Hello, my name is Emma Hitchings and I'm an academic at the University of Bristol Law School. In this presentation, I'm going to talk about financial and property matters on divorce, also known as financial remedies. The findings that I'm going to draw on today were part of a Nuffield funded project conducted with Joanna Miles from the University of Cambridge. First, a bit of background about the current regime governing this area for those of you coming to the topic for the first time. Section 25 of the Matrimonial Causes Act is the key statutory section regulating the division of financial and property settlements on divorce. The Act itself vests extensive powers in the court. Section 25 subsection 2 is a broad discretionary section with a checklist of factors, the importance of which varies from case to case. However, case law which puts the flesh on the statutory criteria is dominated by big money cases and the associated issues which vex those with sufficient assets. For example, the distinction between matrimonial versus non-matrimonial property as exemplified in cases such as Mila McFarlane and Charman, special contribution as shown in cases such as Cowan and Work and Grain, Lambert, unilateral assets in cases such as Sharp and prenuptial agreements in Radmacka and Granatino. However, in this presentation, I won't be looking at these big money cases. The focus instead is on the majority of financial and property cases on divorce. As Sharon Thompson's work demonstrates and a reference to her work is at the bottom of the slide, the media also provides a distorted view of the reality of financial remedies law. Invariably these are the bigger money cases that are not representative of the majority of divorcing couples in England and Wales. For example, a recent focus for the media has been on the meal ticket for life myth of lifelong spousal periodical payments with the implication that all divorced men are doomed to live life as a cash machine according to the Sunday Times headline on the 12th of February of 2017. However, this big money case law and media reporting of the atypical case is for the vast majority of the divorcing population irrelevant and not representative of the reality. Meeting the party's needs post-divorce will be the only issue of importance and needs in this context means the need for a home and income. In this presentation, I will seek to provide some information about the reality of financial remedy cases on divorce in England and Wales for the majority of the population. Now this is relatively under-researched particularly the substance of outcomes being reached in other words what are people settling for but the first question to focus on is who are the majority. I have divided this into two categories, first the outsiders and second the everyday financial remedy cases. The former are those who remain outside the family justice system, those who do not obtain a financial remedy order upon divorce. The second category are a smaller population, those everyday needs-based cases where a final financial remedy order is obtained through the court. So the key distinction here is that outsiders do not obtain any financial order through the court whereas the everyday financial remedy cases do obtain a final order through the court. First let's look at the outsiders. Most divorcing couples get no financial order on divorce. The family court statistics report the number of financial remedy orders made compared with the number of divorces granted each year. There is often a lag between divorce being obtained and a financial remedy order being made so here in this table the 2019 data is not included as it's clearly incomplete likewise 2018 and probably 2017 are incomplete too. The earliest year on the table is 2003 after which the numbers steadily tick down until we reach 2018. Unfortunately I haven't got room on the slide to include all of the years so I've just included certain years to give a flavour of the trend. So as we can see there's a clear downward trend in proportion of divorces that have financial orders only around a third of divorces now have financial remedies ordered by the court. So what does this mean? Well it means that two-thirds of the divorcing population are therefore outside the system. This means that this population has no final order on divorce. The majority and increasing number of divorcing couples who cannot afford lawyers now take a DIY approach to managing family break-up they do it themselves. So why is it important to know about the outside of population? In Wyatt and Vince the parties did not obtain a financial remedy order through the courts at the time of their divorce in 1992. The husband subsequently became wealthy and the wife applied in 2011 for financial remedies through the court. The Supreme Court held that there is no time limit for seeking orders for financial provision or property adjustment. Lord Wilson however did emphasise that the reasons for a delay in bringing an application will require explanation. So what Wyatt highlights is that without an order finalising financial and property issues on divorce couples will not obtain the benefit of certainty in the ordering of their financial affairs. Given that the majority of the divorcing population do not pursue financial or property orders through the courts this leaves large numbers outside of the formal justice system. Also certain assets cannot be divided without a court order for example pensions. In some cases particularly in long-standing defined benefit schemes a significant proportion of the couple's wealth may be contained within one party's pension. Without a court order this will not be able to be shared fairly on divorce. Now the consequences of this are particularly severe for women. We have evidence about the effects of divorce and separation on ex-spouse's income levels notably the differential negative impact on women and children compared to men and we can refer to Hayley Fisher and Hamish Lowes research on this and I put references to them on the PowerPoint slide. Yet commentary and research to date has largely focused on family disputes formalised by the court process. This outside of justice space is a key site for new empirical research in particular examining questions such as whether outsiders are actually settling their dispute or whether any settlement is best achieved is being achieved through passivity through coercion through compliance or uncertainty. Also questions such as why do couples not formalise their separation why is it the two-thirds of the divorcing population don't get a court order and also what are the short and longer-term outcomes for parties and any children. The answer to these questions and others are unknown to both researchers and the family justice system mainly because of the difficulties in accessing this population. However the individuals experiencing outside of justice guiding legal principles such as fairness and equality may become simplified to the detriment of those who would have benefited from a more nuanced discourse. This could leave many families vulnerable to settlements based on erroneous or simplified legal myths inappropriate in that particular case. Now I explore some of these issues and questions in my 2017 child and family law courtly article which I have referenced on the slide. The second category included in my understanding of the majority are the everyday couples who have obtained a financial remedy order on divorce the one-third of the divorcing population who do obtain a financial order. This population has had some empirical research inquiry albeit limited. To seek an answer to the question what do we know about this population Joe Miles and I conducted a mixed method study funded by the Nuffield Foundation examining financial settlements on divorce. Now the data was collected from three sources first a court file survey of approximately 400 cases from four courts around England second 32 interviews conducted with solicitors and mediators situated in those four court areas and finally focus groups with first instant judges from across England which gave a broader geographical reach than the court file survey and the interviews. Now just one caveat about this was that save for the focus groups our data predates the removal of legal aid in England and Wales. So what are the parties with orders mostly made by consent actually getting? The principal area of interest in public discussion is whether parties agree an immediate clean break in other words settlements with no ongoing spousal periodical payments. There is an ongoing discourse surrounding x y's as gold diggers and periodical payments being nailed tickets for life as we saw earlier with examples of some headlines and through Sharon Thompson's research but does this reflect the reality for the majority of couples obtaining financial remedy orders? Some of the key findings from our research include the clean break culture is prevalent, that meal ticket for life periodical payments are rare and that spousal support orders are largely confined to cases involving dependent children of the family. So let's look at these findings in a little bit more detail in other words what is actually happening for the majority of everyday couples who obtain a financial remedy order on divorce. This table reports all the different types of orders found in the survey. Highlighted in red are the figures the spousal periodical payments made in just 16 percent of cases in the survey. We cannot say that our court file sample is representative of the whole jurisdiction we have just four courts which may or may not be typical. Hillary Woodward in her study of pensions found periodical payments in just 12.5 percent of her court file sample in three different courts. But if one assumes from these two studies that around 14 percent of spouses get periodical payments and that only a third of divorces get any financial order that means that less than 5 percent of divorces have spousal support payments moving between them after divorce. If we put this another way the clean break is prevalent. Also our qualitative data show clearly that client preference of both husbands and wives is a major driver of that. If couples can have a clean break they will but our data also indicate that at least some of those clean breaks may not be advisable and this is demonstrated by the following quote from a solicitor interviewee from our solicitor practitioner sample. The solicitor said what they agreed was a very good deal for him actually in my view. I did say to him that's the husband if I was acting for the wife I wouldn't be advising this. She got a clean break which with four small children and no income I thought wouldn't even get past the court and I said to him and warned him you know your danger is this isn't going to get passed. It did. She did get a significant portion of the housing capital proportion of the housing capital at front to be able to rehouse herself. I think from her position she wanted to get out of the matrimonial home and get herself a new property. I thought it the outcome worked very well for him because he the husband got the deal he wanted. The wife might not think so. The interviewer then probed further and said in a few years time the solicitor said yes said absolutely when her monies run out and she's got no income and four small children. So here although the parties wanted a clean break whether this was advisable is another matter. This table gives the detail on the types of periodical payment that were made in our court file sample. The blue columns give the data for all cases the orange columns pick out the cases in which there was at least one child of the family aged under 18 at the date of the financial order. The rows with pink labels are periodical payments. You can see from the bottom pink row there were just 22 joint lives orders in the whole sample that's 5.5% of all cases of total cases. The so-called meal ticket for life order is not frequent in fact based on this it is rare and the spousal periodical payment orders that were more prevalent and immediate clean breaks less prevalent though still more common than not were where there were children. There were only nine cases in which periodical payments were made where there were no dependent children therefore a striking finding is how spousal support was almost always confined to cases with children. So some brief conclusions. In my view financial remedies law must have a principled foundation that reflects the lived reality for everyday couples. That is necessary in any circumstances but particularly in light of the legal aid cuts which have led to increasing numbers of litigants in person within the court system and with the large numbers not formalizing their finances and property on divorce. Furthermore the continuing discourse around the bigger money reported decisions sheds no light on how the broad discretionary framework is to be used in the everyday financial remedies case. Consequently given the recent focus on the incoherence of the big money case law and the meal ticket for live discourse it is unsurprising that calls for reform have resulted in a bill initially promoted by Baroness Ruth Deitch in 2017-19 and in this parliamentary session by Baroness Shackleton in 2019-21 which would presumptively limit spousal periodical payments to a five-year maximum term and also introduce a presumption of equal shares of matrimonial assets. One of the difficulties with this bill is that it is potentially harmful to economically vulnerable individuals. Spousal support may not be common and joint lives orders may be rare in the everyday case particularly compared with the focus in both public and parliamentary debate on the atypical cases but that does not mean that the governing principle should be set in a way that effectively precludes their use. If the everyday cases tell us anything it is that financial remedies on divorce should properly acknowledge the reality experienced by many parents that performing the socially and economically valuable role of being a parent can impact significantly on one's personal economic resilience in a way that burdens that spouse in the event of divorce. Limiting couples options through this bill does not reflect the reality or needs of the everyday couple. It also leaves the majority of the divorcing population the outsiders to the family justice system still left with many questions as to what happens to them. This lack of evidence is problematic there has long been debate and recognition to the law governing post divorce finances needs overhauling. Moreover there is a very strong policy priority of encouraging private ordering of family legal disputes coupled with the abolition of legal aid for most family law matters. Without robust evidence regarding how negotiations and arraignment arrangements are managed whether made with or without legal assistance and what the consequences are for families and children there is no firm evidence base from which the legal profession and policy makers can discuss and assess what changes might be required. For more detail about these research findings a short briefing paper is available on the Nuffield Foundation website which I have put there and alternatively a longer article can be found in the Australian Journal of Family Law both references on that final PowerPoint slide. Thank you very much.


I'm remember asking this question, when I very first started working as a set designer... ... I asked the director, I said, how does this work? Like... ... who gets to decide. You know and... ... the director said to me, ... well you know, the director and the designer, they sort of code you the whole thing together. It's very much... ... You know we don't know where the direction starts and the design begins, ... the designer does a lot of the direction, ... the director does a lot of the design. But the director's decision is final. You know what, in my experience, Mae'r rhwng yn y ffridd o'r sgol, ac mae'n eu dydyn nhw, ac mae'n bwysig oes iawn, pan ydych yn gathu i gael eu bodi'n amser a gathu ein bod i'r ysgol i'r ffordd. Mae'n rhai bod i'n gweinio'r ysgol a chym i'n rhoi gynnal hwn.干顶idd, mae'n rhai bod ni crosipu hwn i'r ffordd. Mae'n cymddiad o'r ni'n chwyl i'n mynd yma. A hyn yn ymddangos, yna'r bros, os yr ynddo'n meddwl yn ei wneud i'w gwlad y peir. Dwi'n meddwl, mae'n meddwl gudge o'r peryn, a'r cyng Deserto sydd wedi'i sicrhau, deafol o'r mod i'r un ar ddeithas i gyllidiaeth yma, fyddwn ni'r maes i ddeithas gyrfa, rydyn ni'n meddwl i'w wedi fath, mae'r gynhau gallwch wedi cael bod ni'n meddwl. Mae wedi cael bod ni'n meddwl ar eich maes yma. Byddai'n meddwl i chi'ch mynd i hynna, As long as you've uttered an idea that everybody around the room gets, they all imagine lots of people getting it and that idea is in charge. And that is the beauty of collaboration, I would say. And that goes for everybody from the top to the bottom, especially if you're having a lot of ideas. You need the input of other people.  Let's run with that for a while.


So, now, we look at the general model of the planned change process. General model of planned change process starts with entering and contracting whenever a internal or external consultant is involved in the change process, there has to be a formal and conscious entering and contracting process. No plan or implementation of the change should start without diagnosis that you can consider as a thumb rule. Never ever we should approach any change process without diagnosis. Even if organization says that we know what are the factors, we know these are the things to be changed, internal or external consultant has to do his or her own diagnosis as well. Because diagnosis gives things from different perspective and different people may end up collecting different data and different conclusions in the diagnosis process. If it is done internally, it may reach to a different type of conclusion. So, a person who is supposed to lead the change process or plan the change process must be involved directly in the diagnosis process. After the diagnosis process, we plan and implement the change process and then evaluation and the institutionalization of the change process required. You see a lot of feedback loops, actually this is not a strictly linear process. These steps can be overlapping and these steps, there can be a back and forth movement as well because each step can give feedback to the previous and the later step. What is your idea about diagnosis, where you have heard the term diagnosis in the medical field? So, generally we hear the term at diagnostic centers, we hear about diagnostic center, they do a lot of pathological, pathology test or based on the physiological indicators or sometime they do use microwaves or x-rays or sonography, that is how we hear the diagnosis. What is the aim of diagnosis in the medical science, to know how system is functioning. So, in that way diagnosis in the organization development is also the same, the objective is same to know how this system is functioning, but at this, but at the same time there is a difference between diagnosis the way it is understood in the medical science and the diagnosis the way it is understood in the organizational science and organization development. What is the difference? The difference is that in the medical science diagnosis is generally unidirectional in nature. Some symptoms are asked and then mostly the diagnostic report is created by an outsider based on objective data, whereas in the organization development diagnosis is a collaborative process, where data is created in a participative manner and the study is also done in a participative manner. How to reach to the conclusion is not only the job of the person who is doing diagnosis, how to reach to the conclusion, the conclusions are arrived with the joint understanding and the conversation of the client and the consultant. So, that that is the difference of diagnosis in the medical science and in the organization development. Diagnosis the way it is defined is a collaborative process as we just discussed, it is between organizational members and OD consultant. OD consultant may be insider or outsider to collect pertinent information. What is pertinent information? That also jointly decided by organizational members and OD consultant. Analysis that also is a joint process drawing the conclusion that is also a joint process and action planning and intervention that is also a joint projects. So, diagnosis is a collaborative process between organizational members and OD consultant to collect pertinent information, analyze it and draw conclusions for action planning and intervention. Many of you have worked in the software industry, you know there is a person who is responsible for coding and there is a person who is responsible for collecting the requirement or making the software architecture. In the organization development diagnose the person who is responsible for diagnosis can be compared to the person who does who collect the requirement and he is also a person who is a architect of the system. Because here in the diagnosis here in the OD process person who does the diagnosis is also responsible to make a broad framework for action planning and intervention. So, we can understand how important this skill is. There are some points for reflection. What is an organization? What metaphor comes to your mind and what is the limitation and potential of a metaphor? These questions what are the metaphors possible? So, someone said organization is an organism, living organism. Someone also said that organization are like living system. Can you think about some other metaphors? Organization is like a family, society. If we consider organization nobody thinks that all of you are engineer, but the strange is that nobody said that organization is a machine, is it not? Organization like a machine it is supposed to be a efficient machine why why do not we call it machine, but we call it more organism and family and society. Why machine metaphor is not appealing to you whereas, metaphor of organism and society came more easily to you. Because people are involved like machines are very predictive, people are not very predictive. So, that is the limitation of a metaphor. To a some extent organization can be compared with machine metaphor, but then there is a limitation of this metaphor. Metaphor is good to understand that there is a input, there is some process and there is some output, but the the whole predictability involved in the machine is not visible in organization because or any other place where human beings are involved. What is the limitation of metaphor of organism? Organism is one organism, but organism is not similar to society or not similar to family. So, the the kind of complexity which comes with biology within the organism increases many fold when the complexity reaches to social-interactional level, when the complexity and in society so, family in society are much more complex than organism because there is a there is much more interaction of the independent entities going on at the society and the family level. So, we can see, but still we can learn about organizations looking at these metaphors. If we understand the metaphor of a machine then we can look at the efficiency criteria better. If we understand organizations like organism then we can look at what are the life-giving forces, what are the nutrients for an organization. If we look at organization like a family then we look at what nurtures the relationships in the family and what is the relationship and what is the kind of relationship one person with other person should be in the organization and that can that understanding can be achieved when we look at organization with the metaphor of family and society. So, we can understand that the metaphors has a potential. Metaphors can define about any phenomena, but they cannot define it 100 percent and all metaphors have a potential and limitation. So, Gareth Morgan in his very famous book called Images of Organization talks about organization as machines, organization as organism, organizations as brain because organization is a system which constantly creates and process information from within and without. Organization as cultures, culture is shared values and beliefs, rituals, norms, heroes and it is reflected in certain artifacts. We see organization are also like culture which have shared norms, beliefs, they follow certain rituals and they use certain artifacts. Organization can also be understood as a political system. Like any human system organizations can have a powerful group and a powerless group, more powerful group and less powerful group, how they are influencing each other, what are their struggles, what is the nature of their interaction all that can be understood much better if we look at organization as a political system. We can also look at organization as a psychic prison, people adopt certain roles and they start living those roles in the organization and that is reflected in their behavior and the quality of the interaction. In an organization people just adopt certain roles, they start taking those roles as reality and those roles start defining their nature of interaction and from that perspective as well organization can be understood. Organization can also be understood as a flux on networks where there are so many networks in the form of so many interactional chains and those interactional chains forms the network and those network are the reality about the organization. So, we have to understand organization, we need to understand what are the value chains and what are the networks and what is the nature of that network operating there. So, it is a very very famous book, you can read that it talks about the power of metaphors for you know to understand any organization. The metaphor which we are using in this course is like some of you said organization as open system, any system will have certain input, it has a transformation process and output. So, organization as a open system has some inputs like information, energy and people, organizations the business is nothing, but transforming their input into social component or technological component which result in some goods services or ideas and all these three components keep giving feedback to each other. Let us look at what are the properties of a living system. First and foremost for a systems thinker everything is system, everything is part of a bigger system and made up of a smaller system. We learn it from the fundamental physics and the particle physics that every time physicists thought they have reached to fundamental particle instead of particle they actually found a system. First they thought that there is a there are electrons, there is nucleus, but when they looked at nucleus they found that nucleus is also made up of neutron and proton and neutron and proton are not isolated particles, they also form a system because neutron keep emitting positron, keep emitting pi plus meson and getting converted into proton and proton keep absorbing that meson and keep getting converted into neutron. And then there are so many fundamental particles quarks and proteanos and etcetera. In the nucleus and positrons outside of the nucleus which suggests that even at the subatomic level there is nothing like particle there is always a system. At the higher level atoms are part of a molecule, molecules are part of organisms, organisms are part of the society, society is part of a ecosystem and earth is only one ecosystem, sub ecosystem which is part of the much larger system.  There is always a input transformation and output. So, what does that mean can we never understand any reality because if everything is connected to everything else that means we cannot study anything, but that is also not the case. Systems thinking and systems science suggest that though everything is connected to everything else there is a possibility of making some artificial boundaries. So, the great systems thinker Bateson says that boundaries are necessary, but they are not necessities that simply means if we have to understand the system we can draw a tentative boundary and look at the interaction of the certain variables within that boundary. And we can have a representative description about that system and based on that representative description we can understand the reality about the system and can think about what input and what change can be useful for that. In order to understand that what change are necessary we need to identify in a system what are the nodal points, what are the critical forces where by introducing some change a major change can be introduced within the system. So, that is the utility of having a boundary. So, understanding of the system requires identifying a boundary. Any living system is living system because it takes feedback. The taking, receiving and ability to respond to feedback one of the most important sign of a living system. Another characteristic of living system is equifinality. That means, reality the same final outcome can be achieved from different routes and different ways. We are talking about organizational change process. Organizational growth can happen in a competency building based approaches. Organization growth can happen also adopting more economic value creation based approaches. Organization change we have seen have happened are being created are being led by some autocratic leaders those changes are also being made by some democratic leaders. So, there is a range of possibilities of arriving to and achieving the achieving one final reality and those multiple ways can reach to the same final outcome that is the characteristic of equifinality and alignment. A system is good and healthy when it is components are aligned to each other. So, the key for effective diagnosis when we are using the systems perspective are that we need to know what to look for at each organizational level and we also need to recognize how the levels are affecting each other. And here level means organizational level, group level or department level and individual level. These are three different systems within the organization. They have a separate input process and output and all three affect each other. Let us look at how organization as a diagnosis system may look like. So, if we superimpose the systems model over organization what we see is input design component and output. In the input what is the input for organization? Input for organization is general environment where it is operating and industry structure. Now, if you look at if I keep looking at the industry structure if I do not look at the general environment I may lose out on many business opportunity. Because banks were not knowing many banks were not able to think that competition may not come from another bank competition may come from a telecommunication company. Walmart we discussed in the very first session Walmart entering into the distribution of the medicine is a threat to a organization which has core business in selling pharmaceuticals. Google started making phone systems it is certainly a threat and competition to the conventional telecommunication organizations. So, an organization need to look at the industry structure, but they also need to look at the general environment because competition can come from many unforeseen angles and fields. These inputs then form the design component. Technology simply means what are the means, how sophisticated are the ways of my converting inputs into output? How sophisticatedly we are doing it? Technology may not be the most advanced technology, but technology has to be more appropriate technology appropriate for my competence and for the strategy I am following. And the kind of value I am giving and customer is expecting strategy in a very simple way is a pathway to achieve long term objective. In the strategy course you must have studied there are three generic strategy cost leadership niche and differentiation. Strategy is strategy only if there is a choice if there is no choice there is no strategy and when there is a choice we know that all generic studies cannot be followed. If all the generic studies strategies cannot be followed by one organization we need to make the choices. What are the choices? What are the choice of achieving the long term objectives? What is the pathway I am adopting to achieve the long term objective that is a strategy? Structure means how task is divided is my organizational functional structure is the organization is of a divisional structure is the organization is of a matrix structure team based structure virtual structure boundary less structure what is the kind of structure is a structure helping organization to achieve its objective is a achieve its strategy that is the next question. We need to know that structure should help organization to achieve the strategic objective and technology should help structure to function well very sophisticated technology not helping the structure to work properly either there is a need to change we need to change the structure or to change the technology then comes how we measure the performance. Many many years ago organization performance measures for very financial in nature you look at ROI profitability market share and if you are doing well on these fronts you think that organization is doing well. But now we realize that there is a there are financial measurements and there are strategic health measurement. Strategic health measurements may involve employee morale value of the employer branding employee motivation customer centricity innovation creativity sophistication in the learning processes social climate in spiritual climate moral climate ethical climate all these constitute the measurement can constitute the measurement system. Organization financial health talks about the past but organization is strategic health which includes all these factors talks about the future that is that is why they are called leading indicators. So measurement should have a good component of the leading indicators as well and then we have to have HR system how we are measuring whether my people have the right skill mindset and capability and knowledge to deliver on based on which we are assessing the organization performance. If my organization if I am aiming to achieve organization performance in terms of the morale innovation profitability and efficiency then we need to know that HR measurement also should include we need to assess the people as well on their creativity on their efficiency on their product knowledge and the knowledge of the process. So all these factors have to be in sync with each other and the combined effect of five the interaction of these five factor is culture and culture is a overarching thing it is like water to a fish that is overarching thing of the physical as well as non-tangible forces in the organization and that leads to the output in the form of organizational effectiveness. So we need to ask do the design component fit with the input and are the design components internally consistent do they fit and mutually support each other. For any organizational diagnosis we need to look at these factors these factors are drawn from the basis of the systems approach and understanding of organization as a living system and we need to ask these questions about the alignment and appropriateness of the different components that is the starting point of a organizational development process. If we apply this logic to our first small case study which we started our discussion with we need to look at what is the input for this organization the input is changing industry requirement and expectation. What are the design component what is the strategy strategy probably is till now was focused more on cost arbitrage now they have to move up in the value chain we also need to look at is their design helping their helping the organization to serve their client better are their measurement system proper. If organization wants to achieve different kind of projects projects of the higher value higher complexity is it part of the assessment process of my delivery manager or my business leaders. If I want my people to be more strategic in nature we need to look at whether are we training people are we making people competent not only about the technology but preparing them to be the partner to their clients. So, that they not only talk about the technology but they can talk about the business with their client and for that they need to understand clients business and then only organization can hope that the people who are interacting with the client will be able to conceive and convince the customers to have projects which are of the more complex in nature which are more value adding and which are more long term. So, we need to look at these five factors in this organizational setting and then we can go about development process.