you want to call it, comes up, then they can allocate that capacity to that. And if it’s not sufficient, then they will go external and get some help. And that’s what it’s all about. And we should also recognize that not having an overhead for companies is in the end is a cheaper solution. So it’s lesser cost than having a massive headcount, with all the applications and also the labor law, risks that, if you need or want to let people go, then obviously, there’s a lot of strings attached to do that. So if you embrace the fact that you are dynamic and you are allocating the capacity and capabilities to what you want to achieve, coming from external sources, in the end, that is a far more cost effective solution.

Jonny Dunning:        1:07:19  Yeah, I mean, there’s always going to be a balance in terms of that the core people that make that organization, what is the core functions that needs to be carried out, the core team of that organization that really represent everything about that organization, and what that brand means to the world. But then, with this flexible capacity, as you say, if you define the outcomes effectively, in what you want to have delivered, then actually passing out the responsibility and the liability of that to third parties. Exactly as you say, in those circumstances, people initially always might think, “It’s going to be more expensive to do that.” But actually, when it comes down to it, if you have just got a team of people, whether they are employees or contractors, just doing work with no clear objectives and timelines, it might seem cheaper in the start, but actually what it might end up being much more expensive. Plus, you have the liability sits within your team, rather than being passed to an external party, you have to deliver an objective, there has to be an endpoint or delivery. So I think it’s very much a balance, but organizations having this flexible approach to getting work done. There are various channels through which you can get work done. Permanent employees, you can get work done through temps and contractors, you can employ gig workers to get work done, you can outsource work. But they are all just ways of getting work done. There’s always people involved with them, somewhere along the line, unless it’s robotic process automation. But ultimately, these are work delivery channels, I always think of them in my head. And ultimately, the exec board of an organization needs to know what is our total capacity and capability through all of the available work delivery channels for us to deliver our products and our services to our customers. And that’s where if they have got that flexibility, and they have got that scope and those partnerships, and the great team internally, that’s where I feel that they can be most effective.

Harold Hendrickx:  1:09:20  Yeah, I totally agree. And just another example from the military, if an infantry unit thinks there’s the river and the bridge is intact, and they were having to cross that bridge, to go on the other side of the river, and they actually are approaching the bridge and they say, “Wait a minute, the enemies blow the bridge,” what will they say is they will say, “Bring in the engineers.” So engineers will come, they will build a temporary bridge, engineers will walk away again, because they are gonna build another bridge somewhere else, and then they have that capacity. That’s exactly how it needs to work. And that is the most cost effective way of doing that. And yes, you are right. There needs to be a balance there. But it needs to be embraced that you need to have that dynamic going, also the amount of time and I think the data itself, if you do the calculation, if you build a case, you will see it by yourself. But the time that you spent on, development plans and making people also, having appraisals and having conversations that need to be engaged in all kinds of programs, and which is right, because you need to take care of your people. But the more people you get, that is getting on top of the costs, obviously from having a permanent staff that you don’t have if you have been in temporary workforce. So I think those are elements that need to be added to the business case. And I would argue with anyone by saying, what is the cheaper solution. So I would say it needs to be the balance, and ideally, it should be 30/70. So 30% of a [Unclear] 40% of a permanent staff at doing the everyday things that needs to be achieved, which is not that dynamic. That is the basic, let’s say, business rhythm that needs to be established. But everything else on top of that should be dynamic, allocated towards that. And I think that will be a good balance to do so. But we are not there yet!

Jonny Dunning:        1:11:22  Yeah, like you say, when you look at the use of external service providers, when you look at the use of internal dynamic teaming, there are options out there and organizations are adapting to this changing world that it’s just moving so fast. I think it’s a fascinating time. So, out of interest, how can people get ahold of your book? How can people find your book and get hold of it?

Harold Hendrickx:  1:11:47  Yeah, so it’s right here. So it’s called, “How to Purchase Procurements.” It’s available on Amazon. But I would say Jonny, if people are listening to this podcast, and, I am on LinkedIn, people can find me on LinkedIn, then reach out, and I am happy to give a free sample of the book, if they just got a reference towards the podcast, that will be great. And then so reach out, they can have a free sample of the book, I am happy to give it away. But it’s available on Amazon. I believe that e-book is 20 bucks, the paper version is 30 bucks. But yeah, it’s concepts like dynamic teaming, the taskforce approach, the four sided triangle, the commander’s intent, all the good stuff that we discussed, is actually described in there as well. So yeah, we will be great also to hear their feedback as well. Happy to provide them a free copy, if they want.

Jonny Dunning:        1:12:39  Brilliant stuff. Listen, I love your enthusiasm, I love the fact that you have been motivated to actually get these sports and these concepts down in a book. And, it’s not an easy thing to do. So I think it’s brilliant that you have done that. And it’s a pleasure to have you, engage in this conversation, to talk about these issues, because I think these are things that the industry needs to be talking about, and people need to think about and be aware of. So I really do appreciate it. And, I think you are going to be very busy with all the work with TransExecutive, but also, no doubt at some point in the future, the book will lead to other things that you want to do along those lines as well. And obviously, the thought process is constantly evolving, isn’t it? But I think that’s gonna be fascinating to see how that develops over time with the customers that you are working with. And, the conversations you are having. So yeah, I really appreciate it. And yeah, it’s an exciting time at the moment.

Harold Hendrickx:  1:13:39  Yeah, absolutely, Jonny. And yeah, again, thank you for inviting me on the podcast. And, yeah, I think what we both trying to achieve is making sure that your customers and clients are obviously set up for success and getting more value of the solutions that we provide. So I think that’s a great space to be in. Yeah, it will be great to see what the future brings us but confident, it will be successful. 

Jonny Dunning:        1:14:09  You and I are in agreement on that. And I think the other thing is just getting the conversation out there. I know I haven’t got all the answers. And, I benefit so much from having conversations with people like you that just get the conversation out there. And some of the stuff we might sort of think beforehand, “I would be interesting to talk about this, that and the other,” but it never ceases to amaze me how stuff comes out in these conversations that I would never have thought of beforehand, which is always why I kind of make notes when people are coming out with interesting stuff, I think, “Okay, that’s a great concept. I want to ask a question about that or hear about that in more detail.” So I think that’s another thing that I am definitely passionate about. When people have got something interesting to say, I am glad that it’s something that we can try and do our bit to try and make it available to a bigger audience but conversation in the industry for the furtherment of the industry are really important and I am very grateful for you for taking the time. It’s been really interesting.

Harold Hendrickx:  1:15:07  Yeah, absolutely. Thanks Jonny. Appreciate it.

Jonny Dunning:        1:15:10  Excellent. Stuff cool. Take care of yourself and hopefully, we will catch up again soon.

Harold Hendrickx:  1:15:14  Yeah, all right. Thank you. 


The impact of procurement's digital transformation

Exploring the trends in technology, user experience and leadership and their impact on procurement's digital transformation.

The impact of procurement's digital transformation


Adoption of services procurement or statement of work as part of broader contingent workforce programs and the approaches taken by MSPs in delivering these services.

MSPs delivering services procurement and contingent workforce programs

Exploring the practical lessons from the journey from an integrated suite to best of breed technology.

Integrated suites to best-of-breed: The evolution of procurement tech