>> good morning, everyone. if you'll take your seats, we will go ahead and get started.

welcome to day 3 of the nuclear deterrence summit. i'm brian, vice president and group publisher for the exchange monitor newsletters and conferences. as with the past two days we have a great lineup of speakers and panelists this morning but before we get started i just want to go over a few housekeeping items here on our last day. first the safety moment, reminder to those who have been here the last couple of days that the announcement really for some of the new guests this morning. should there be any kind of emergency or alarm that causes us to evacuate the building, please exit the doors to your right, my left and go up the escalators that you came down on, get up to the lobby level, take an immediate right out the doors to the north safely across the street to the park area, that's our muster point. if you need assistance we have elevators straight out the door

by registration. we will not be using our overflow room this morning. i think we can get everybody in here, so we will not be having live feed, everything will be here this morning. if you're staying here at the westin, checkout is at noon and they do have some rooms available if you want today ask for a late checkout, first come first serve. they do not offer shuttle service to the airport. be sure to arrange something in advance with rideshare or taxi service. for those who use the coat rack, don't forget your items. it's really nice coat was left overnight, so -- so please remember your items. we will have lost and found at the registration desk at 1:00 o'clock, beyond that we will turn that over to lost and found with the hotel. if you're missing anything, come and see us after 1:00 o'clock please check with the hotel.

we've had a bit of a schedule change this morning. everybody that you have on your agenda will be speaking this morning. we just had to adjust the times a little bit. nancy will address that here in a second but all of this has been updated on the show app and it's been updated on the digital signs outside. so this has happened in the past 8 to 10 hours or so. as you can imagine with some of the level of speakers we have, some of the folks get called in to very important, very sudden meetings and that's what's happened here and we have been able to adjust the schedule to accommodate everybody. if you have not downloaded the app, you can get that information at the registration desk and thank you again to kuit for sponsoring that. finally, thank you to all of our sponsors for helping to underwrite this program. without their support meetings like this really can't take place, there's a lot involved and we appreciate their involvement. with that, i would like to have

you help me welcome nancy berlin our program director to the stage to get the program started this morning, welcome, nancy. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. yeah, wouldn't be a conference without at least 3 scheduled changes and shockingly enough we were not as important as the briefing that general cotton was going to do at 9:30 so what we have done just to make a long story even longer, 9:30 will be a networking break, so we are going to talk about admi and then we will have a break and we are going to talk about strategic deterrence and 11:00 o'clock general cotton will remotely come to our program again and we will conclude with the strategic posture review. so that's the schedule and i say

that with the confidence that that's what the schedule is at 8:25. so if it changes i will let you know

and our two speakers jim mcconnel who everyone already knows associate principal deputy can nssa and dina bolívar president of national and jim will talk about the perspective and dana will do the contractor perspective and so with that it's up to you guys. >> good morning, today we had a couple of exciting speakers to

talk about. umdi with jim mcconnel. jim has been with nssa in several roles and submarine officer before that so everyone i'm sure wants to hear jim more than they want to hear me talk. without further due jim mcconnel. [applause] >> emdi started 2002 when director diverted a group of

folks with diverse of experiences set out to review the myriad of information and all the different groups that have evaluated the effectiveness and the productivity of nssa over the years and supplement that with a very extensive set of interviews, more than 250 people from across the enterprise from across the stakeholder community current people in our enterprise, people who had previously operated in the enterprise to get their insights in order to identify as best as possible the key elements and the key activities or issues that could be addressed that would allow the entire interface, this one integrated 58,000 person enterprise how to do a better job to deliver on national security mission. the report was written and many

of us who were close to it understand it is a a document that lays out 18 relatively high level recommendations and i'm very pleased to say that ten out of those 18 recommendations are currently complete. we have taken the actions we intended to take although we haven't necessarily had enough time to do the post implementation evaluation to make sure the effectiveness is there and we are always going to be wanting to tweak these things. the other activities are on a clear path to closure to get to the point where we have taken the steps we intend to take, some of them take a little longer than others inpart because some of the recommendations were very explicit and others were very high level reduced risk aconversation.

-- what does that mean and how do you do that? the other thing that's been going on at the same time in this little over a year now is that there's been many other efforts undertaken in the same vain as the mdi that were not part of the original 18 recommendations, they do follow the emdi principles in spirit and they have the same intent and those folks that are driving those activities have looked and started squinting at m difference and saying what is the underlying objective here. how can i within whatever my sphere of influence be it great or small be able to come and work to the broader goal of improving overall efficiency and effectiveness. this is brought real opportunity to our workforce to think differently about ways that we

work and they have certainly risen to the challenge. so i'm going to call the emdi report and those 18 things emdi1.0. under emdi1.8 we have lots of successes, the theme of this summit is success and achievement of the enterprise in the last year in lots of different ways and the success of emdi is right up there too. so just a few examples. i apologize for those folks who have a lot of ownership and pride of the things they do that i won't get to but i can only name a few. we developed anden implemented a new contract model that boost the number of officers and allows our partners to focus short-term and long-term execution and closed out multiple compensation related reviews that resulted in policy

changes that we will expect to boost satisfaction and increase workforce retention. we've delivered square feet and when i say we, when i say nassa, all of the things are synonyms. 60,000 or so people that make this unified thing. i will use the terms interchangeably but i mean the same thing every time. we have developed an successfully implemented a audit process. 26 days or so of federal review and approval and it's now down to about 7. when you consider the number of things that we buy or procurements, saving 26 days on each one of those is a huge

increase in our ability to get stuff done. we are in a place where days and weeks matter and days and weeks are getting faster and faster with the things we do. we streamline complex and initiatives that were defense programs specific or had overarching objectives of increased speed and reduce risk aversion, that is the most ambitious and not surprisingly one of the ones that are open and working. just very recently we delegated authority for it system purchases below $25 million from headquarters to the field.

consistent to push decision making to the most informed, people close toast the activity and trying to reduce some of that process of risk aversion and accelerate the speed of tactical decision making and process risk aversion is the term that i use there and it's very important. i don't want anyone to misunderstand that we are not willing to accept lower quality or higher risk to the public workers and environment. when we talk about risk, we are talking about the process risk aversion and being concerned about how their part of the process will be viewed by others. that risk to slow down decision-making and processes that we can and should eliminate that has no impact and if it has

any impact it's positive on the actual quality and success. i tell you that the original report and we are going next. being asked to do more now than any time in the last 30 years. another way to put it if we have to do more in the next decade then we have done in any single decade since 1980's or 1970's. and there are a few people who are working in this industry in the early 1980's but most of us weren't. 5 to 7 years in the workforce. so we are being asked to do something that no one has experience doing in this

enterprise. very few people which means we have to be very bold about how we go about doing this in a process way without taking those risks of product quality or impact on the environment. that's what drives us and to have the mdi2.0. not too long ago, last year i would have used the term, it never caught on. i thought it was great but in the spirit of being adaptive and representing the kinds of creativity that, that we need for this, you to give up on stuff that isn't working and move onto the next thing. so emdi 2.0 is really intended

to be directed at a much larger audience and much larger set of things while our workforce is committed to the mission must continue new ways and the way it increases productivity and efficiency. it's time to expand even further and to focus on the principles of what we are trying to obtain and not simply the specific items that have been listed in current report or any report. some of you are surprised that i made it this far in my talk and haven't used the phrase and that's it, i'm done. there's another analogy that came up earlier this week john

-- i mean, all of you are the leaders, you can find the watermelons and you can find the grape -- >> the plumbing or the bigger things. you don't know probably what the grapes are.

those things are just as important to be addressed and resolved noter to get the efficiency we need as the larger or watermelon type things. so the intent of emdi 2.0 and where we need to go is to do both of these things, we need a top-down effort to continue to find the large, you know, resource intensive efforts that would have presumably individual large impacts but also make sure we stimulate and motivate and reward the people lowered in the organization that are going to do smaller things because their scope of control is smaller but 5,000 of those smaller things can very easily be more important than 3 or 4 big things that that the highest leadership does. and we don't have to choose between them. you guys do yours and motivate everybody else to do theirs too

and we get to the point where our culture is one where part of people's day job is to look for better ways do to the do their job. that sounds good and i can describe it in these terms but people who are really, really busy need to add a little bit more to their day to not only do the work in their current inefficient process because the work needs to get done and then find some time to fix the process. there's no way around that. we talked about initiative fatigue and the fact that-duh the truth of the matter is we are so busy with the things that we have to do that could easily consume all of our time and that means we cannot find the time or the discretionary effort to do the things that we could choose

to do, then we are going to be subbing in the situation where the only solution is more money and believe me, we need more money but if we don't figure out how to operate better we will be in a situation where we are given the short amount of time that no amount of money will get it done. so it has to be a combination of all of the resources, the the resource that is show up in dollars, the resources in motivated inspired people who are always looking for different and better ways to do their work. so that's what emgi 2.0 is. so that's what i believe we need to work on and that's pretty much what my day job is. i'm happy to a little bit later expound on that if you have any questions but thank you all very much, i appreciate the effort to get to this point and the reward for good work is more work.

thank you all. [applause] >> i believe that the same is true with the next speaker. amazing career. she's been the project director at utf and supported nssa and project manager over other projects and as she worked in the commercial nuclear industry. really interesting to hear how her perspective of how things are being done on emdi from the perspective of the customers, the delivery folks so --

>> hey, good morning. >> good morning. >> so look, i'm happy to join jim in discussing efforts and accomplishments, the nuclear security enterprise achieved within the first year plus of the emdi as well as continuing efforts, the complexes underway to ensure that we are ready to meet future and mission needs. so whether or not each of the speakers specifically called out the things that they were walking as emdi actions enhancements to our processes, our tools and resources appear in multiple discussion points over the last two days. as jim noted each of the 18 original emdi actions are either complete or well underway. i thought i shared a little bit more of the specifics to underscore the great work and the impact that -- that's gone in and that that's had on our resources and our work within the complex. in a combined effort nsaa

corridors and personnel work together to evaluate multiple facets of their existing m&o contract. the real goal was to question the requirement and directive referenced in the processes required in an effort to streamline the management of the work. really how do we make this simpler. identifying simple paying points, addressing needs with the risk-base add approach and eliminating unnecessary steps. so one specific example eliminating includes eliminating low value, document updates for emergency management. this resulted in a reduction of annual deliverables from 52 down to 23 and allowed our resources to focus on execution and focus requirement rather than nonvalue added paperwork. i know you're

thinking, well, 30 different documents, big deal but if you really think about about that it's more than a minor win because it's really amplified. that was just one example. as jim alluded to it's creating the white space by eliminating this type of work that is going to open up and i will use the term latent capacity, so it does resonate and how we will do more with the same. also at livermore the team used pilot program for subcontract consent leveraging risk-base oversight to save six weeks approval time allowing the team to take advantage of $400,000 in discounts. this project provides backbone of improving network and telecommunications across the livermoore campus to allow the lab to continue to excel on its mission. as discussed by others over the last few days various pilot projects have completed

execution and minor construction thresholds allowing osea standards. the results of this right sizing of requirements attracted more subcontractor interest to the work and drove lower costs and faster schedules with grater certainty and more commercial ways of doing the work. i believe perhaps one of the most important items that emdi efforts has emphasized is that the work between the nssa and

m&o's is in relationship between partners. when i think back to my experience base the best projects i've been a part of weren't because they went smoothly from start to finish, you know anything about projects, none of them go perfectly from start to finish but because the customer and the contractor performed as one team. they focused on the same outcomes and working together to protect the common goal. it is this relationship team work and trust that will be important in making further progress and meeting emdi report base objective allowing nssa to meet growing requirements and mission delivery. so what comes next in the emdi 2.0. so as we move to this emdi 2.0 as jim has termed it the collaboration between contractors and federal officials and contractors will necessarily expand. our vision of risk will need to evolve. we need to stretch our boundaries and continue to come

together to jointly deliver the mission. sorry there's going to be another project reference so bear with me. if we consider mission delivery a project and the nss is complex manager it's our job to identify resource needs, process improvement and the concerns to their pm. and it's been the pm's primary responsibility to one define the goals and eliminate roadblocks clearing the way for the team to be efficient and successful. as such, it will need to be the complex that leans forward to allow nssa to perform their best and both to accomplish the mission. kansas city and livermoore have shown the way of collaborating through establishing enclave for cooperation. mpo, the field office overseeing and contractor have come together to provide joint recommendations of ways to

employ technology while effectively managing cybersecurity. as you know that's not an easy task when we talk about deterrence. past forward will require collaboration and reach forward to doing things differently. this is the clear future class of emdi and one well down the road to achieving. and with that, i will end my talk and leave time for questions. [applause] >> all right. thank you so much for those comments. so we have a little bit of time for questions today so i can open it up to the floor for any questions. >> we will start with your questions then. >> all right.

>> so jim, you mentioned in your talk that today we were asked to do more than we have been asked in many decades and we are also entering a time where budgets are more and more constrained as we move forward because of all the things that the administrations are trying to get done in the country, so based on the challenges and the priorities that were noted in the september report or edmi and with the budget constraints, what challenges do you and dana see of standing in the way of nssa wants to do the mission of the upcoming years and other things that we -- anything we can do to help out with that? >> good question. thank you. first off, our budgets are going up and which is first order evidence of support from -- from

the entire stakeholder community, war fighter community, the department of defense and others. the challenge is that the resources go up but then demands go up and just wednesday at the opening we said 2, 3, 4 months ago we would have said that nssa has five weapon systems they are working on. now we could say 7 legitimately and thoughts about even more. so the things we have to do keep going up along with the attention we are getting so i don't want to downplay the fact that -- that we are getting resources but we still have a deficit between the resources we need and the work that has been asked of us. in that situation -- and we are not getting relief on time. we have to do these things in a very well defined and

challenging time frame. i'm not a project person like dina but i know enough to know that if it's not money that's going to be the thing that gets you where you need to be and it's not more time you have to figure out how to do more in the time you have which is the fundamental underpinning of this and so the whole effort is to figure out how to be more efficient knowing full well that we work in a very consequential business where things we make are very consequential and the way we make them is very consequential so we have no margin for, you know, for cutting corners. this is an enormously complicated thing. i hope there's nobody here from boeing. [laughter] >> but -- but, you know, human

beings, when you're stressed you try and do the best you can but something that you might do or not do if you had all the time in the world you think about if you're really under the gun and we are really under the gun so we have to be honest and mature enough and know that the situation we are in is that we really have to be more efficient but we have to be very careful about the things we choose to do. you heard joe and you heard marv and everybody else say we need to take more risk and that is absolutely true. but so many of the things we do, the decisions we make are when it's all said and done reversible or adaptable. you make a good decision on the information you have and you go forward but then you monitor it really carefully. you do more of the stuff that works and less to have stuff that doesn't. that sounds so trivial but our

enterprise will spend enormous amounts of time trying to come up with the perfect solution when it's really not possible to offer -- you already know the possible solution and don't take care of costs spent in review and approval process that could have been achieving something if we got it right the first time or spent learning something if f we tried something that didn't quite work out so that's -- that's -- that's how i think and the thread that runs through all of this is what -- what do we all have to do and that's a big we again in order to respond to the situation we are in a most mature and responsible way. >> yeah, i agree. just to add i think it does come down to in the commercial world they use the sale fast.

we can't really afford fail fast but in some areas i think it is -- it is appropriate to lean in when the risk is not -- not really a risk. it's just a try. and so i think being open to asking more of the why not versus just accepting the initial no because that's the way we've already done it, that's the culture change to really encourage the efficiency to come up from the working level. so i think that's really critical. i think the other thing is from a contractor perspective i don't think we should be waiting for the field office or for headquarters to -- to push or ask us to do something differently. i think we also have to look upon ourselves because oftentimes we take a regulation as black and white when in reality it was meant to be somewhat gray and allow for

application differently for a different reason, but we tend to because of the risk aversion over time we learn to operate in a narrow band and self-reflection in turning request inward on what are we forcing ourselves to do in processes that in reality the bounds in which we are supposed to be working didn't require us to do that in the first place. where do we strip out those -- the layers of requirements that perhaps then built on because one thing or another happened over time and go back to basics and then grow from there. so i think it'll be a lot of internal work that needs to happen as well. >> thank you. >> we hear a lot about the mission, of course, and it's a frame that is used to get the

outcomes that we want but i'm not sure that the frequency of use of that word 20 years ago was -- was as great as we have it now. and i'm wondering whether -- i'm concerned that nnsa is in some way acting like a contractor to dod or the nuclear weapons council which really is part and where does -- where is the ability to say no both at the top and at the bottom, so we have -- there will be times that someone needs to say, you know, we just can't do that. we can't make all those jta's that you want us to make. maybe we shouldn't run the plutonium facility as the

baseline plan, maybe we should reconsider x or y. if the idea of the can-do attitude which is admirable in many ways, if it seeps in too deeply then the ability to say no when it should be said it could be lost. is this part -- is this something that you think about? >> great question and i will note that nnsa member of the nuclear reference council was yesterday morning. it would have been a great question. so with some amount of trepidation, yeah, there's -- there's clearly, everyone involved in this enterprise, we have this -- we have this really clear and compelling mission and

the mission like adams described is to preserve our way of life without fighting big wars and so we are all, you know, really, really motivate today do what it takes to achieve our most, you know, loftiest description of our mission. but there's to free lunch. so, you know, there is -- the nuclear weapon council is comprised it is for logical and good reason. the wisdom of all the parts of that and i talked about the 60,000, the systems can be described much bigger than that, they need to come together and make sure, hey, is this the right thing to do, is this something that we can do. what are the benefits of this next marginal thing and what are the potential detriments of the marginal thing and that happens way above my pay grade and one of the things that we do have to

do is be -- we have to have a clear eye to what our actual capabilities are and what we can do right now how quickly and how comprehensibly can we affect our abilities to do things in both science and production and all the other things. so we have to unction that there are honest to goodness constraints on this which has to mean we have to most efficiently and effectively optimize our ability to add capability and live within the capability we have along the way. that's a tough problem and that's -- that requires the combined wisdom of the leaders in this room on our operational production side and -- and modernization side and then that discussion with our broader

community, for example, with general cotton later today. >> i'm not going to opine of how the nssa should -- but if you want to talk internal to the complex, i think one of the things i tell -- i talk to our teams about is there's no reward for being the hero that fails and so it's our -- it's the team's job to clearly evaluate what's being asked to be done and then provide the feedback on what can be done and if there are trade-offs or not and if more needs to be done, what is it going to take to get there similar to the comments on how a team should talk to their project manager. and so i think that's really critical in making sure that what you promised us comes through so i will leave the rest to the rest. >> hi, evelyn. jim, you mentioned that for the things that have already been

accomplished under emdi you have not yet been able to measure the outcomes and so i'm wondering what are the metrics that you're looking at ultimately to see that success over time and then the second question would be how do you make sure keeping with the analogy of the watermelons as you remove watermelons from your dump truck, how do you make sure they don't come back in? oh, there's room so we can put more back in not on the vision side as much as the oversight side, thank you. >> great question. so -- so a lot of the mdi 1.0 specific things were sort of second order impacts on -- on the enterprise. that doesn't mean they're not important. you can't attract and retain the right workforce

then you aren't going to deliver the mission on time on schedule, you know, at cost. but one it's hard to establish the causality between an action taken to either, you know, you can intellectual i will say doing one year at a time extensions to contracts is destabilizing to the people who operate under that contract. and it makes sense from an intellectual perspective but it's really hard to understand that once you've gone to a different model which looks like it's having an effect, one, is it actually having that sustained effect and two, is the effect actually attributable to the action that you took. so we are doing these things because 250 people that we talk to who are really intelligent and -- and well plugged into our

enterprise kind of consistent i will say these are the things that are challenging to us in our workforce and there are certainly good things to work on. even if all they do at the end of the day is make people more satisfied because people that are more satisfied are likely to give us the discretionary effort that i say is critical but i don't want to be -- and i want to drink my own kool-aid. i don't want to say being able to call something green means that i've had the impact. we really are being trying to be very rigorous and have each one of these actions has its own project plan, has its own, you know, statement of its root cause and statement of what the measures are that will be -- that will determine whether we are successful or we need to tweak it and they are different from one to the other. the important is we are trying to approach this as practically as we can to drive sustainable change because the second part of your question was human

nature is pushing us the other way. this is not, we are meta stable in this new thing, right, the human nature in our experience would push us back to risk aversion in we did nothing, so we have to make sure -- that's one of the important things of emdi 2.0 is to try to get to the point where we can collectively legitimate say that our culture has shifted to being more -- have more holistic view of our what our risk profile is than the individual risk profiles that we kind of work under right now. get to go that culture is the ultimate objective because then it does trip over the self-sustaining. i'm an engineer and not a social scientist but i've read enough books to know that in the one year we have been at this it's not nearly enough time to change

the culture. >> hey, good morning. so i think of emdi 1.0 as basically trying to get a bunch of sand out of the gears through simplification, clarification, streamlining, standardizing and so on, and in terms of doing more with what we have i've been saying do more with less but nobody likes that, so i will start using your terminology, doing more with what we have, i think there's another source of sand in the gears which is we are not completely aligned on priorities. i might think this is the top priority, somebody else thinks that's the top priority and it seems to me that between enterprise blueprint and the emdi team road map for modernizing infrastructure, the work that nnsa is doing with the dod on the shared framework for prioritizing deterrence and

assurance gaps and looking at the advance concept solution space there, it seems like that's another lever on doing more with what we have. i'm curious about your thoughts and then i also wonder what you think about digital transformation in the same vain. >> great question. thank you. so i think our model is we have -- we have two lists that sometimes we combine into one list which is we have all of the things that we must do that the requirements that we've been given make these lep's make close to 2030's, the things that are the must-do list, so there are so many a list things there, things that that you really can't call a prioritize list of things to do.

one it's not our choice, those are the things that our mission requires and two the set of really, really important things exhaust most of our resources so so there's not a whole lot of capacity left after that but then you turn to the list which is the things that we choose to do because they will help us at least over the long run be better at i think to all of those things that we must do at the same time and that's a list of things that -- that just got rattled off. so the digital transformation is -- is -- it will -- it must consume a lot of our time and talent and even resources but it -- it is an important thing that allows us then to substantially but not immediately change the way we actually do that other list. the blueprint makes sure that the thing we get to in 2040, 2045, when we are replaced by

the next group of people that we leave them with an enterprise that allows them to continue to be successful. and so you all know where i stand on emdi, i think it's really important thing to do. you -- you heard the administrator and others talk earlier this week on how we have to improve our production -- the methodology by which we do production. it involves improve project management but it also is much more than that for -- i'm not a production expert but the ways to do more agile production and the ways to implement those improve systems and another one you heard is technology insertion. these are the things that we choose to do that consume a lot of people's time, energy and resource that with a delay will make it easier for people to do

the things we must do and so we have to figure out how to balance those two things, understand that you don't -- you don't get to prioritize what you do but you have to do the 87-1, you have to do lithium. you have to maintain science so that we have the ability to certify and -- and understand the -- that's the must-do list. .. ..

and we grappled with that. so the question being the long-term partnerships, the more extended contracts and such that we are headed for and at this idea that we are partners and not just plain old contractors. but the downside might be you talk about the size of the enterprise being 60,000 people or something with headquarters but the industrial base and you can draw upon that can enter into the enterprise is the competitive industrial base could be 200 to 300,000 people.

i'm curious if it is kind of monitoring the industrial base to say what is this strive for partnership and lengthening, what is that doing to the competitive environment and to the greater industrial base, so i hope that is an understandable question. >> we spend a lot of time thinking about the totality of the industrial base and as you said it's way bigger than the folks in the prime contract a circle of management and operating contractors, but all of whom are management and operating contractors, so that relationship is with the current set but there's a broader set of folks that have or could be part

of that management and operating enterprise but then beyond that it's the second tier subs and people who provide staff and all the way back to people that we are dependent on that we don't even necessarily to my knowledge or my focal point how active are we engaged with people who make transformers, lord knows how dependent we are on the problem of getting transformers and they are hard to come by and i know that the supply chain goes through those kind of things, but i do lose a certain amount of sleep every now and then a ribbon of about that kind of stuff and everybody has their role to play.

at the expectation is that we partner with you all because you are good at understanding how to get to the second and third and fourth tiers. >> i think that's right. when you think of the overall complex, there are the singular contracts that are limited in number but there's a huge amount of work that gets done in that span and contracts that pull a larger complex of people in and one of the things we are thoughtful love is making sure we don't get to the point that we've constantly gone back to a single supplier that then has diminished the markets we don't have the choice is going forward because sometimes the point in time it may be greater than the supplier can provide so we actually spend time making sure that we are appropriately

providing opportunities whether it be too small business, to large businesses that have not engaged in the enterprise before and however bring a lot of really great thought leadership on doing things differently from other industries bringing them in and a very meaningful way but then keeps them active to be able to grow in the complex itself. the way to do that is to be strategic about it. it doesn't happen by accident. you have to be thoughtful of , whocan you pull from outside f what they may do today or what the industries that they are in today. then i think that there is some

bonus on companies that think about themselves differently and to approach in a way with an understanding of the mission or the work to be done that can demonstrate how the different approach would be a benefit. and they have an opportunity to understand the work to be done. so it's that approach to make sure that the big piece is broken up in meaningful and measurable ways across and underneath if you will. >> i have a question about people i would like to focus on them a little bit and in two different dimensions, first how do you manage the change

management. at the second dimension is what is the leadership doing in order to make the decisions like we are going to push things down and help people understand. how is the leadership level tackling for people? >> great questions. i will answer them in reverse order. the first thing is i believe and there's evidence to prove that this has happened in some cases there is a lot of pent-up knowledge about their of folks that came from somewhere else or were they did it different and say why don't we do it the way that we did wherever i came

from, they've gone up in the enterprise and say i've been banging my head against the wall for so long and i don't even know why it's there. but there's a certain amount of helplessness and if you've been in the enterprise long enough and try to do one of these things and it didn't work out, then there is a reluctance and i'm already busy with too much to do one of the most important things we have to tell people that it will not be a negative experience if you behave the way that we say in conferences like i've been saying for the last 45 minutes. you have to back that up with proof. i've been to a couple small meetings with folks and most of

us have really good rewords and an award system and others good managers in the room who know how to reach out and award of their people. most are for people who succeed. i've never seen an award given out to somebody that did a good thing that didn't work out. but that is the risk we are trying to get some people to have the courage to take. so it's the kind of reworded ret if you take a reasonable risk, and i'm not talking about gambler kind of stuff, but if you take a reasonable risk and it doesn't work out, you can still be reworded for the behavior which was the reasonable risk not just the outcome but was unsuccessful.

if all you do is reword people on outcomes they want to do things unless they are absolutely sure it's going to be a good outcome and that is how we slow everything down. now some of this is about training folks. there are people that have grown up in the system and many of you know you start at the bottom where you are being taught and you have to figure out the worst thing that could go wrong and to spend all your time trying to figure out how to prevent the worst thing from happening. it's hard not to generate an amount of cynicism after 30 years of focus, but there's more to it than that so we have to be able to teach people how to look at, we have to handle the fire don't get me wrong but there's a

whole lot of other stuff besides about into teaching people there are models and ways if you take into account the effect on the mission. doing nothing is not the lowest risk thing that they can do. doing nothing and hers a lot of risk in our business into so people have to appreciate if you want to figure out how to get into a relatively low risk state, it is something other than doing nothing. and that's something we have to push people to words. it's not something they necessarily get to on their own. >> let me add to from a different perspective i think the administrator said it well. we have a large amount of

percentage. it's a great thing to say we've been able to attract new people into the mission and it provides a challenging opportunity and i think we spend too much time on the challenge, not that it's not important but we haven't thought about the opportunity as much as we should do so how do you take new people that haven't grown up in the enterprise for 20, 30 years, train them faster to do the jobs that need to be done faster and more and also instill within them the appropriate mindset and culture so that's the challenge, but it's defiant and perhaps there's some easier steps we can define. the opportunity is you are bringing in a large amount of new people to the complex that

are coming with not a preconceived notions of how things should be done or of what will be allowed and what won't be allowed into so how do you allow them to ask and consider. that is the opportunity we need to think about differently within each of our teams. and so, some of that in my mind is team balance. we are doing a good job of bringing back folks that have left the industry and maybe they find a couple of years out they want to be engaged in some matter bringing them back and how do you put them on a team to make sure that the underlying necessary backbone is there but it allows the team to flourish on its own and to try new things. i think that is what we are going to have to tap into going forward is that opportunity and

i hope that is how we all look at it, not as a how are we going to bring these folks along faster to make sure they do everything as we've done them but how do we make sure the jobs continue to get done and benefit from the fact we have a lot of thought leadership entering. >> that's about the amount of time that we have for this morning and i would like to thank everyone in the audience for their attention and asking great questions this morning. and thank you so much for your informative comments this morning. we appreciate the time and discussion here. let's give a big round of applause. [applause]

we are going to have a short networking break. we will continue at 10:00.