The American Society of Civil Engineers has given Minnesota a grade of C for its infrastructure. The organization analyzed the state's roads, public transit, airports, wastewater systems, and drinking water. In a report released today, the group said that the state's roadways are in poor condition, earning it a dismal D-plus grade. The report says the average driver in the Twin Cities spends 41 peak hours in congestion every year at an average cost of nearly $1,500. Now the aviation in Minnesota earned the highest grade with a B. If you enjoyed this segment of Lakeland News, please consider making a tax-deductible contribution to Lakeland PBS.


Felly, rydym yn gwneud y lleson. Chris Davis yw'r Unedlaeth Sfodol. Felly, mae'n ddiddordeb. Felly, ddiddordeb. Fel ydych yn ddiddordeb. Felly, ddechrau o'r forum i IT4 foroedd. Felly, mae'n ddiddordeb. Ie'r rhai. Ddiddorolol. Ie'r ddiddorol. Felly, rwy'n meddwl ydych yn ddiddordeb. Mae'n ffaith ydych yn ddiddordeb o'r hyn oedd. ei wneud i ddim yn gynhwys i'r wneud. Felly mae'n gwybod i'r troi'r cyffredinol o'r ffóorm o'r ysgol arniol. Dwi'n credu gwneud i chi'n gwirio'r wyf o'r ymdweithio, o'r ymdweithio, ac o'r ymdweithio, o'r ymdweithio, i'r rwyf i Mary Jarrett. Rwy'n gweithio, mae'n gweithio rwyf i'w rwyf i'w wir. Mae'r cyfwyr ysgol yn dda i gawr, yn ffordd i'r bobl pwg, The IT for IT reference architecture version two will be part of that. This is an enormous watershed moment for a very talented and very diverse team, many of whom are in the room with us today. So after my few brief words to explain exactly why this is such an important watershed moment, I hope that you'll connect with us over lunch and then join us this afternoon because we have three interesting presentations, one from Chris Armstrong, one from Lars Rossen, HP and another one from Rob Akershoek, building on the success stories, if you will, the potential that this new standard for the business of IT offers. So do please join us this afternoon. Mary Jarrett from Shell, who I'll introduce in a few moments, will also join us in the panel at the end of the day. So we've got a really interesting series of presentations for you. So I hope I can advance the slides. I'm pressing the right button, Martin. Is that what I should be pressing? So the governing board has approved the IT for IT reference architecture version two, including the addition to the standards information base. And I'm just going to move to my notes because I put some algebra up there just to puzzle you. This is a strategic planning tool, he said, dropping his notes that was used in Citibank for many years. W cubed where we were. This was just a small customer consortium a few years ago, a very active but very passionate customer and vendor organisations who had a vision to fill the space in the standards world with something that would support the business of IT. Where we are now, we began working with the Open Group in 2013. As some of you will remember, we launched publicly in London in October last year. To date, some 15 to 20 man years of effort has gone into this initiative. W cubed to be, where do we want to be? We see the opportunity for the new standard to bring coherence into the often chaotic world of running enterprise scale IT departments. And in doing so, we think that we're helping to make the world just a little bit of a better place. GT squared, that's where Mary comes in. In a few minutes, we'll hear from Mary at Shell. Later, colleagues from Delta Lloyd and Armstrong, process group will highlight the business value and potential of the new standard. GT squared means are we going to get there? You betcha, we are. I'd like now just to share a slide that Lars Rossen put together, which explains the abstractions and connections in this reference architecture. The reference architecture itself sits at level three in this five level model. If you decompose it downwards, if we continue to abstract, we go down through levels four and five into something which is vendor and then highly tool specific in terms of logical architecture. So the support for detailed design by the worker bees in the vendor and service provider organizations is now there. This is the first time there's been such prescriptive guidance, and it's a very exciting moment. The other perspective is that we can abstract outwards. We can zoom out to a helicopter view, which provides guidance through four value streams up into what we call the IT value chain. This is immediately familiar to executive sponsors who see a perspective of this reference architecture that enables them to latch on to and identify the business value that this new standard presents. We think that this will be immediately sensible to many people in many organizations like Shell, Delta Lloyd and elsewhere. This for me though is the most exciting piece. Support for enterprise architects in the standard is very substantial indeed, but significantly it's process agnostic. The standard can be used to drive structured and agile projects and teams in combination if desired. The standard brings prescriptive guidance into a space which until now has been characterized by the variety of process, project and organizational frameworks and the resources that populate it. The IT for IT reference architecture provides a cohesive data model and component prescriptions and enables the efforts of all to plan, build, run, broker, integrate, operate to be choreographed and coordinated in a less ad hoc fashion. This is the direct support for Worker B enterprise architects that has for so long been absent. We have at last made shoes for the cobbler's children. We now have something which is much more useful than an M8 wrench. There's still much to be done to develop the collateral that will help cement the standard in place. We're working on training certification, product validation, but we also need help to work at a more detailed level to provide guidance on what data to exchange at the attribute level. But the potential is huge. The standard provides firm foundations and we hope that you will help us build from it. It's now my great pleasure to introduce Mary Jarrett, who I hope will follow what I just presented and demonstrate that potential. Our speaker is Mary Jarrett from IT for IT at Shell. As a professional accountant, Mary specialised in UK and international tax for over a decade. In 2001, she joined Shell working in retail fuel card operations, optimizing management information and transaction systems and running a pan European team. Since deciding to move to IT, she's developed strategies and plans and set up a continuous improvement team in the global IT services organisation. Currently, she has a dual role running a multi-million-dollar IT portfolio whilst leading an enterprise-wide IT cost optimization programme. In this session, Mary will be explaining why Shell is adopting an open standard for managing IT. Ladies and gentlemen, Mary Jarrett. I'm going to leave that there just in case I forget. Do you have the clicker? I do, ma'am. That's a very generous introduction. Thank you. Congratulations if you spotted that's not me there. Congratulations if you spotted it was me on the marketing material. I don't have any particular desire to keep my hair the same from month to month. It is a great honour to be asked to be speaking to you on this auspicious day. This is the day where we've launched the standard, and it's been a long journey. It's been a long journey in Shell, and it's been a long journey for a lot of you out there. I think it's a really important day to mark. Before I get into it, I'm going to tell you a little bit more about me. You've already heard I don't have a long background in Shell, and I don't have a long lifetime background in IT, so I may be an unusual person to be talking about IT for IT, but let's see where that takes us. I'm not the only one from Shell here today. There's many people, many suppliers who've helped us on this journey, but there's one person in particular that I'd like to mark out. He's my chief architect, and he has taught me everything I know about this topic. Carol, I'm going to ask you to stand up. He needs to have the credit. You also need to make sure you recognise that guy because you've got a difficult question. That's where it goes. Okay, so I said, I make my life 50-50-50, so I spent 50% of my career inside Shell, 50% outside Shell. You've heard I'm an accountant. I'm going to give you an accountant's view of what IT does through this presentation, and for those of you who report to the CFO, maybe that will be enlightening. I spent 50% of my career inside Shell, so that's the last 50%, 50% of it inside IT, and 50% of it outside IT. I worked in our downstream operations before I moved into IT, so it does give me a different perspective. Could you just put your hands up if you read and agree to that, please? I'm sorry, how many times do you click I accept on random websites, and you're not willing to just accept this? Don't worry, it just tells you that if I talk about reserves, I don't really mean to talk about reserves. So what am I going to do today? I'm going to give you a little bit of background about the environment. I'm going to tell you quite a lot about Shell, because Shell's very important to me. I'm going to tell you what IT for IT is. I'm going to tell you why it's important, and why it's difficult. I'm going to tell you about our Shell IT for IT journey, because I like to make things practical. I don't like to stay too much at the conceptual level, and then I'm going to put the ball firmly back into your call before lunch to see what you think you're going to do next. You never know, we might have time for questions, but I doubt it. So where are we? That's pretty impressive. That's one of my favorite Shell pictures. But I'm not going to tell you just about that just yet. I want to start here before we get into the weeds, the back office of IT for IT down there in the trenches behind everything, remind ourselves why are we here. We are here because IT adds value to businesses. It increases profitability of businesses. It increases revenue. It opens new worlds for business. That is why IT is here. I'm just going to tell you in the context of IT for IT. Let me tell you about Shell. We're an integrated oil and gas company. You probably all know what that means. It means we find the oil, we dig it up, extract it, it would be the technical jargon. We refine it and we sell it on. What you probably don't know is how complex that might be. Did you know, for instance, that we refine nearly double what we produce and we sell nearly double what we refine. There's an awful lot of trading of this oil commodity that goes on in between, making this a very complex hydrocarbon management system that IT needs to support. Shell has innovation and technology at the core of its strategy. I'll get to this soon. We actually use innovation and technology to find more oil, to actually extend the useful life of our production platforms, to enhance our profitability by making our refining and our extraction processes more efficient and we actually use it to find new oil and new growth areas. Things like really deep under the sea on the ocean floor we call deep water or integrated gas. This here, prelude, this here is a floating liquefied natural gas plant. It is the biggest floating object in the world. It is 146 meters longer and six times heavier than the biggest aircraft carrier. It is the length of four football pitches, football being very close to my heart, and that's the height comparison you can see there. It took five times more steel to build this than it took to build the Sydney Harbour bridge. When it's live, it will produce 3.6 million tonnes of LNG every year, as well as some other by-products. Most importantly, it's normally moored off Western Australia, not Westminster. As a big user of technology, Shell is also an IT intense company. We're also very big, which also creates IT issues. We run our businesses as global businesses, not local businesses, so it's not a question of getting performance and insight of retail in Italy. No, we run all of our businesses as global businesses. We need global systems giving global performance, giving global insights and automating global processes. We have 94,000 people spread across the world, some in hospitable parts of the world, like Edinburgh, and some in less hospitable parts of the world. The IT challenges even go as far as providing on-board entertainment to offshore platforms. So it's large. When I joined downstream, or 15 years ago, nearly, one of the facts that I liked most about Shell was that we've sold more sandwiches than Tescos. It's not just about hydrocarbon management. Our IT requirements are more akin to a conglomerate than they are to a single company. All that business complexity, perhaps not unexpectedly, leads to a huge IT landscape. This is what we're managing inside Shell. And I just reflect on this.  But that's not so anymore. To be a successful CIO, companies are now looking for you to be a business leader. They're looking to you to manage your IT and actually manage it in an agile manner. Use market services. Don't build up all this capital in all that IT investment. They're looking to you as the CIO to actually make sure your IT is affordable, not big, not impressive. Some of these stats here, and some of the budgets that we spend are becoming a bit more of an embarrassment than a matter of pride. And we need to actually start thinking, do we need to manage our business better? Of course, it's not just Shell. There's that whole IT industry thing going on as well. And I'm sure you recognise all these disruptive elements in there. And yes, okay. So all of these need to be managed differently. And I will come back to that later in this presentation. But it also changes people's attitude to IT. How many times do you go back into the office and you hear people going, well, that's nice, but can I have it on my iPad, please? Or they go, what do you mean I have to wait six months for your change window? Can't you just spin it up in that cloud thing that you use these days? Or why you ask me to clean my email inbox? I get 20 gigabytes free when I go home and do this. The attitudes to IT are changing and we need to adapt. And then, as Shell, we've always been, you know, we've always been attacked, shall I say, by activists. So we have Greenpeace scaling our buildings, leaving blow up polar bears outside our doors. But now, unfortunately, they've become activists.  And then there's the commercial pressures. The commercial pressures. Have you seen the oil price recently? I don't think I need to say any more. Managing within all of these pressures, the external ones, the internal ones, the attitude, the new role that the CIO's got to play, who would want to be a CIO today? It's a really new role and it's really hard. Well, aren't you the lucky ones? I'm here to tell you how IT for IT can help. It's a bit like saying I'm here from head office, I can help. And I actually really believe that IT for IT can help you with all of these issues. Think, how big is your IT department? Think of your budget right now.  I'd be pleased and tell you. Would you run your business without full insight into what's going on? Would you not want to know how efficient you're running that you're optimizing your investments? You're running at the lowest cost possible to actually make your profits as high as possible. And yet when we come back in to IT, we don't actually run it like that. So why don't we run it like that? Why don't we run it like a business? Just sit back again. Most organisations spend between 1% to 4% of revenue on IT. That makes the IT departments of larger corporates, mid-level stock exchange company size. One of those embarrassing facts, if I look at it at Shell, Shell IT, just the IT department alone would be FTSE 100 listed. We would be a smallish country in GDP terms. That's how large it is. And it's not just large, it's complex. Remember the stats I showed you? There's lots of IT out there. There's lots to manage. And it's not just complex, it's critical. If it goes wrong, Shell can't talk to customers. Shell can't find more oil. Shell isn't operating complicated plant like I showed you. So it's big, it's complex and it's critical. And we're not managing it like a business. Why don't we do that? Why don't we run it with full insight and full automation across the lifecycle of IT? As an accountant, I can tell you, I spent my early career putting in small accounting systems for small businesses. Even small businesses wanted insight into their performance. And they knew that manual wasn't going to hack it for them. Larger businesses, you go and audit larger businesses as an accountant, it's all done in IT systems. You don't audit people, you go and look at their IT systems. You can see all of their processes and all of their insights. We've had one suggestion why we don't do that, which is cobbler's children. If you're British, you might understand that. Let me just make sure we all understand that. Cobblers, old English language for shoemaker. Cobblers children have no shoes. Maybe in IT we spend all of our time looking at our business IT and not at our own IT. I think there's more to it. So let's focus a bit. What is this IT for IT? What would managing the business of IT look like if we did it well? So it's not rocket science. We need to plan stuff. We need to build it. We need to deploy it. We need to operate it. If we start acting like business people, we might even decommission it every now and then. But let's not get too excited too early. And we need IT systems, IT capabilities throughout that. And we do. We have investment planning, investment prioritisation systems in the planning. We have requirements and testing systems for building. We have a service catalogue for deploying. And we have monitoring and ticketing systems for operating to name but a few. We're good at that. We can put IT capabilities in. It's in our name. We're IT. We're IT for IT even better. But do we get the most out of those systems? If you're going to run IT like a business, you don't just deploy IT. You use it. You look at it. You see what it's telling you. You take actions as a result of what it's telling you about the performance of your massive operations called IT. Can you honestly hand on heart say, well, I know exactly what each elements in that life cycle cost me? How well they're performing? What risks I'm taking and what mitigations I have in place? And what value I'm creating in each step of my life cycle? That is what you should be able to say. You should be able to say, hand on heart, I plan to deliver you this value. And I know that I have because in operations my systems tell me I'm delivering you that value. You should be able to do that. You should be able to identify why when projects go live you have incidents in operations. We all know they do. You should be able to identify which teams or which suppliers put projects in and make the changes without creating those incidents and which ones create them. And you should identify why that's different, improve your process, and even better, you should reward the people who do that well. I bet you any money, you all reward a project going live. You go, yes, this is great. Let's celebrate. Why don't you reward the ones that don't create operational incidents and reward the ones that create the value they always said they're promised? Why don't you change your way of thinking and manage like business people? And let me tell you, I know this is a personal opinion about why do we get ourselves here? Why don't we manage IT like that? Well, one, we have tools. We have lots of tools. We have so many tools that it's almost impossible to manage. And why wouldn't we? This is IT for IT. You've got IT people speaking to IT people. You've got a problem. What are you going to do? You're going to put IT in. And there's another problem. The IT we put in, the IT we put in is a point solution. It's a point solution for a particular department that happens to have the problem. So you'll have a planning team and they'll put in a point solution for their planning. And you've got development teams and you'll put in point solutions for development. And you've got an operations team and you'll put in a point solution for operations. Stop and think for a minute. If you did want to manage the whole life cycle end to end, whose responsibility would that be in your company today? Who would actually own that budget? We stepped back in Shell and actually nobody owned that budget, which gave us the real problem. And so that's something that Carol and I are fighting all the time, trying to get people to understand that optimising the end to end is going to add more value than putting more tools in. And here's my personal favourite. We have a culture in IT that doesn't allow us to do this. We accept that people just complain about the tools and don't do something with it. How many times have I heard, well, I'm sorry, your system doesn't have good data quality. I'm not going to take any action on the costs that you're telling me are there. Or I need a new report in this tool until you build me a report, I can't do anything. And that there's tons of data and information we're already supplying to them. They'll do anything to blame the tool rather than taking the information and taking action. And then if you do want to join it all up, let's say you did want a total cost of ownership of an application, which requires pieces from all of it. We accept in IT that somebody who needs to do that will go to their PC, they'll get it all downloaded from all the different systems, they'll get in their Excel spreadsheet, they'll do all the pivot tables and I can guarantee you whatever they come up with will support their point of view. Simply no objectivity and we accept that. And here's the kicker. We hide behind excuses that we all believe in. Honestly, we all say, well, when we make that change, we had an incident, we didn't expect it to happen because IT is so complex, we didn't know what was going to impact. And we all go, yeah, we know that, that happens, we accept it. Or we go, well, we delivered late because the customer kept changing their requirements. I had to keep changing scope and we accept that. And we never look underneath that to see what our underlying inefficiencies are in IT. Just think, what do you think would happen if the CFO went to the CEO and said, I'm sorry nobody's paying your invoices, I sent them all out incorrectly, but I'll tell you why. It's because master data is so complex so I can't really manage it. And because the data in our systems isn't very good quality and I can't do anything about that either. And actually the customer kept changing their minds on what they was going to order so that really confused the whole process. That CFO isn't going to be there for long and yet the CIO has been making those excuses for a lot of years. That is not going to be around for long as the CIO has to step up as a business leader. So where are we in business terms? The top of this slide says the business wants more IT, more quickly, more efficiently, with better quality. And the other side says we want it at lower cost and less risk. You know the story, they've always wanted that, they still want it today, they're always going to want it. So even if you sat there and went, actually my IT for IT works pretty well, it might work well for now, will it work well tomorrow? And down the bottom, I'm going to show you how I've got into IT culture now, I'm going to start right to left and my excuse is somebody else did these slides for me. On the right you've got all those new technologies, those disruptive emerging technologies. You need new management systems to manage those, have you thought about that? You're going to have more and more suppliers from the cloud that you're going to have to manage. They're not going to come in and use your traditional ticketing system. You're going to have more and more devices that you need to manage, know where they are, know how much they cost, as mobile proliferates and internet things comes along. Those more and more devices will have more and more connects to the outside world. You're not, your traditional perimeter security is not going to hack it for long. And all of those connections are going to lead you to more and more cyber threats, all of which need managing, finding, identifying and repelling. Have you, are your management systems up to that? In the middle here, I'm sure we've all stated we're going agile, we're going bimodal, dev ops, that's our next step. Have you thought what that means to your management system? Do you realise that that information, that boundary of information between your dev team and your ops team has to disappear? We have to pass information through that life cycle and we have to pass it quickly. Have you thought what it means to have security, architecture, finance embedded in your agile process instead of at Stage 8.2 and Stage 8.6 where they can pop in and pop out again? It's an entirely different paradigm that you've got to manage. And here on the left, oh that old chestnut hay. Costs keep rising in base. If you can't keep going up, you're going to squeeze out your project investment. Honestly, what's the point of having an internal IT department if you can't invest in value? Why would your company even keep you? And so if you haven't got a deep and detailed insight into your costs of all your of your assets, how are you going to manage that problem? And this is what IT for IT has been structured to do. We've called it a reference architecture. It's not just a set of documents. It's not just for architects. There's a real philosophy behind it. And the philosophy is underpinned by thoughts such as we are going to transform the corporate IT world from an owner of data centres into a broker of services. We will need and we are going to create a single common data model across the whole life cycle of IT to help us manage it as a life cycle. We will have integrated capabilities across the life cycle and not just point solutions. And we will be able to exchange the right level of information with our growing ecosystem of suppliers. So if any of those issues struck home and if you're like me, you'd probably be sitting there going, yeah, I can get that. Yeah, I'm going to have to change. God, that's going to cost a lot of money. Who on earth is going to invest in IT for IT? What on earth is the business value of that? How am I going to justify that spent? Well, we've done some work with Gartner and Valshriba of Gartner. He says, if you get this back office IT for IT stuff right, you could save between five and 20% of your IT budget. Let me let that sink in. If you do this internal plumbing at the back, all that ticketing monitoring portfolio management, all that stuff that you go, yeah, yeah, internal plumbing, if you get that right, you could take five to 20% off your entire IT budget. Interested now? Do you want me to go back a few slides so you can catch up? No time, sorry. It wouldn't be right of me to stand up here on this suspicious day without showing at least a bit of the open group reference architecture, a bit of the open standard. You've seen it before. This is a value stream, slightly different format. The point of me making this is I really, really want to stress that it's the integrated nature of running IT that's going to get you the value. It's about that real value of IT. Remember those systems that we're talking about. It might be 3D seismic for me and my upstream business visualising seismic reservoirs in 3D. It might be managing tankers and having distribution systems that actually get tankers to the retail sites on time. But it's about taking those ideas from concept through build into deploy and then into operate as a single value chain and being able to track it through that life cycle. I need you to really think, do you have this capability today? We often sit there behind closed doors and we think we have the capability and that's my challenge to you today. Company size of shell, I don't have this capability today but I do believe I really need it. I need it to become better. You take that as higher quality. I need it to become faster, more agile would be the nicer word of saying. I need it to become cheaper or more affordable as the slide says and I need it to reduce my risk without full insight across my whole life cycle. I can't make the performance of IT any better.  So I promised you practical. So I'm now going to tell you about what we're doing about this. That was a bit of the lecture, a bit of the conceptual story but of celebrating that we've got to an IT for IT open standard and I'm going to start by reflecting. This is a bit of a hybrid slide. You can see the top two from the left hand corner of that shell and the rest of it is really a story of how we got to this open standard and I want to reflect here because there was a choice. We didn't have to go open standard but we chose to in shell and I want you to understand why because I want you to understand whether it's relevant to you or not and it's because we have some certain core beliefs and one of them is we've been managing this IT for IT actually formally as a department for just under a decade in shell and Carol will tell you he's been working at it through other departments for an awful lot longer than that in shell and we only see the gap between what we need to do and our current capabilities growing as all this disruptive environment comes upon us. We also see that the problem is really really big and the value of solving it is really really big and therefore we want it solved and we don't believe it's a problem that one company can solve by themselves. At the end of the day we're an energy company not an IT company probably not ours to solve anyway and we and as an energy company we don't mind if we do IT for IT the same way as everybody else does it. It's not a competitive advantage to us and we really believe we can accelerate our journey by collaboration. We believe bringing in the expertise of others will get us there faster and then the last one we believe this solution will only work if it brings value like reducing costs overall IT budget for a consumer of IT like shell and also is commercially viable for suppliers so it's really important that the collaboration is across the consuming and the supplying organisation that's the only way it's going to work. I'm showing you this it's a bit of a scrappy slide I want to show you this and I wanted to show you it without smartening up I've used this roadmap for the last three years it's very much built on the concept of the reference architecture we may have come first before that but then as I told you we had one of the leaders of the open group working for us it also show you how much shell loves acronyms and I'm sure you're all sitting there going oh I wonder if I can get normally I sat here and go does anybody know what I mean but I won't I'll tell you apex bottom left hand corner application portfolio excellence it was an early win we we built a trusted source of all of our applications and their major attributes slim software license management you can steal it we haven't paid it it's nice nice acronym we've built a compliance capability moving up that line there IOT you should probably all know that one internet things and then up the roadmap ITBM IT business management and above that PPM you'll know project portfolio management unfortunately it's a real misnomer on the slide I'll tell you about that and so we built this roadmap in shell and actually we've put it in this particular order and at the moment mainly we are following this order but the order is really unimportant to us let me just make sure you all understand what the steps are so the first step IT business management it's about cost transparency it's about providing the total cost of ownership for an application it's also about insight about the whole cost but the focus on applications I have a slide about that the next slide is about integrated portfolio management lifecycle portfolio management it's about getting that insight into the cost value performance and risk across the whole lifecycle I'm in the throes of that at the moment and I've got a slide about that and then the next three steps these you can almost lie totally onto the value the value stream from the reference architecture the first one let's get them in the right order project delivery automating project delivery it's about making your project delivery predictable have you ever thought about that predictable in the length of time it's going to take and predictable in the quality it's going to bring if you can automate project delivery more than we do today you can make it predictable you can really reduce waste and really make your life much better it will also enable agile and dev ops and that's where that piece is the next one operations efficiency this is really about the request to fulfill piece it's about allowing somebody to go in find what they want in the catalogue requesting it and automating the fulfillment whether that's a pc or whether it's a technical it landscape in the cloud or on legacy just automating that whole process then at the top we called it proactive is the detector correct part of the value stream today in our business critical landscape we always monitor the applications and whenever we detect something that might be going wrong we automatically send it to our ticketing system so that the support group is aware and can go work on it but what if we could automate the fix instead of the ticket that's what this work streams about I said the order's not that important we deliver on this opportunistically as investment funds come up we'll work on any area of this this roadmap the important thing about it is to go and talk to people about it it's quite inspirational for people to go out and hear actually that is what we want actually that is really going to help our it organization it helps them think of it for it as a value add rather than internal plumbing it does beg the question what is it for it ever done for you obviously no monty python fans so let me talk about a couple of things we did first of all it business management it's all about cost transparency why did we call it it business management well because it's it's part of our journey it's our first step on our journey to delivering or managing it as a business the top picture here we have very good evidence in shell that the prices we pay for it top call tile we leverage our strength and our size and we pay top call to our prices our total it cost not so good there's only one logical conclusion we've got too much of it we're paying the right prices but we've got too many applications too much infrastructure maybe too many people in high cost locations supporting it who knows i do now but i didn't then i was set the task can you go and give us cost transparency as an application level that will help us optimize our application costs and our application portfolio and so we did and so now what we can see i'll just give you a flavor what we can see is for for every application you can now see all of the contracts that support that application they maybe sas contracts and maybe license license contracts maybe support contracts you can see all of the support all of the people who support that application you can see how senior they are you can see whether they're shell staff contract staff where they're located where in the world onshore offshore you can see all of the projects that are being done on that application so you can see how often it needs fixing and you can see all of the infrastructure at the very detailed level and the cost of each piece of infrastructure now when we did that we found a whole load of integrations that really didn't work and which is the point of this story for you really is to show this reference architecture is real this integration is real so we found a whole bunch of integrations that just didn't exist we didn't have contracts linked to applications we didn't have people linked to applications we didn't even have projects linked to applications we had to build that they were just missing we had a whole bunch of data quality config management who doesn't have data quality issues in config yeah it's a bit like ticking the box at the beginning isn't it everybody has data quality issues in config nobody can link their infrastructure to their applications and keep it good i can tell you one of the great things about building this is there's no reason to keep that good because if it's not it goes out on a data quality piece that says your your costs your costs are wrong because you haven't linked all your infrastructure to your applications i've built a virtuous circle and the other thing that's slightly more embarrassing there was a whole load of conflicts in my integrations so in all the systems that i had to put into here to make it work they all grouped applications projects in different ways they all had different it hierarchies they all had different definitions of portfolios so even if i wanted to i couldn't have got my spreadsheet out and added all these things together because they just didn't hit and so we had to introduce a whole new agreed it hierarchy and so here's our first step getting deep and detailed insight into the cost of our applications by integrating our solutions i've spent the last two years of my life doing that um i now had i had a couple of evenings back so i thought what shall i do next oh well let's go for integrated portfolio management and so i'm now in the throes of this and what is this well up until now we've managed portfolio management as three separate pieces of this triangle investment portfolio management got managed by the planners project portfolio management got managed by delivery application portfolio management well got managed by anybody you happen to think they'd like to do that and with now just recently brought it under one governance one exec the whole integrated portfolio management i told you earlier apex was an early win that's our system used for application portfolio management i'm right now going live across our group with project portfolio management in the same system next year i have money to path find putting investment portfolio management in the same system i'm using a bit of an sap strategy i'm forcing integration by use of a single system for what would have normally been point solutions that was the it talk let me tell you the business value that i expect to get from this i really believe this is going to improve the productivity in the it department it's going to massively reduce risk and give us more control of what we're doing and let me give you some examples of how i think that's going to happen so what i what i intend to do as part of our cost transparency we've already identified end of life on all of our infrastructure because it was a necessary part of that data model and so what i'm going to do is i'm going to automate every time a piece of infrastructure comes to an end of life i'm going to automate its end of life day into an application roadmap not an infrastructure roadmap an application roadmap and when that end of life is appearing i'm going to automate that into the proposed investments for that year nobody gets to say it's just going to stand there and then the people who make decisions whether to invest or not can either say yes i'm going to fund it or no i'm not if i do this enough the chances are yes they're going to fund it because they get used to the idea and then i've mitigated the risk of end of life across my whole company if they don't decide to fund it i'm not going to go and say you must fund it no i'm going to take it as a gift and i'm going to say here you go operations team this is all the end of life issues that you're going to have next year you don't need to go and set up a project to do that to find it out it's here it's reported some deep and detailed insight into what we're doing something else that i expect this to do i'm of course i'm going to prioritise my investments by value who wouldn't but i want to do more than that i want to go a step further i want that business case to live with that investment through its whole project stage and into operations and i want to prove that the value that was promised was actually delivered i am going to track that down to the last dollar of profitability the last inch of efficiency that we can get and all the productivity measures i can our value doesn't have to be defined purely in dollar values it can be defined in kpis and we're going to track it to the end until we've actually delivered it and the last thing i'm going to do is i'm going to make our future base costs predictable we know that if our base costs keep going up we'll squeeze out investment and we get into trouble with the with the ceo we don't want that to happen but we don't know exactly when it's going to happen or what's going to happen by doing this i can make my future base costs predictable i already have cost transparency of what what it costs me today i have business cases for investments which tell me how much they expect that to cost and we also have rules in project portfolio management that every project must report its base cost impact and keep that up to date and so by using that pieces of data in my integrated system i can predict my future base costs and i can use that to actually improve my performance and make sure i have money available for investment of course the best value for this ever is it is going to be able to use all this data all this insight and go and have excellent conversations with their business partners about the cost the value and the risk of the it that that business uses so that's my story it's over to you i'm not doing too badly what are you going to do what's your next step did you believe it did you not believe it you need more information there's plenty of stuff going on this afternoon to go and get more belief there's already over 40 members of the forum the it for it forum in the open group you might be one of them or you might not so maybe if you're not maybe your first step is to join if you are a member what have you done about it what are you planning to do about it i gave you more my story i think there's a three step model that you can go do now you can go back you can start doing a gap assessment of what you do today against the reference architecture so you know where your gaps are you can then stand back and say where are your pain points what's hurting you most the lack of cost transparency was hurting us most that's where we started the next pain point i have is value and being able to prove value so that's why i'm into integrated portfolio management so where are your pain points and then build a business case i assure you there's a business case there go think go think long and hard about how you justify that business case and then get on with it i'd like to thank you all for your patience for listening to this i think we may have time for questions if we want to do questions but i want you to remember one thing if you take only one thing away the difficult questions to carol please thank you very much thank you very much okay so we've got three or four minutes before we go to lunch so just to re-articulate we have a panel session this afternoon um at the end of the afternoon three presentations beforehand and then mary will rejoin us for the panel so there'll be an opportunity to explore the issues and respond to questions then but we'd be happy to take one or two now just before we go to lunch if that suits allen to and we'll see how much time we got for either okay okay so the first one is how do you plan to incent measure and govern the behaviour of people across the organisation to support your roadmap projects i think that's more for one over a glass of wine this evening it's really hard come on people it's really hard but we've made some progress uh carol and i work really really hard to get some of this done but we've got apex done we've got slim done we've got the total cost of transparency done the most important thing that enabled us to do that was to get the cio on board the single most important thing then you need to evangelise you need to talk not in processes and data you need to talk in business value you need to say what can somebody do better if they help you do this the other question is pretty similar is you spoke about tracking value from investments how do you track how well or badly users actually use the systems and services and and he's so doing realised value same question right it's again it's really how do we know we got value we we have a layer of our organisation called business interface you might have a similar kind a kind of role in your it department what do you use those people for do they too often just become that awkward interface that actually says it said this although business said that no what that business interface really ought to be doing they ought to be doing exactly that they should be out there arm in arm with their business partners they should be knowing exactly how those business people are using that system they should be looking at it analysing it are they getting as much value as they should are they using all the functionality finding out why finding making that possible so there is a role in it that should be doing that for you okay i think this question might be answered this afternoon chris um what about it for it adoption for itil organisations it for it adoption for it organisations it i l organisations yeah okay so we have the pocket guide published there is an appendix in the pocket guide that makes comparisons between it for it the new open standard and the various other tools and frameworks that are out there this doesn't compete but it definitely complements i think that some of the structures and opportunities that it offers huge organisations like shell is clear from Mary's presentation but again that's one that needs some reflection because itil like many other frameworks is effectively locally interpreted so there are many many flavours of implementation of that framework so i think the pocket guide is the way forward there in terms of reflecting on how this fits into and fills some of the void in the standards landscape there's a great opportunity for trainers to upgrade people from itil to itil absolutely so the the the normative piece that the standard offers provides some cohesion and i think it responds to earlier question too so in terms of what the standard brings into the organisation i think as well as being able to evangelize to your cio it actually gives a sense of if you will belonging and belief to the whole it function within a diverse organisation and that cohesion also can be built on by the trainers and the integrators so that you've got much more ability to drive the margins that we talk about in the value chain and achieve the sorts of wins that Mary's explained this morning but yes we will get into that a little bit more this afternoon in the track sessions and certainly we can respond to that a bit more fully in the panel session at the end of the afternoon and i'll just say i'm here all day and i'm here for dinner overnight so if anybody wants to get into a conversation about this i'm fully available just make sure he gets the difficult one put on the spot again last one and i'd have trouble with this one as well because it depends the answer is it depends how did you quantify business value we're going through that process at the moment i'm not going to say we've solved this um my external relations people would like me to stand up on stage and say shell has solved every problem that ever known to man unfortunately it's not true so we are we have a massive program on that at the moment i alluded to it um you have choices you can go completely dollar route or you can look at other kpi's what we're going to do is we're going to try and find a model that supports each portfolio that we have remember we're as diverse as finding oil and selling coca cola okay so there isn't one set of value measures that's going to work for the whole of shell so each portfolio is going to have to define that we don't have the answer of how they're going to do that just yet that's been a wonderful presentation uh introducing it for it again thank you very much


We don't have a word for this particular kind of person. So we have a word for women, we say gold diggers, and those are people that we understand are chasing after people who have money. Now, a gold digger is actually a gold pursuer, if anything, I mean diggers actually a fine word too, because digging is a manual job. You have to take effort, it takes tools, it takes time, it's not an easy thing. When I was saying gold tripper, they didn't just stumble upon it, they had to actively pursue the gold. And these women go to the weekends, they go to the events, they go to the bars where these people are, like they put themselves in position to meet a certain kind of man. Now we have the same thing for male podcasters where you're putting yourself in a position to be surrounded by a certain kind of woman.  And again, the power dynamics is kind of skewed in that place because you're interviewing them. And so there is a inherent pressure to try to impress or to answer questions in a certain way, which can throw up the power dynamics.  And through this, and people watching you obviously that validates you and then you get more value. But I don't actually know if like boiled down, you are the people that you're talking about. What up lovers and friends? Okay, so it's the end of the month, it's been a month, but we're getting through it. And to end the month off, I have my second Squarespace integration. Always shout out to you Squarespace. And I asked all of you, how did you want me to use it? What did you want me to talk about? And the DJ academics, Brittany Renner, Fresh and Fit interview came up a lot. And I watched it and I completely understand why. And through watching that, I got interested and watched some other perspectives that they shared. And so I wanted to do a little response video to several of the think pieces, schools of thoughts, rhetoric, philosophies, sophistories, shared perspectives. And yeah, let's go. It's a new year and the perfect time to remind you that now is the time to bring your next big idea to life. And if you're going to do a big, do it with the sponsor of this video, Squarespace. Squarespace is an all in one platform to build a beautiful, powerful online presence today. So go to squarespace.com slash shamboody to get 10% off your first purchase of a website or a domain. Again, that's squarespace.com slash shamboody.  When you get a top tier guy, guess what?  Anybody who is maneuvering under the banner of being a dating expert or coach or guru or societal commentator who makes statements like these and does not back it up with context is doing everybody a massive disservice because we need to ask the question, why? Why is it that there is an elite group of men who have options? So many options of women that once you achieve a certain level of financial success and career stability, all of a sudden the dating pool opens up to you. And the answer is actually a pretty depressing one that the problem has been persisting since the 1980s when women began to outperform men when it came to enrollment in post-secondary school. And now women are outperforming men in graduation rates from post-secondary school, from graduate schools, and so on and so forth. And men are being left behind scholastically. And this is a huge issue and continues to be a huge economic issue that we're facing where more women are doing well and are viable workers. And as a result of that, there's something actually called the Golden Penis Syndrome. And please look it up, you haven't heard of it before. But it's a term that was coined at a college where the ratio from men to women was three to one. Every three women, three heterosexual straight women, there was one heterosexual straight man who was also in college. So by nature of that, that one man is going to have a plethora of options because it's a numbers game. And if that man graduates and is successful, he is competing with not just women who are of his equally yoked status, but then other women as well too, who wanna be with somebody who is successful. So the problem is that we need to encourage more men to rise to the occasion. And I'm so frustrated with seeing blogs that ask women to lower their standards. And that's the dialogue, rather than encouraging men to better themselves. And I know that can sound anti-man, it can sound, I wanna say the word toxic feminist, but it comes and is rooted from the exact opposite place. I love men, I want men to succeed and I have far too many men anecdotally in my family who fall within the storyline that I'm telling. I know far too many friends who are men anecdotally who fall within the storyline of this. And we need to be rising men up and encouraging them to better themselves because we shouldn't have to fight for five people who are equally yoked partners. And when we ask women to lower their standards, it's because we think that women have very little and are asking for a lot. But the true statistical truth is that most women are just looking for a partner who is of the same financial and educational status as them. And that's hard to find. And so when we're asking women to accept cheating, what we're saying is let's keep the numbers as is, let's keep everything as is, let's not address the real issue here and instead come up with these toxic band-aids. So I'm tired of seeing male experts who are not encouraging and uplifting their audience and instead going for women who are not their target demographic and telling them that they're the problems and their standards is the problems. That is not what the issue is. Women need to put their ego aside and understand that men are gonna exercise options, especially when it gets to a certain point. But if you have the main title, it is what it is. And this. Where I will say that women might need to put their ego aside given our current social climate and given the disparity that we have right now in terms of economic achievement and scholastic achievement, between the two sexes, women might have to change their mindset from I want a man who makes X amount of dollars to I want to be with somebody where we make X amount of dollars, which is why I'm a very big fan of uplifting men who have a trade. You know, a lot of men who are very successful will look for partners, romantic or otherwise, who maybe are not equally yoked to them in terms of their earning potential, but they have a skill, they have a drive, they have a talent that can co-opt what they're doing and together, they can rise and make something bigger. And I know, and I'm a part of a circle of so many women who are with men who weren't necessarily equal earners at the time that they got together, but that person had a trade. They had a skill and they had a work ethic and the two of them together created a very successful household. So the ego check for me that I don't want to tell any woman to lower your standards or lessen yourself or cheapen yourself or accept behaviors that you know are going to be detrimental to your mental health and as a result, detrimental to the health of the relationship, that is not the solution here. Given the fact that we can't snap our fingers right now and put everybody on equal educational playing field, the one thing that we can do is shift what we look at as success. And so uplifting more men who have a trade, uplifting more men who aren't necessarily traditionally educated or set up to achieve a certain level of success on their own and seeing how the two of you can work together and again, focusing on household success and household financial goals rather than individual partner earning potential. That makes sense. That's what I'm saying.  Y'all are really not that special, man. A lot of girls are the same, same box, same vagina, whatever it is. I mean, this special thing, people aren't special and women aren't special thing. I mean, he's not wrong. Can't be wrong because the whole purpose of specialness is that somebody makes a conscious or unconscious decision that someone or something for reasons that are inexplicable is extraordinary to them, is unique to them. So in order for something to be special, you have to make that personal decision that it's special to you.  I can't really debate you on that, right? Similarly, if I spoke with somebody who was on the autistic spectrum, our understanding or our experiences with social connections might be very different. I'm not gonna debate that person and say, well, mine is right, your experience is your experience and if you have the inability to create a special bond with somebody or to see a person as special, I would look at that as an evolutionary defect that's possibly at play because love is a pair bonding mechanism and as a result of that, love is actually a function of evolution, it's a function of our biological makeup because in order for us to band together and to build communities and to build families which is why we are such an incredible species who continues to grow and thrive and share information and create societies in order for us to do all that, love is actually the basic biological glue that does that because it says that beyond reason and comprehension, I will devote myself to sharing my resources with this individual over that individual because some things are finite and so if I have to go and collect water, I have a finite amount in that bucket, I have to make a decision on who gets that water. So I have to pick somebody in my brain who is special to me and if you can't do that, yeah, like I said, that might be something more to do with brain makeup than with a mass commentary on the facts of life. Because to get to that same emotional point, to have sex with another chick because you can still love your girl the same and go have sex with other women, it does not work the other way around them, that's why cheating with from women is unforgivable but from a guy, it ain't that big a deal man, like if that's what it was, now that I know that it was just cheating, I'm like, what are you doing? You better go call him right now. Oh my God, I said yeah, that's it, that's it. I just wanted to run through in case they were gonna say something different but it's the same thing that everybody says and not everybody but there is a massive, popular thought system out there that women desire sex less than men. Women's libido is lower and as a result, if they do desire sex, it has to be driven from an emotional connection or from some other kind of emotional motivation like spite, that it can't possibly be that she was just turned on and overcome by her sexual drive and emotions and acted on it. And there has been so many incredible advancements in the past five years to really debunk these myths but if you need some more concrete proof, there is a book from a top sex researcher, Daniel Berger who not only did he share his own but he went and researched top sex researchers around the world and included interviews and stats and studies that found that so much of what we think about women's sexual arousal and desire is based on a social concept, it's not based on biology. And to give a brief anecdote, they did one study where they had women watch a variety of different kinds of porn and like erotic material and then women had to self-report if they were turned on but they also had a way of testing their physiological responses like how was their body responding to this stimuli?  And I again think that the shifts that we're seeing in the past few years can also be seen in the porn industry. When I was coming up, I watched porn a lot in my teens but I was socialized to believe that porn was a male dominated industry that it was this place that men went to to see their fantasies and their perversions acted out and they directed it for each other and they wrote it for each other they had women who they hired to come into it but it was really like a for them, by them viewed by them club. Now we obviously have the ethical porn movement where we've got more women who are directing films more women who are funding films who are owning different studios and cinemas and creating the kind of erotic content that they want.  So what does that tell you? Does that mean that women inherently are not aroused in that way or that when we give women the space to act on their sexual desires and want we see a dramatic increase? So this cons or this rhetoric that we constantly place that which I understand from an evolutionary biology standpoint, right? That women have more of a responsibility if they do get pregnant and men can impregnate in multiple women all times a day and their social responsibility is less because they may not be saddled with the baby in the same way but they should feel a parental obligation which again is like an evolutionary draw that you should have but some people don't and they forego that. Nonetheless, I understand that. However, we should also know that women are only ovulating 12 to 24 hours a month. So we don't have to walk around all the time constantly assessing whether or not somebody will be a romantic fit. Furthermore, we have had birth control options now for going close to over 50 years at this point. So there also has been adjustments made in that way where we don't have to carry on that same responsibility of each partner potentially leading on to a full-time commitment or a lifelong commitment through a child. That to be said, we should not continue the messaging that women only cheat if there's an emotional connection. The real scientific formula to people who cheat are people who are high novelty seekers and have low conscientiousness.  People who are stimulated constantly need new food, new environments, new friends. So if you have that combination of person, regardless of gender, that is the person who is more inclined to cheat.  Like they'd have called. Me and Fresher aren't really down with the brown like that. We ain't night writers. So I'm good. You know, sometimes if they're, you know, red bone, but like in general, me and Fresher don't dabble in the dark, if you know what I'm saying. Yep. I think it's sad. We all think it's sad when we see clips like this and to give a why to it, we think of attraction as this thing that happens between two people. Like I see you, you see me, we experience some kind of bodily response to each other. There's an instant connection that's unspeakable and it feels like it's very insular. But the real truth is that attraction is something that happens because of billions of people and stimulation and information. Meaning that every time that I experience that draw towards somebody, it has little to do with them and more to do with the messaging that promotes someone like them as attractive and worthy of being attracted to. So if you find yourself not being attracted to a particular type of person, has nothing to do with that person's attractiveness and everything to do with what you've been exposed to, what you choose to expose yourself to.  But now that we have the ability to be our own content directors and we can pick and choose, if you are selecting to uplift a particular group and you are choosing to view and consume content only for a particular group that has to do with your biases and your prejudices and your bigotry. So if you have got strong preferences of people based on race, that is not something that you can chalk up to the stars or to just, it just is, people can't control their attraction. You can and you have chosen to control it and you have chosen to favor some people over the other and you really need to do some deep digging to ask yourself, why, especially when we reject people who have the same features and culture and upbringing as us if we, yeah, especially for that. I think overall, when I see the kinds of dialogues that are being inspired by content like this, it makes me feel like there's a massive call for humility on all sides, right? Like there's this desire right now to be right and in order to be right, you have to create a very clear case for why another massive group of people are wrong and why they're bad and what you're doing is good. Which I think you just have to ask yourself, are you individually in a circumstance that is favorable to you? Do you, are you your own role model on the topics that you speak about? And if you're not, then you have a lot in common with your audience and that humility of coming down from this mountaintop of advice and perspective and instead being curious and asking more questions about why and then figuring out brick by brick how we change our circumstances. And I don't know if it does shift with like the current sort of like push and pull and aggressive landscape that we're in right now. Cause I love the fact that we're having so many conversations around relationships. I love the fact that dating is now a mainstream topic. I just feel like we're doing it in an irresponsible where people aren't winning and the core message is that each group needs to hear is being missed. And to me, if I said nothing else in this video, the one thing that I would say is that check on the men in your life, check on the mental health and wellness of the men in your life, encourage them to pursue their dreams, encourage them to go and get an education, to get a trade, to better themselves in hard ways that no one else can take away from them, you know, that is based on individual merit and skill that they have achieved. Anecdotally, I was in New York this summer and it was incredible to me because I would walk around, you know, to we're just walking on the street in New York and we were in the Soho district and I saw so many, if I'm speaking particularly on a group, which is the Fresh and Fit group of black men, but I saw so many black women together in restaurants, like affluent restaurants that were like impossible to get reservations and like that also reminds me of the stat that we saw a couple years ago where black women are amongst the group of the highest educated and as a result are putting themselves in positions to be top earners, to be lifestyle changes, you know, for themselves and for their families and it was, it made me feel really proud, like wow, look at all these black women who are sitting amongst, you know, white people and sitting amongst, you know, Asian people who have historically done well in this country for themselves when it comes to finances, I saw very few black men at those tables, not sitting with the black women and definitely not, you know, amongst other groups and so that kind of spoke to me about what the problem is. And then again, going back to the mental health piece of it, I also think about with the Fresh and Fit podcasters in particular, knowing I actually knew Ian King, which is Regina King's son who recently took his own life and I knew Ian about a few years ago and I was devastated by the news, I was devastated for Regina, but I'm devastated by the news because it was the story of another young black man whose mental health was just not getting the attention that it deserved and in order for us to make that shift, we have to make an active effort to model what looking after your mental health looked like and if you are a black man who's putting yourself in a position to be a leader for other people, I think that you should feel that responsibility and that's my final thought on it. Thank you for watching. Let's talk. So it's 2022 and we are thrilled to continue our partnership with Squarespace, a service that we've been using for the past four years. So I used it to build my website, I used it to build my book website and recently Lauren used it to build her website. Squarespace is user-friendly, even for me who's not a coder, I find it really easy to customize. You have a beautiful template selection, you have blogging tools and amazing in-depth analytics. And if you have a mailing list, look into switching over to Squarespace because it is way more cost efficient and has more modern templates than other mailing list providers.  Again, go to squarespace.com slash shambudy to get 10% off your first purchase of a website or a domain.


Welcome back to the Bet MGM Studio and Titans All Access Titans at 25 presented by Bud Light. It was the last season where the Titans wore Euler's throwback uniforms. It was a season that the Titans entered as a potential Super Bowl pick. It was a season that went so so wrong, so so fast, a football disaster if you will, and then a decision and a run, a run figuratively and literally like no other. The Titans fell short of their ultimate goal, yes, but the team accomplished something for the history books. 2009, CJ goes for 2K. As a meteorologist, I have experienced forces of nature in many ways. As a sports fan, the strongest force of nature that I've ever experienced occurred in 2009. That year, Chris Johnson was a force like few had ever seen before in the NFL. That was the season of CJ's 2K. The Titans drafted Chris Johnson number 24 overall in 2008 and he was a revelation right away, totaling almost 1500 yards as a rookie. The moment I knew he was going to be special was actually right out here in the practice field and I was covering games for the Titans at the time and I just wanted to see what he was, his stature, if he could do it, if he could get between the tackles, if he could last in the league physically. Well, all that ended when he was live drill, he took the handoff, lowered his shoulder, bounced off somebody, split the safeties and sprinted 80 yards for the Titans and I said, yeah, that's all I need to see. He's going to be special. He had a long-standing record of the combine for his 40-yard dash time, but what people forget is he was just as quick laterally as he was north to south. He was like your favorite 99-rated Madden player. War was expected from Chris Johnson in 2009, but he rushed for 100 yards in just one of the first five games and the Titans went 0-5. It got worse in week six as the Titans lost in New England 59 to nothing. The only positive was CJ's 128 yards. You know, there were guys in that game that didn't have to be in that game in the fourth quarter and that was still giving their all and Chris Johnson being to say he was one of those guys. At 0-6 and headed into the bye week, head coach Jeff Fisher made a decision. He would feed Chris Johnson the rest of the way. Johnson helped Tennessee to their first win with a franchise record 228 rushing yards against Jacksonville. He stayed hot with 135 rushing yards at San Francisco, 132 against Buffalo, 151 at Houston and 154 against Arizona. You know, it was amazing to me just to see NFL players, guys in the second area who were fast that had an angle on him and they still couldn't catch him and just electrifying to see him run. I'll never forget some of his runs where he would start off on one side of field, reverse field, outrun everybody into the end zone. Going into the final game in Seattle, Jeff Fisher made it clear. We want to get Chris Johnson 2000 yards. The atmosphere in the Titans camp was electric. Johnson needed 128 yards to become the sixth and the most unlikely member of the 2000 yard club. He took 36 carries and yet CJ still did it. This picture says a thousand words or maybe 2000. All the men who helped CJ to 2k etched in history forever. We'll still have the picture hanging in my office at home with all of our offensive linemen. And so when I got inducted into Hall of Fame, all the guys were there and we all took this picture together in the same spots. That was a fun season. I think my best memory of wrestling for the 2000 yards was really like just seeing how my team had my back, how the offensive linemen, the quarterbacks, the receivers. Like if you look at the tape, you see Kenny Britt and all the rest of the receivers running down the field, getting blocks for me to scream for the long runs, how the defense working hard, trying to get us the ball back so I can get some more rushing yards and stuff. So that was kind of like the best part is like how the team just got behind me and uplifted me and really wanted me to get the 2000 yards.


In the fifties we were sort of at one and a half billion roughly and so it's a different world today and United Nations thinks that we'll be approaching 10 billion, maybe not quite reach it in 2050, 9.6 or something. So how will the world be then and how will climate be and how will that impact species? Species are going extinct but also new species are coming into existence. So it's an amazing period to be in. If we lived in the time of the dinosaurs there was some change then too but not over human lifetime.  That's not the case now. From when you're young to when you're old the world changes so you have to be adaptable and you have to be able to understand the changes so you can make good decisions. But there are new fields being created all the time also out of combinations. I mean when I came here to Goddard we didn't have personal computers. We had what we called mainframes and if you were lucky you got a slow little terminal that you could talk to the mainframe. So the internet wasn't around then. It's hard to imagine days like that but we didn't have the internet. So I mean to me it's amazing that you can go online now and control a telescope and decide where to look or a microscope. You can control experiments online. You can talk to people anywhere on the planet online. I mean if you had told me that in the 1950s when I started into school that that'd be the case I would have thought that you were reading some really weird science fiction fantasy stuff you know. And some of the things that were in science fiction then it haven't happened like we don't have the Jetsons cars and things but other things weren't even imagined in the science fiction at that time. And I think the same will happen I mean 30 years from now the same will have things that we can't imagine right now. So stay open to change and don't be afraid to change what you're doing but also don't be afraid to go deeply into what you're doing at the moment and work with other people. Also when I was in graduate school we were kind of taught to work alone pretty much. It wasn't encouraged to do teamwork. Now I'd say that's improved. People realize that in real life in the works environment we're all working together as a team and that will continue that won't change. So I think that's a good thing and sort of it's not only your technical skills but how you interact with other people who have skills different from your own and different kinds of communication. You don't want to just talk to people and work with people who are like you and agree with you. Try to try to be in a diverse team.