1

‘Getting People on Board’:

Discursive leadership for consensus building in team meetings

Ruth Wodak* Distinguished Professor, Chair in Discourse Studies,

Department of Linguistics and English Language, Lancaster University,

Lancaster, LA1 4YT, UK

Winston Kwon Lecturer, Centre for Strategic Management Lancaster University Management School

Lancaster, LA1 4YX, UK

Ian Clarke Professor of Strategic Management & Marketing

Newcastle University Business School Newcastle, NE1 4JH, UK

*To whom all correspondence should be addressed.

Word count: c. 9,012 (excluding Abstract, Tables, Figures and References)

Acknowledgements: We are grateful to the financial support of the UK ESRC/EPSRC Advanced Institute of Management Research (AIM) in the preparation of this manuscript –– under grant

number RES-331-25-0017 (Clarke).

2

‘Getting People on Board’:

Discursive leadership for consensus building in team meetingsi

Abstract

Meetings are increasingly seen as sites where organizing and strategic change takes place, but the role of specific discursive strategies and related linguistic-pragmatic and argumentative devices, employed by meeting chairs, is little understood. The purpose of this paper is to address the range of behaviours of chairs in business organizations by comparing strategies employed by the same CEO in two key meeting genres: regular management team meetings and ‘away-days’. While drawing on research from organization studies on the role of leadership in meetings and studies of language in the workplace from (socio)linguistics and discourse studies, we abductively identified five salient discursive strategies which meeting chairs employ in driving decision-making: (1) Encouraging; (2) Directing; (3) Modulating; (4) Re/committing; and (5) Bonding. We investigate the leadership styles of the CEO in both meeting genres via a multi-level approach using empirical data drawn from meetings of a single management team in a multinational defence corporation. Our key findings are, firstly, that the chair of the meetings (and leading manager) influences the outcome of the meetings in both negative and positive ways, through the choice of discursive strategies. Secondly, it becomes apparent that the specific context and related meeting genre mediate participation and the ability of the chair to control interactions within the team. Thirdly, a more hierarchical authoritative or a more interpersonal egalitarian leadership style can be identified via specific combinations of these five discursive strategies. The paper concludes that the egalitarian leadership style increases the likelihood of achieving a durable consensus. Several related avenues for research are outlined.

Keywords: Discursive leadership strategies; meetings; critical discourse analysis (CDA); context analysis; ethnography; workplace discourse; regular meetings, awaydays; transformational leadership; transactional leadership.

3

“It ought to be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct, or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction of a new order of things”

Niccolò Machiavelli (1513) The Prince, Chapter VI

Introduction

Developing consensus requires “some shared understanding and common

commitment” (Markoczy, 2001, p.1) to be generated around strategic issues, and is

central to a management team’s ability to develop and implement responses to these

issues. However, while it has been demonstrated that leadership is central to the

formation of consensus, the influence of leaders’ discursive strategies on this process

has tended to be under-researched. To address this problem, we adopt an

interdisciplinary discourse-oriented approach to leadership in meetings and teams,

studying discourse in use. Like Biggart and Hamilton, we see “leadership [as]... a

relationship among persons in a social setting at a given historic moment” (1987,

p.438). Burns (1978, p.18) elaborates this definition by introducing power into the

concept of leadership, in which he stresses “leadership is an aspect of power, but it is

also a separate and vital process in itself”. Specifically, he underlines the complex

relationship between power and leadership, viewing all ‘leaders’ (in the sense of

their formal role) as actual or potential holders of power, but not all power holders

as necessarily providing effective leadership (ibid.). In order to be effective, Burns

proposes that leadership works by influencing “human beings when persons with

certain motives and purposes mobilize, in competition or conflict with others, institutional,

political, psychological, or other resources so as to arouse, engage, and satisfy the motives of

the followers” (ibid, p.18; italic in original). These critical dimensions are important for

our study, particularly the emphasis on power relationships, motives and purposes,

and resources. What is missing here, however, is an articulation of the important

4

role that linguistic and communicative resources play in the powerful enactment of

leadership as a process. How, precisely, is leadership ‘accomplished’, discursively

speaking?

This neglect of linguistic resources is especially apparent in the socio-psychological

literature on leadership styles, such as the ‘theory of transformational leadership’

(Bass & Avolio, 1994), a framework that has gained significant traction among

management practitioners. The theory introduces two ideal types of leadership:

transactional and transformational. In the former, leadership is oriented primarily

towards the level of content – the exchanges and negotiations that take place

amongst leaders and their colleagues and followers – through which the leader

specifies goals and conditions, and the followers receive rewards if they achieve

goals. In the latter, however, leadership is a transformational process because leaders

act as role models and influence by stressing ideals; provide inspiration to stimulate

corporate identity; contribute intellectual stimulation by questioning assumptions

and challenging situations; and give individualized consideration to colleagues’

needs (ibid, pp.3-4). Apart from a brief discussion of communication modes (pp. 45-

46) in these two complementary dimensions of leadership, however there is no

acknowledgement and explication of the discursive skills required for effective

leadership. Hence, we pose two important questions: (a) what role do the discursive

strategies of leaders play in team consensus building; and (b) how and to what

extent do the material situations in which they occur affect the discursive strategies

they employ and their effectiveness?

We address this gap by analyzing complete episodes of discussion in meetings –

using a combination of qualitative macro-analysis (via ethnography) and micro-

linguistic critical discourse analysis (CDA) – to examine the impact of leaders’

discursive strategies on the consensus building process in a multinational

5

corporation. Our paper is set out in three parts. First, we distill insights from related

studies of meetings and discursive analysis of strategic change in organization

studies, together with studies of language use in the workplace from sociolinguistics

and CDA, in order to identify the principal ways leaders affect consensus building in

meetings. Second, we draw on transcripts of interviews and meetings over six

months in a senior management team of a single business unit in a multinational

defence company in Australia to abductively identify the main discursive strategies

used by a leader to shape consensusii. We do this by focusing on two significant and

extensive episodes of discussion – the only ones that occurred where consensus was

generated around strategic issues facing the organization. Third, we discuss how

leaders use five discursive strategies to facilitate consensus-building: Encouraging,

Modulating, Directing, Re/Committing, and Bonding. Most importantly, we show

how leaders deploy these strategies using linguistic and pragmatic devices in such a

way that influences the development of a durable consensus. This we believe is

achieved via a more egalitarian interpersonal style, which enables the leadership to

‘get people on board’.

Discursive leadership and consensus-building in meetings

Without consensus, issues of strategic importance facing organizations either receive

insufficient attention or resource, or both (Dutton & Jackson, 1987; Ocasio, 1997).

Consensus is important because sufficient accord is required so that a team can

proceed to a course of action to address that issue. So, what is critical is that a team

believes they have reached a best ‘possible decision’ (Dess & Origer, 1987; Holder,

1976; Priem et al., 1995). In this sense, leaders play a key part in consensus formation

in three main ways. First, when they are overly zealous to a course of action early on

6

in a discussion, they can prevent consensus from forming (Dess & Priem, 1995).

Second, where leaders exclude certain stakeholder groups from the process, this can

result in ill-conceived strategies (Floyd & Wooldridge, 2000), making them difficult

to implement (Mintzberg, 1994) because of internal resistance (Balogun & Johnson,

2004). Third, leaders who positively facilitate participation in strategic discussion

can encourage a sense of autonomy within the team (Mantere & Vaara, 2008).

Despite these piecemeal insights, however, we still know very little about how

leadership is linguistically ‘performed’ (Holmes & Marra, 2004).

The shortage of research on the linguistic enactment of leadership has been

attributed to scholars focusing too much on the psychological traits of leaders. Grint

(2000) argues that the primary concern has been with the cognitive and social origins

of leader perceptions, rather than how these are generated through linguistic

behavior at the micro-level, influenced by socio-political factors and constraints in

the organization and society (Burns, 1978). This position has become increasingly

less tenable because of the growing realization that leaders are the primary

‘managers of meaning’ in organizations (Pfeffer, 1981; Pondy, 1978; Shotter &

Cunliffe, 2003; Smircich & Morgan, 1982). Thus, how leaders communicate their

visions and messages in different contexts has attracted growing scrutiny (Conger,

1991; Gardner & Avolio, 1998; Shamir & Eilam, 2005). Scholars such as Fairhurst

(2007) have began to explore the role of leaders as ‘practical authors’ (Shotter, 1993)

and the role they play in working with others to enact relations and construct

meaning (Holmes, 2003, p.2)

The various ways in which leaders practically influence meaning in organizations by

chairing interactions in meetings has been likened to a ‘switchboard’ (Asmuss &

Svennevig, 2009; Boden, 1994), in terms of how they (a) open and close meetings; (b)

enable participants to take turns; and (c) ensure progression of the topic. Such

7

involvement can lead to ‘interactional asymmetries’ in conversation, with some

participants, including leaders themselves, having the greatest influence on the

sense-making process (Asmuss & Svennevig, 2009, p.16). We therefore focus on the

role played by leaders in enabling consensus-building, following scholars such as

Samra-Fredericks (2009, p.109) who situate and explain people’s actions in terms of

“how power is exercised and asymmetric relations accomplished”.

To date only a small number of studies have sought to explore leadership through

the lens of discourse analysis. Some studies have shed light on the impact of leaders

on consensus building in teams. Wodak (2000) focused on the influence of the

chairperson to illustrate how consensus was created between two opposing parties

(representatives of employers’ organizations and employees [via trade union

delegates]) in the European Commission by re/formulating and recontextualizing

ideas and proposals in the process of drafting a policy paper through successive

meetings. Bargiela-Chiappini and Harris’ (1997) cross-cultural sociolinguistic study

of meetings demonstrated the effect of participants deploying certain linguistic

devices (e.g. pronominalisation, metaphors, discourse markers, professional

terminology) and highlighted the impact of the chairperson in exerting control over

discussion in meetings by ‘weaving’ together the voices of the respective parties to

achieve agreement. Samra-Fredericks (2003) observed how a managing director

employed a range of rhetorical and pragmatic devices across a variety of

organizational settings to influence the overall strategic direction of his firm. Holmes

and Marra (2004, p.459) showed how certain leaders manage conflict using a

particular repertoire of strategies to affect ‘good leadership’. Furthermore, Angouri

and Marra (2010) examined how a leaders’ style of chairing adapted to different

meeting genres. Recent research as part of the EU ‘DYLAN’ project shed light on the

multilingual practices of leaders in the workplace (Lüdi, 2007; Mondada, 2009).

8

Finally, Hartz and Habsheid (2008) demonstrated the importance of leaders ‘staging’

discussions to the success of consensus building attempts in a publishing

organization.

Useful though these studies are in providing insights into how discursive leadership

is construed and performed, they provide only partial insights into the discursive

strategies deployed by leaders and the linguistic and pragmatic devices through

which they are realized in the process of consensus building. Part of the reason for

this is that insights have not been derived from systematic analysis of complete

episodes of discursive interaction around strategic issues. As a result, several

important questions remain. For instance, what discursive and argumentative

strategies do leaders routinely employ? And is the ability of leaders to generate

consensus affected by the context in which the discussion occurs and the

composition and history of previous discussions amongst the same group of

participants (Janis, 1972; Kwon et al., 2009; Menz, 1999; van Dijk, 2008, 2009; Wodak,

2000, 2009a)? We highlight two problems with previous research on discursive

leadership: (1) it fails to differentiate between the overall discursive process and the

effects of the specific context within which it occurs, and (2) it tends to conflate the

role of discursive strategies with the linguistic and pragmatic devices through which

they are realized. In addressing this shortfall, we rise to the challenge posed by

Rouleau and Balogun (Forthcoming) that there is a need to explore how leaders

perform discursive strategies competently, in specific and clearly defined contexts.

The next section outlines how we designed our study to explore this issue.

9

Methodology

We chose the aerospace firm Defence Systems International (DSI)iii to study the agenda

and related discursive strategies employed by the chair/CEO because it was an

organization dealing with major strategic change and we had obtained access to

observe and record how participants came to terms with, and addressed, the

strategic issues that this generated. Our data collection occurred in 2007-08 and

relates to DSI’s Australian business unit over a six month period, during which we

interviewed each member of the senior management team before and after we

observed and recorded all their regular monthly meetings and a bi-annual strategy

away-day meeting, in which they engaged in discussion about issues relating to the

development and implementation of strategy. Overall, our transcribed dataset is

over 150 hours long, and includes 45 hours of individual interviews and over 100

hours of regular team meetings, workshops and a strategy away-day. Detailed notes

accompany the verbatim field data from field researchers (both among the authors of

this paper) who observed meetings in full and also conducted narrative interviews.

We used these insights and confidential company documents to triangulate our

interpretations.

Our analysis stems from an approach within CDA – the Discourse-Historical

Approach (DHA) -- that combines qualitative discourse analysis with corpus

linguistic techniques and ethnography (Baker et al., 2008; Reisigl & Wodak, 2009)

while relating the analysis of the structural context of the organization, the

respective history of specific communities of practice (such as regular senior

management team meetings or committees with the same participants) with the

situational context of the meetings and the co-text of each utterance (Wodak, 2009a).

10

Indeed, we claim that such a multi-level approach is required to enable

interpretation of the illocutionary and perlocutionary effects of unique turns and

utterances in the interactional dynamics within and across the two meetings.

The empirical data was analysed through four stages, oscillating between micro- and

macro-levels of qualitative textual analysis, in which the authors engaged in a

continual dialogue to reconcile hypotheses arising from the text with broader

contextual understandings derived from direct ethnographic observations of the

organization. This is why we also substantiate our interpretations by juxtaposing the

analysis of meeting extracts with extracts from our interviews.

In the first stage, we conducted a corpus linguistic analysis using Wordsmith

software to identify the relative occurrence of topics related to the broader strategic

mandate of DSI. We identified the November 2006 away-day and the monthly April

2007 meeting as the most salient meetings in the corpus. Both displayed the greatest

occurrence of topics related to the broader organizational strategic mandate, and

were also the most prominent in terms of the statistical values of the keywords

(which included many of the terms related to the strategic mandate). November was

in fact a strategy away-day in which we were already interested (see Kwon et al.,

2009). April was a regular monthly meeting of the team. Each meeting was

approximately 8 hours in length, giving a combined downsized dataset of nearly

18,000 words.

In the second stage, we analysed macro-level patterns of topic elaboration,

argumentation patterns, turn-taking, and so forth, to be able to understand the

overall structure and dynamic of the respective meeting (Krzyżanowski, 2008).

Central to this was the identification of the macro-topic and macro-structure of each

11

episode (van Dijk, 1984, p.56)iv. We then identified the primary and secondary topics of

each episode to make sense of how the macro topic was elaboratedv.

In the third stage of analysis, we conducted a detailed sequential analysis of specific

discursive strategies and related linguistic/pragmatic/rhetorical devices used in

both meetings so we could identify the role and performance of the leaders of each

episode, by drawing on the literature and proposing new constructs through

abduction (see below). Thus, we first developed a provisional classification of

salient, reoccurring discursive strategies for the November episode. This

classification was then applied to the April episode and revised, leading to a final

classification of discursive leadership strategies, which we claim are instrumentally

employed by leaders in the course of discussion to shape consensus around strategic

issues.

In the fourth stage of analysis, and taking into account the findings of the previous

stages, we examined how these discursive strategies and devices were employed

sequentially by the CEO in order to achieve consensus on the topics central to each

episode. From this synthesis, we were able to distill how two distinct styles of

leadership – transformational and transactional - both identified in the literature (see

above), are discursively deployed, and their effects on consensus building within the

team. We elaborate upon these five discursive leadership strategies and the

linguistic and pragmatic realization of these two styles of discursive leadership in

the next section of the paper.

12

Findings

In the following analysis, we refer to two meetings of the DSI senior management

team. The first meeting (November) was an away-day held off-site in a

conference/entertainment box within an international cricket ground, some 20 miles

away from the team’s normal working location. The second meeting (April) was a

regular all-day ‘executive board’ meeting in the main office premises. With one

exception, all of the team members were present for both meetings, each lasting for

about eight hours (see Table 1 for a guide to speakers).

[INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE]

In the away-day in November the agenda was focused on a relatively small number

of key issues selected for discussion that affected the business’s strategic

development. Most significant among these strategic issues was the question of

whether or not there was a need to construct a New Building to accommodate the

requirements of DSI’s rapidly expanding operations. A major impetus for this was

the awarding of the first phase of Osprey, a project expected to account for the

majority of DSI’s revenues over the next two years. While this project had been

anticipated for some time and discussed in previous meetings, the awarding of the

contract had only just occurred the day before the away-day, and thus was a major

influence across all discussions on that day.

By comparison, in the regular meeting in April, the strategic issue was one of several

items in a formalized agenda, and concerned avionics systems, an area of specialized

expertise required by two of the company’s projects: the ‘Osprey’ and the ‘Peregrine’

project, both types of military aircraft. The Osprey project was now behind schedule

13

and not yet completed. Peregrine had just been awarded with resources being

mobilized for this project and set for a formal commencement four months later.

Both strategic issues – the New Building and Peregrine/Osprey – were highly

important to DSI. With regard to the New Building issue, the management team was

considering the need for a new production facility and where best to locate it. This

decision had three main dimensions: (a) whether there was a need for the new

premises at all; (b) assuming the answer to this was affirmative, then broadly where

to locate it (e.g. Melbourne, Sydney, or the current centre in Adelaide); and (c)

assuming the answer to this was Adelaide, then where specifically to locate it in the

conurbation. This issue concerned the long-term strategic direction of the

organization but was not particularly urgent.

By contrast, the Peregrine and Osprey projects were both subject to particularly tight

deadlines. Thus, the team was debating whether or not they had sufficient resource

or ‘capability’ (in-house specialist expertise) in terms of skilled avionics systems

engineers to both finish Phase One of the Peregrine project while simultaneously

‘ramping-up’ the Osprey project such that the respective contractual deadlines were

met. Failure to deliver on either of these projects would have a major and immediate

impact on DSI’s reputation and profitability. Two options were considered in this

discussion. If DSI was incapable of servicing the avionics requirements of both

projects simultaneously, then DSI should forfeit the Osprey project to a competitor.

If both projects could be serviced, then the team must find a way to effectively share

avionics expertise between both projects.

Thus, while the two episodes differed in terms of urgency and the strategic issue

being addressed, both were similar in terms of the revenues and resources required,

and were crucial to the long-term success of the business. During the six-month

14

period of fieldwork all executive meetings were chaired by Mike as CEO. While both

episodes were clearly led by Mike who was also strongly supported by Bradley

(Chief Operating Officer or COO), it is also important to briefly identify other

colleagues who played a key role in each episode. In November, a crucial individual

who is neither present nor mentioned in either of the episode texts is the DSI parent

group CEO, Jack. In a subsequent meeting in July, the New Building issue was

revisited with Adam, the HR director revealing the existence of a separate pre-

agreement between Mike, Bradley and Jack,"saying:""

Adam: “I think we were given a mandate by Jack, which was to ‘go and build building B’ and we took that as our mantra.”

We" also" know" from" interview" with" Mike" that" Jack" monitors" DSI" Australia" very"

closely:""

Mike: “when you’re playing cards with a bloke who has all the cards, you’re pretty limited as to what you can do … Jack drops me a note a couple of times a month just to let you know you’re still being watched.”

Thus"we"infer"from"this"that"prior"to"the"November"meeting,"Mike"and"Bradley"were"

given" an" informal" go" ahead" by" Jack" to" proceed"with" the" new"Building." Therefore,"

Mike" and" Bradley’s" primary" objective" for" the" November" episode"was" to" ‘stage’" a"

discussion"and"reach"a"formal"decision"to"build"the"New"Building."Given"the"recent"

news" of" the" awarding" of" the"Osprey" contract,"much" of" the" burden"was" placed" on"

Will," the" Osprey" Director," to" provide" the" quantitative" justification" (i.e." headcount"

forecasts" for" Osprey)" for" the" new" building." Harris" and" Adam," the" Finance" and"

Human" Resources" Directors" respectively," were" charged" with" planning" the" New"

Building" based" on" headcount" forecasts" from" DSI’s" various" projects" and" central"

functions." Much" of" the" tension" arising" in" the" meeting" and" visible" in" the" excerpts"

15

analysed"below"concerns"Mike"and"Bradley’s"attempt"to"get"Will,"Harris"and"Adam"

in" particular," ‘on" board’," i.e." to" provide" reasons"why" the" project" should" go" ahead"

rather"than"challenging"the"project"itself."

The catalyst for the discussion in the April episode was the refusal of Will, the

Osprey Director, to release several avionics engineers to Charlie, the Peregrine

Director. This impasse drew in Larry, the Engineer Director, who proposed a

potential solution in the form of a system to centrally manage the allocation of

avionics engineers between projects, rather than the current system where allocation

was determined through negotiation between the Project Directors. In this episode,

Mike and Bradley take a more passive role by allowing Lincoln to become the

‘nominal’ leader in the presentation of his proposal (see Appendix A and Appendix

B for transcripts of both episodes).

Also" crucial" to" understanding" the" dynamic" of" these" two" episodes" is" the" changing"

status" of"Will."We" know" from" interview"with"Mike" shortly" before" the" November"

episode" that" Will" was" highly" regarded" within" DSI" and" thought" of" as" his" likely"

successor"for"the"position"of"CEO"of"DSI"Australia:"

Mike: “Will’s running what’s the most difficult programme in the place, the Peregrine programme… He’s 40 years old, engineer, came from GSK … brought him in from outside to run this programme, which is a sub-contract of AeroCon – it’s hugely complex, $500 million: (I’d) like it to be much more – at least another $500 million in exports coming up, along with it on the back of AeroCon. And I’m really impressed… But not quite ready yet… but I need to give him something more to do than just that, or he’s going… good grief, I’d jump off the building sometime! … He would like to stay in Australia, and therefore the obvious job is mine, which is fine”.

By the April meeting, perceptions of Will had waned considerably because of

problems with the Peregrine project that were attributed to his personal leadership

style, as noted by Bradley in interview:

16

Bradley: “Now I attend his reviews and have quite a close engagement on what goes on in Osprey, and I don’t like it. I don’t like the leadership style, I don’t like the control, the application of control, the lack of empowerment. I don’t like those things and I think they’re dysfunctional. I can see that some of the great problems we’ve got in Osprey – primarily we’ve got our two biggest problems in this business are Avionics and ECM. The two major projects within Osprey, and I don’t see any route to solution”.

In contrast with the November episode, where Will was regarded by the entire team

as potentially the ‘heir apparent’, by April Will had come to be seen as a problematic

member of the team. Thus Mike and Bradley’s primary objective for the April

episode was to manage the conflict between Will and Charlie to mitigate the

growing crisis.

In terms of overall structure, we highlight three key differences between the two

episodes. First, from a topic analysis perspective, the ‘breadth’ and ‘depth’ of the two

discussions were very different (see Figures 1a and 1b), despite being of similar

length: November had 10 primary topics averaging 4.5 secondary topics each; and

April had 4 primary topics averaging 15.0 secondary topics each. This suggests that

the scope of the discussion in November (topic breadth) was wider ranging but that

the exploration of each primary topic (topic depth) was more limited than April,

where fewer topics were discussed in greater depth.

[INSERT FIGURE 1a and 1b ABOUT HERE]

Strategies for discursive leadership

Through the abductive four-step analysis described earlier, we identified five

discursive strategies that were used by the leaders Mike (CEO) and Bradley (COO)

of DSI Australia for the purpose of managing the process of achieving consensus

building:

Bonding – serves the discursive construction of group identity that supports

motivation to reach consensus and a decision. The distribution of use of personal

17

pronouns among the different participants in each meeting is of importance, as well

as the transitivity of their respective collocates, for this strategy. For example, the

selection of the singular ‘I’ versus the plural ‘we’ in discussion has considerable

sociological and rhetorical implications (Mulderrig, 2011; Petersoo, 2007; Wodak,

2009b): while the singular form claims personal responsibility for the remainder of

the sentence, the plural form collectivizes it, such that they can be used to claim

authority, avoid or accept responsibility, and minimize or expand claims made by

the speaker. In respect of the bonding strategy, the so-called ‘theory of groupthink’

argues that too much accommodation and internalization of group norms prevent

successful decision-making because no arguments or deliberations take place. In this

way, quasi-decisions that are reached fast rarely tend to hold over time (Janis, 1972).

People who tend to disagree are usually marginalized in groupthink and cohesive

bonding processes.

A good example for the latter role is Will who was ‘pronominally’ the second most

prominent speaker in both meetings, but the only participant to favour an

individualized form of self-representation (55% of ‘I’ expressions). This pattern may

be understood in relation to Will’s generally and increasingly defensive position in

both meetings, as discussed above. The majority (56%) of his personal pronouns

collocated with verbs representing mental processes (think, believe), and was

frequently accompanied by heavily hedged statements expressing concerns about

the proposal in relation to his own project’s need for resources. In this way, Will

deviated from the group. The following two extracts from April illustrate this

strategy:

384 I think it is a different way of doing things. The thing that worries me about it, I’m 385 just putting the concerns on the table, I’m not saying they’re insurmountable, but we 386 just need to be aware of them.”

Text 1 – Lines 384-386, April

18

465 To go back to – I think, Mike’s comment before, I believe we’ve got enough 466 people, OK, in the playing. I believe that we’ve got the right people in terms of the 467 capability across the top. The key risk to the plan is the ability for the ones that we’re 468 seeding in there to come up to speed within the four to six month timeframe that 469 we’re looking at. Couple that with the ‘gotcha’ factors, which we’re more likely to 470 find on OSPREY at the moment, rather than FALCON – what does that do? Where’s 471 the extra bit of capability if we need it, now I think to me the mitigator around that is 472 the Nashua, trying to actually see if we can tap into some other source if we need.

Text 2 – Lines 465-472, April

In both these extracts Will is offering a rebuttal to a preceding claimvi. He mitigates

the face threat this incurs through disclaimers (“I’m not saying”, Line 385, April),

concessions (“I believe we’ve got enough people”, Line 466, April), hedges (“I’m just…we

just”, Lines 385-386, April), and by representing his comments as a reiteration of the

chair’s previous comment (‘reformulation’), and in so doing shields himself – though

unsuccessfully - with the chair’s authority; in contrast, Mike usually employs the

pronoun ‘we in his attempts to construct the team’s cooperate identity and to further

consensus. We will come back to this strategy below, in the in-depth analysis of

extracts of the two meetings.

Encouraging – stimulates the participation of other speakers to explore new ideas

and/or develop synthesis with existing ideas related to current topic of discourse.

The purpose of this leadership strategy is to enhance other speakers’ sense of

participation and therefore their ‘buy-in’ to the eventual outcome by encouraging

them to contribute to the discussion through various linguistic-pragmatic means

such as soliciting opinions via open questions, agreement cues, and requests for

expert reports, advice and knowledge; the questioning/supporting of existing

propositions, via repetition, positive back-channeling, explicit praise; frequent use of

indirect speech-acts instead of direct speech-acts (for example, questions instead of

orders; appeals instead of accusations) or even silence by the leader(s) to start or

maintain the forward momentum of the conversation. A hallmark of this strategy is

the apparent relaxation of the leader(s) use of power, which provides other speakers

19

the space to talk and elaborate. This strategy relates well to Burns’ (1978)

characteristics of ‘transformational leadership’ (see above).

An example of this strategy can be found at the beginning of the April episode when

the MD Mike prompts the beginning of a discussion by inviting the involvement of

others by asking, “Alright then. Can we have a – can we just – Avionics. Can we talk about

Avionics?” (Line 1, April). By contrast, later in the episode, Mike invites the

participation of two individuals at odds in this discussion, by asking, “What do you

think, Will and Charlie?” (Line 192, April). This strategy can also be manifested by the

silence of leaders, as was the case in April, where long stretches of the discussion

were characterised by the absence of speaking turns by Mike and Bradley.

Directing – this can be conceptualised as the opposite of the above Encouraging.

While the intent of the latter is to stimulate the opening up of the discussion by

increasing the requisite variety of ideas and information, the purpose of Directing is

to bring the discussion toward closure and resolution by reducing the equivocality

of ideas. This is accomplished through a variety of means, including the explicit and

direct, frequently challenging or critically interrogating the propositions of others

via closed questions, interruptions, direct speech-acts of request; the declarative

utterance of disagreement and proposal of alternatives; the persuasive and direct

promotion of the chair(s)’ own perspectives without inviting more discussion or

dialogue; and the closure/simplification of the discussion by blocking the

participation of others linguistic devices such as summaries, reformulations or frame

shifts via topic shift. An example of this strategy can be seen in the November

episode when Mike summarises the preceding discussion by privileging his own

view:

462 So in my head is, is, the default position is 2 buildings, then if we need to do 463 anything else around some of this other stuff to refurbish, we’ll do that, but let’s get

20

464 The second building.

Text 3 – Lines 462-464, November

A more complex example occurs later in the episode where Mike and Bradley work

together using a frame shift coupled with humour. Initially, Bradley shifts the frame

of discussion by pointing to the architectural drawings and says emphatically, “Look

at this building” (Line 656, November), thus bringing the previous discussion on

whether or not headcount projections justified the construction of a new building to

an abrupt halt. Several turns later, when Will asks – rhetorically -, “Are we allowing

for things like childcare facilities and things like that? Should we be thinking about things

like that as optional?” (Lines 660-661, November), Mike sees an opportunity to further

support his perspective that the New Building is required because existing facilities

are inadequate by quipping, “You’re not going to have us all – put our children in there –

[points at the WWII buildings – followed by laughter] – put them in that asbestos roofed

building with a – [more laughter]” (Lines 656, 662-663, 666, November). These two

illustrations provide examples of how leaders can realise their authority by ‘paring

away’ the perspectives of others and privileging their own view.

Modulating - is a strategy used by leaders to regulate the perception of external

environmental threats, or institutional imperatives to act, linked to the strategic issue

under discussion. This is most commonly done via argumentative appeals to

common knowledge; for example, by invoking the topos of threat in order to

intensify or mitigate the perception of danger and, therefore, of action/inactionvii.

The role of this strategy is to provide adequate room for a requisite balance to be

achieved between Encouraging and Directing strategies to be played out within the

discussion. The implication is that the ‘right’ amount of urgency is required to make

‘strong’ consensus that is actionable, because if there is too little urgency, discussions

will tend to be protracted with little commitment to act, whereas if there is too much

21

urgency, discussions can move to closure too quickly without adequate

consideration of important information.

In the April episode for example, when Larry the Director of Engineering expresses

his concern that the customer may refuse to sign the Osprey contract, saying “I think

if anything was to stop us, stop us from signing the contract now, it would be…the

perception of losing capability through the resource transition planning process” (Lines 45-

48, April), Bradley responds by mitigating the perception of this threat, saying: “My

read would be that he would be very unlikely to do that. They would be very likely to test our

resource level on the program” (Lines 53-54, April). Conversely, Mike emphasises

threat of inaction (i.e. a concrete plan of action), by saying “... and what’s more here is

we’ve got a very finite – we’ve got a burning platform, if you like – which we need to put out,

maybe before we can reach a level of maturity that – is that going to work?” (Lines 189-192,

April). Here, the underlying warrant reads as follows: if we do not put out the

burning platform (i.e. act quickly) and wait until we reach maturity (i.e. wait too

long), we will never reach a decision/solve the problem. In this case, the persuasive

character of the topos of urgency is emphasized by the use of a natural disaster

metaphor, which evokes the association with a fire, which might burn everything

down.

Re/Committing – is the moving from a consensual understanding developed around

the issue at hand towards a commitment to action to address it, thus taking the

decision-making a step further by shifting the frame. This is achieved by leaders

making speech-acts of promises or by reminding others of their formal

organizational or personal obligations, i.e. a shift to a value-laden discourse. The role

of commitment in this strategy is key to discursively leading consensus building,

because it promotes a consistency of behaviour by creating links between their

commitment to action and their organizational/professional/personal identities,

22

and, therefore, internalises the motivation to act. Conceptually, Re/committing is

complementary to Modulating as a motivation to act. Whereas Modulating uses

threat and urgency to ‘push’ participants to act, Re/committing tends to use internal

obligations and appeals to organizational values to encourage actors to

autonomously ‘pull’ the plan of action forward. Typically, a shift in tense occurs, to

the future. Moreover, specific actions have to be implemented which comply with

overall structures, plans, and visions. An example of this occurs when Mike

reminded the other directors of the implications of their financial targets in the

annual budget (IBP):

343 I don’t mind looking at the capabilities – for the purposes of the IBP, you’re 344 going to have to deploy that capability on projects, you’re going to have to badge it 345 against projects at some point – / Will: That’s what we’re doing – / to build up your 346 IBP, but from a capability point of view, from a business point of view, we’ve got to 347 be planning your facilities at a higher level you know, than project by project.

Text 4 – Lines 343-347, November

In another example, Bradley allays the reservations of Will over the plan to centralise

operations in Adelaide, by providing assurances that: “...our position as a business is

we don’t expect the numbers to diminish in our / Will: yep / But where we can grow, our

manpower in Melbourne and Sydney, we will do that” (Lines 531-33, November).

Discursively enacting transformational and transactional leadership: egalitarian

versus authoritarian styles

In the following, we analyze a few salient sequences of each meeting in detail, to

illustrate the range of discursive strategies employed by the CEO and meeting chair

Mike. The selected extracts provide insight into the discursive enactment of the two

main leadership styles. The in-depth discourse analysis of strategies and related

linguistic/pragmatic/argumentative and rhetorical means also accounts for the

23

different outcomes in the two meetings discussed in this paper: in the case of the

November meeting, the achieved consensus was not durable; in the second case, the

April meeting, the achieved consensus was adequate and made perfect sense to all

participants. We will come back to this important aspect below, in our conclusions.

Enforcing consent –authoritarian leadership

462 Mike: So in my head is, is, the default position is 2 buildings, then if we need to do 463 anything else around some of this other stuff to refurbish, we’ll do that, but let’s get 464 the second building. 465 Adam: So what would you say for the size of the Adelaide site 800, 600 466 people? 467 Mike: Say, it’s going to be somewhere over 800 and less than 1100. 468 Will: and a 150 after these numbers were ready. 469 Adam: Why don’t we, sort of, suggest making this unmade, and giving growth in 470 [unclear]? 471 Mike: Because the capability’s there, you can’t just make it smaller! 472 Bradley: It’s just not sensible to do that. 473 Mike: You just can’t make this smaller by wanting to put it somewhere else 474 because it’s sensible. Thing is we should be growing there – his design 475 capability, the design capability around the FALCON training aids business, 476 is all in Adelaide 477 Adam: Hang on, we’ve started this – OK, fine. We’ve started this conversation by all 478 of us, I think, recognizing attrition and retention issues we’ve got in Adelaide. And 479 what we need to do is address that. We’re now saying ‘Well, too bad, we have the 480 projects in Adelaide – 481 Mike: No, no, what I’m saying is – Realistically if you’re going to grow the business 482 you need more people in Sydney, more people in – but a minimum of 800 or so 483 / Bradley: Core capability / in Adelaide.

Text 5 – Lines 462-483, November

In this extract, we find five turns by Mike, all which are very direct, either

summarizing and reformulating former opinions, or strongly emphasizing his view.

Bradley, forms an alliance with the leader Mike, taking the floor twice after Mike’s

turns (Lines 472, 483) and supporting Mike’s opinion by paraphrasing Mike’s

utterance or even finishing it off (Line 483). Hence, this extract conveys an

impression of two participants who know exactly what they want, have discussed

this prior to the meeting and formulated a strategy to get all members on board; they

explicitly also formulate their purpose while supporting each other. In line 462, Mike

starts his turn by interjecting the discourse marker ‘so’, which indicates a frame-shift

24

to a meta-level. Thus, he no longer contributes to the discussion of details between

Harris and Will, and instead summarizes and states his wish ‘let’s get the second

building’. He then continues in the next turns (Lines 467, 471) by giving reasons for

his opinion, in very declarative ways, which discourage further debate; for example,

by using explicit value statements such as ‘sensible, realistically’ and so forth; the

topoi of reality and authority serve as warrants for unsubstantiated conclusions. Adam

attempts to slow the rush towards pre-mature closure by stating ‘Hang-on’ and

repeating some important details in line 477-480, but is ignored by Mike.

484 Harris: Now, Mike, just on the 800 that is the space we have now, in the north site. 485 806 – 486 Mike: Yeah, but they’re all crappy, shitty buildings! 487 Will: Yes, agreed, I agree with what Bradley said. Maybe on the north-west 488 environment. 489 Mike: Yes. 490 Bradley: Create the environment, which will – 491 Mike: Look at building 70. Is it ‘OK’? 492 Will: Inside it’s not bad – 493 Mike: In 5 years’ time will 70 be OK?

Text 6 – Lines 484-493, November

In this extract, we encounter a quite surprising frame shift by Mike who switches to

an emotionalized casual style. In response to Harris the Finance Director (line 486),

Mike refers to the existing buildings as ‘crappy, shitty buildings’ without either

justifying this kind of attribution or apologizing for his choice of words. This turn

evokes agreement by Will and the other participants, but only superficially. It is

obvious that Mike will no longer accept any disagreement or counter-arguments and

has already decided to build a second building, no matter what. His turns in lines

491 and 493 consist of rhetorical questions, which can also be interpreted as sarcastic,

thus coming across as negative and patronizing towards the other participants. Will

and Harris unsuccessfully attempt a rational debate which fails due to the emotional

and escalating dynamic of the discussion. Again, Bradley supports Mike and gives

his view (Line 490).

25

Both Text 5 and Text 6 illustrate the dynamic of the November episode well: Given

that Mike has decided – as noted earlier in this paper – that the decision to build

needs to be discussed by the Executive Board. He stages an open decision-making

process, together with Bradley. However, at a specific point during the long meeting

(Line 471), he begins to lose his patience, and his purpose becomes clear for all

participants. Most of his turns throughout this episode are Directing and

summarizing strategies with very few Encouraging turns – all of which are

indicative of a predominantly ‘transactional’ leadership style.

Encouraging consent – interpersonal egalitarian leadership

While arguing for and against taking on another project (Peregrine; see above), Mike

finally decides to intervene and to justify the urgency of reaching a consensus:

272 Mike: So are we talking about Hobson’s choice here, really? Do we have any other 273 option what to do, this way, other than saying we’re not going to take the PEREGRINE 274 contract? That’s the two options. 275 Will: I believe what Larry’s saying about sharing the resources across the projects 276 is fundamental. If we don’t do that, we will fail. 277 Mike: Right, and then at some level of abstraction I agree with that, and absolutely. 278 But now we’ve got this [bangs table for emphasis] cast-iron, concrete case that we 279 have to do something about. 280 Harris: Do we know today what the resources overlay is between the new Avionics re 281 baseline and the globalization – 282 Will: No, my issue was that we don’t have / Harris: [indistinct] a baseline for Avionics, and 283 unlikely to have a formed baseline until the end of May, but I will have one that’s 284 90% accurate at the end of April. 285 Harris: So you don’t really know what sort of demands or tensions there’s going to be 286 in terms of this resource. 287 Larry: Except that the people are not likely to – the key people are not going to 288 change. 289 Mike: Well, what I thought I was hearing last week was that we will build sufficient 290 and backfilled and shadow in order to have – if you take a very prudent view of this, 291 we will have enough people to cover to that. / Larry: Well / 292 / Harris: Right, to mobilize PEREGRINE and to run with OSPREY. 293 Mike: That was the plan. That was the plan.

Text 7 – Lines 272-292, April

In this extract, Mike employs four different discursive strategies all of which are

aimed at emphasizing that there are enough specialists available so that the second

26

project could be taken on. However, he gives fewer directives at the outset than in

the November meeting and listens to other opinions, without disagreeing with them

or rejecting them immediately (Line 276). Simultaneously, he creates a sense of

urgency via his non-verbal behavior (Line 278, banging on the table) and his choice

of metaphors (‘Hobson’s choice’, Line 272; ‘cast-iron concrete case’, Line 278). The latter

metaphor serves as contrast to his superficial agreement with Will (‘at some level of

abstraction I agree with that’, Line 277). The metaphor of Hobson’s choice implies that

there are options to consider, but in reality there is only one. In this way, the strategy

of Modulation serves to reduce complexity and redefine the problem as a choice

between two distinct alternatives. After the display of urgency, three team members

take the floor: Will, Harris, and Larry all expose Will’s missing knowledge of certain

details which could have justified his opposing view. This allows Mike to reenter the

discussion in line 289 and to carefully state his beliefs, formulated in an impersonal

way: “if you take a prudent view of this, we will have enough people to cover that” (Lines

290-291). Formulating the statement as a warrant (in an argument) (if…then) and not

as a declarative makes it possible for Harris to agree with the leader Mike in the next

turn (Line 292). In this way, Mike has succeeded in committing the team.

323 Mike: If you take someone like Jameson, for example, I mean in a relatively short 324 period of time he’s able to bring that expertise to bear, whereas he’s probably been 325 spending quite a bit of time sorting out his Amex expenses or something like that 326 [laughter]. 327 Will: The thing is that Jameson really knows the product, so – / Charlie: He knows 328 the product history / and he did a great job for us. But he wasn’t clear on the OSPREY 329 specific stuff. But what he knew about FALCON was enough to get over the line last 330 week. Now, he only had a week so give him two weeks or three weeks, he’d probably 331 be full throttle on that. I think that’s the critical nature of the guy, because it’s a 332 product. They tend to know the product and then understand the variance from the 333 product. 334 Mike: But my point being, is that you know, he – the way we’ve traditionally run the 335 business, he should be spending 100% of his time doing something else and nothing 336 on this while it’s on fire / Charlie: Mmm, hmm / so we’ll have to do it different – so 337 we’ll clearly have to do it differently. Can we do it efficiently and quickly? [pause] In 338 order to meet our – 339 Bradley: That would depend on the people, and the leadership. Because if you just – in 340 the chaotic world you could call it a group, throw them together, and hope for the 341 best. Might work, might not work. But the chances of it working are much better if 342 you can give them some means to resolve issues around priority and still take 343 accountability for their outcomes, and that’s going to take some strong leadership. 344 So I would say it could work if that group is led with – if it’s not –

27

Text 8 – Lines 322- 344, April

In Line 323, Mike encourages Larry who has made several suggestions about

available and good specialists. He gives an example of a potential expert – Jameson,

in a humorous way, with a joke, which makes everybody laugh. Will and Charlie

then both provide more anecdotal evidence about Jameson and his skills, thus

substantiating Mike’s suggestion. Mike seems to have achieved getting both Will

and Charlie on board. Mike then continues encouraging the team with more positive

feedback and details about how to use Jameson’s skills best. After another brief

intervention by Charlie who would like to know how to make 100% of Jameson’s

time available for the new project by asking a very open question, Bradley replies,

aligning again with Mike: Bradley calls for strong leadership when working on the

new project and thus supports Mike as leader - both in the actual meeting, but also

in the future. This intervention can also be simultaneously interpreted as critique

towards Will who, as noted earlier, has not proved to be the required strong leader

as illustrated in the following excerpt:

339 Bradley: That would depend on the people, and the leadership. Because if you just – in 340 the chaotic world you could call it a group, throw them together, and hope for the 341 best. Might work, might not work. But the chances of it working are much better if 342 you can give them some means to resolve issues around priority and still take 343 accountability for their outcomes, and that’s going to take some strong leadership. 344 So I would say it could work if that group is led with – if it’s not.

Text 9 – Lines 341 – 344, April

The characterization of good leadership as spelt out in this turn summarises the

ideal-type transformational leader; somebody who allows for autonomy and space,

on the one hand, via Encouraging and Modulating strategies; but takes

responsibility and leadership seriously, thus being simultaneously directive and also

committed. The April meeting is characterized by more urgency and a clearly

defined topic: a decision, which has to be taken quickly. Mike’s discursive strategies

28

oscillate between encouragement, bonding and support; and directing and

recommitting. He achieves a good balance between a more egalitarian and a more

authoritative leadership style, and actually succeeds to persuade the team firstly, to

take on the second project; secondly, to select the people who should work on it, and

thirdly, to describe the form of leadership which would be needed to fulfill all the

requirements of the project. As illustrated in Figures 1a and 1b above, the two

meetings are characterised by significantly different amounts of topics and by the

extent and depth of discussion of each topic. We thus suggest that the recursive

cycling through topics and sub-topics, as shown in the April meeting, encourages

understanding of the issue so that durable consensus can be formed. In addition, this

enables participants to feel as though they are being involved, and progress is being

made, so that accord is reached. In contrast, the November meeting displays a

plethora of topics, which are only superficially addressed. It is thus not surprising

that the consensus did not hold in the long term (see Kwon et al., 2009). Moreover, as

our analysis has demonstrated, the egalitarian transformational leadership style

encourages an in-depth discussion of issues, whereas the more authoritarian

transactional leadership style may lead to the making of hasty decisions, which have

not been adequately considered and discussed.

Conclusion

In this paper, we highlighted the rather limited attention given to the discursive

aspects of how leadership is realized. In particular, we focused on the role that

leaders play in the process of consensus building, which underlies important

activities such as organizational sensemaking and decision-making. We isolated two

research questions to address this specific gap in understanding: (a) what role do the

29

discursive strategies of leaders play in team consensus building; and (b) how and to

what extent do the material situations in which they occur affect the discursive

strategies they employ, and their effectiveness?

We moved between extant theory and our empirical data drawn from meetings in a

multinational company to show how two key leadership styles already isolated by

other scholars – transactional and transformational leadership – are discursively

deployed, and the important role discursive leadership plays in the formation of a

durable consensus at a team level. Our analysis identified five discursive strategies

leaders use to stimulate and shape the formation of consensus at the team level:

Encouraging; Directing; Modulating; Re/committing; and Bonding; and illustrated

how these are realized, linguistically, argumentatively, and pragmatically. We have

demonstrated how the chair of the meetings (and leading manager) can influence the

outcome of the meetings in salient ways, either negatively by hindering the process

of consensus formation at the team-level, or positively by facilitating its occurrence,

through a balanced deployment of these five discursive leadership strategies. In

turn, we also showed how aspects of the context of discussion – such as a shift of

standing of an individual in the team – and the meeting genre, might mediate the

leaders’ participation and their ability to control interactions within the team. Above

all, what our analysis has shown is precisely how, linguistically speaking, a leaders’

style – whether authoritarian and ‘hierarchical’ or more egalitarian and interpersonal

is constructed through the five discursive strategies we have identified. We have

clearly illustrated how an egalitarian leadership style positively influences the

formation of consensus within a team and, importantly, increases the likelihood of a

durable consensus being achieved.

To close, we would like to identify four avenues for research that would

complement the focus of our paper. First, we have identified an apparent mediating

30

effect of meeting genre on the potential for forming consensus around strategic

issues. In order to explore this issue further, a study comparing the discursive

strategies individual leaders use in different types of meetings, would potentially be

useful. Does their discursive style vary between types of meetings in terms of the

variation in the mix of the five strategies we have identified? Second, there is scope

to undertake comparative work within organizations of the type undertaken by

Bargiela-Chiappini and Harris (1997), in order to examine the effects of national

cultural context on discursive leadership style. Do, for example, leaders of different

national business units in multinational corporations vary in their discursive style,

and what impact does this have on consensus building in their respective teams in

the same organization? Third, what effect do changes in an individual leader’s

context have on their discursive leadership skills? At one level (as shown in this

paper with Will), the standing of individuals in the organization can wax and wane

over time in terms of their credibility within their teams. A study focused on

individual leaders over time in a single team, as well as working in different team

contexts over longer periods, would likely shed important light on how individuals

discursive abilities develop over time, and how this affects their perceived

professional standing in a team environment. Movement of executive leaders

between different businesses as they are promoted, for instance, is a regular feature

of everyday life in large multinational businesses, so is their discursive style

influenced by these changes in the context of operation? Finally, we have

concentrated in this paper on the linguistic and pragmatic enactment of discursive

leadership strategies, largely bracketing-off interactions with the physical context in

which the consensus building takes place. We have suggested that meeting genre,

such as an awayday compared to a regular team meeting, can have a mediating

effect on the ‘traction’ of leaders discursive strategies, and a key assumption

embedded in research on awaydays is that the physical ambience of the venue

31

influences the decision-outcomes of meetings. Other things being equal then, are

there any discernible effects of the venue type on the discursive strategies used by

leaders? Research along these four avenues would, we feel, make novel theoretical

contributions, while also providing important new evidence and insights for

practitioners.

32

References

Angouri, J. & Marra, M. (2010) Corporate meetings as genre, and the role of the chair in corporate meeting talk. Text & Talk, 30, 615-636.

Asmuss, B. & Svennevig, J. (2009) Meeting Talk. Journal of Business Communication, 46, 3-22.

Baker, P., Wodak, R., Gabrielatos, C., Khrosravinik, M., Krzyżanowski, M. & Mcenery, T. (2008) A useful methodological synergy? Combining critical discourse analysis and corpus linguistics to examine discourses of refugees and asylum seekers in the UK. Discourse & Society, 19, 273-306.

Balogun, J. & Johnson, G. (2004) Organizational Restructuring and Middle Manager Sensemaking. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 523-549.

Bargiela-Chiappini, F. & Harris, S. (1997) Managing Language: the discourse of corporate meetings, Amsterdam, John Benjamins.

Bass, B. M. & Avolio, B. J. (1994) Improving organizational effectiveness through transformational leadership., Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage Publications.

Bell, A. (Forthcoming) Re-constructing Babel: Discourse Analysis, Hermeneutics and the Interpretative Arc. Discourse Studies, 13.

Biggart, N. W. & Hamilton, G. G. (1987) An Institutional Theory of Leadership. The Journal of Applied Behavioral Sciences, 23, 429-441.

Boden, D. (1994) The business of talk: Organizations in Action, Cambridge, Polity Press.

Burns, J. M. (1978) Leadership, New York, Harper & Row.

Conger, J. A. (1991) Inspiring others: the language of leadership. Academy of Management Executive, 5, 31-45.

Dess, G. & Origer, N. K. (1987) Environment, structure and consensus in strategy formulation: A conceptual integration. Academy of Management Review, 12, 313-330.

Dess, G. & Priem, R. L. (1995) Consensus performance research: Theoretical and empirical extensions. Journal of Management Studies, 32, 401-418.

Dutton, J. E. & Jackson, S. E. (1987) Categorizing Strategic Issues: Links to Organizational Action. Academy of Management Review, 12, 76-90.

Fairhurst, G. T. (2007) Discursive Leadership: in conversation with leadership psychology, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.

Floyd, S. W. & Wooldridge, J. B. (2000) Building strategy from the middle: Reconceptualizing the strategy process, Thousand Oaks, CA, Sage.

Gardner, W. L. & Avolio, B. J. (1998) The charismatic relationship: A dramaturgical perspective. Academy of Management Review, 23, 32-58.

33

Grint, K. (2000) The Arts of Leadership, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

Hartz, R. & Habeschied, S. (2008) Die Konstruction von Konsens und Einigkeit in Organisationen – am Beispiel der Mitarbeiterzeitung. IN Menz, F. & Müller, A. P. (Eds.) Organisations-kommunikation. Munich, Hampp Verlag, pp. 119-139.

Holder, J. J. (Ed.) (1976) Decision making by consensus, Plano, TX, Business Publications.

Holmes, J. (2003) Leadership and communication: the crucial role of context. Paper presented at the Leadership Communication and Culture Forum. Wellington Turnbull House, NZ.

Holmes, J. & Marra, M. (2004) Leadership and managing conflict in meetings. Pragmatics, 14, 439-462.

Janis, I. L. (1972) Victims of Groupthink, New York, Houghton Mifflin.

Kienpointner, R. (1992) Alltagskogik. Struktur und Funcktion von Argumentationsmustern, Stuttgart-Bad Cannstatt, Frommann-Holzboog.

Krzyżanowski, M. (2008) Analysing Focus Groups. IN Wodak, R. & Krzyżanowski, M. (Eds.) Qualitative Discourse Analysis in the Social Sciences. Basingstoke, Palgrave, pp. 162-181.

Kwon, W., Clarke, I. & Wodak, R. (2009) Organizational Decision-making, Discourse, and Power: Integrating across contexts and scales. Discourse & Communication, 3, 273-302.

Lüdi, G. (2007) The Swiss model of plurilingual communication. IN Zeevaert, L. & Thije, J. D. T. (Eds.) Receptive Multilingualism. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 159-178.

Mantere, S. & Vaara, E. (2008) On the Problem of Participation in Strategy: A Critical Discursive Perspective. Organization Science, 19, 341-358.

Markoczy, L. (2001) Consensus formation during strategic change. Strategic Management Journal, 22, 1013-1031.

Menz, F. (1999) 'Who am I gonna do this with?': Self-organization, ambiguity and decision-making in a business enterprise. Discourse & Society, 10, 101-128.

Mintzberg, H. (1994) The rise and fall of strategic planning, New York ; London, Financial Times Prentice Hall.

Mondada, L. (2009) Emergent focused interactions in public places: A systematic analysis of the multimodal achievement of a common interactional space. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1977-1997.

Mulderrig, J. (2011) The Grammar of Governance. Critical Discourse Studies, Forthcoming.

Ocasio, W. (1997) Towards an attention-based view of the firm. Strategic Management Journal, 18, 187-206.

34

Petersoo, P. (2007) National deixis in the media. Journal of Language and Politics, 6, 419-436.

Pfeffer, J. (1981) Management as Symbolic Action: The Creation and Maintenance of Organizational Paradigms. IN Cummings, L. L. & Staw, B. M. (Eds.) Research in Organizational Behavior. Greenwich, CT, JAI Press, pp. 1-52.

Pondy, L. R. (1978) Leadership is a Language Game. IN Mccall, M. W. & Lombardo, M. M. (Eds.) Leadership: Where else can we go? Durham, NC, Duke University Press, pp. 87-99.

Priem, R. L., Harrison, D. A. & Muir, N. K. (1995) Structured conflict and consensus outcomes in group decision making. Journal of Management, 21, 691-710.

Reichertz, J. (2004) Objective Hermeneutics and Hermeneutic Sociology of Knowledge. IN Flick, U. E. A. (Ed.) Companion to Qualitative Research. London, Sage Publications, pp. 570-582.

Reisigl, M. & Wodak, R. (2001) Discourse and Discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and antisemitism, London, Routledge.

Reisigl, M. & Wodak, R. (2009) The discourse-historical approach. IN Wodak, R. & Meyer, M. (Eds.) Methods of CDA, 2nd revised edition. London, Sage, pp. 87-121.

Rouleau, L. & Balogun, J. (Forthcoming) Middle Managers, Strategic Sensemaking, and Discursive Competence. Journal of Management Studies.

Samra-Fredericks, D. (2003) Strategizing as Lived Experience and Strategists' Everyday Efforts to Shape Strategic Direction. Journal of Management Studies, 40, 141-174.

Samra-Fredericks, D. (2009) Ethnomethodology. IN Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (Ed.) The Handbook of Business Discourse. Edinburgh, Edinburgh University Press, pp. 92-104.

Shamir, B. & Eilam, G. (2005) "What's your story?" A life-stories approach to authentic leadership development. The Leadership Quarterly, 16, 395-417.

Shotter, J. (1993) Conversational Realities: Constructing Live through Language, London, Sage.

Shotter, J. & Cunliffe, A. L. (2003) The manager as practical author: everyday conversations for action. IN Holman, D. & Thorpe, R. (Eds.) Management and Language. London, Sage Publications, pp. 15-37.

Smircich, L. & Morgan, G. (1982) Leadership: The Management of Meaning. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 18, 257-273.

Titscher, S., Meyer, M., Wodak, R. & Fetter, E. (2000) Methods of Text and Discourse Analysis, London, Sage.

Toulmin, S. E. (1958) The Uses of Argument, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Van Dijk, T. A. (1984) Prejudice in Discourse, Amsterdam, John Benjamins.

35

Van Dijk, T. A. (2008) Discourse and Context: A Sociocognitive Approach, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Van Dijk, T. A. (2009) Society and Discourse: How Social Contexts Influence Text and Talk, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Walton, D., Reed, C. & Macagno, F. (2004) Argumentation Schemes, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

Wodak, R. (2000) From Conflict to Consensus? The co-construction of a policy paper. IN Muntigl, P., Weiss, G. & Wodak, R. (Eds.) European Union Discourses on Unemployment. An Interdisciplinary Approach to Employment Policy-Making and Organisational Change. Amsterdam, John Benjamins, pp. 73-114.

Wodak, R. (2009a) The Discourse of Politics in Action: 'Politics as Usual', Basingstoke, Palgrave Macmillan.

Wodak, R. (2009b) The Semiotics of Racism – A Critical Discourse-Historical Analysis. IN Renkema, J. (Ed.) Discourse of Course. Amsterdam, John Benjamins Publishing, pp. 311-326.

Notes

i We would like to thank Florian Menz, Michael Meyer, Teun van Dijk and our

anonymous reviewers for their important comments and suggestions. Of course, we

take sole responsibility for the final version of this paper.

ii In recent years, a range of critical hermeneutic approaches have introduced

intersubjective, abductive procedures of analysis which make the step by step

analysis and interpretation of texts – always in dialogue with theoretical concepts -

transparent. We draw on some aspects of ‘Objective Hermeneutics’ and the

‘Hermeneutic Sociology of Knowledge’ (Reichertz, 2004; Titscher et al., 2000) as well

as on debates related to the status of hermeneutics in discourse analysis and the

interpretation of text and discourse (Bell, Forthcoming).

36

iii In order to ensure confidentiality, the company name DSI is a pseudonym and

using fictitious names has concealed the identities of the places and individuals in

the research.

iv By macro-structure we mean the pattern of activity through which the discussion

of a topic is advanced and brought about to attempt to reach a consensual

conclusion. We use the term discourse topic or macro-topic as a main unit of

analysis, defined as “the most ‘important’ or ‘summarizing’ idea that underlies the

meanings of a sequence of sentences… a ‘gist’ or an ‘upshot’ of such an episode”

(van Dijk, 1984, p.56). Following Krzyżanowski (2008) we differentiate between the

macro-topic, which is the agenda item around which an entire episode revolves;

primary topics, which are major explicitly defined aspects from which the macro

topic is discussed; and secondary topics through which the primary topics are

explored in further detail without being set explicitly at the start of the discussion.

Thus an episode of discussion can be understood as a series of segments, each

defined by a primary topic and further subdivided by a series of secondary topics.

v Apart from the quantitative keyword and collocation analysis, which allows

identifying semantic fields, we also created a retroductive methodology: one

researcher (who observed the meetings) identified the primary or ‘macro’ topics

within each episode. A second researcher (also present in the fieldwork stage) then

independently conducted the same analysis. Only two minor discrepancies were

found, and, following discussion as to why this was the case, the topics were

amended and agreed. We repeated the process to identify secondary or sub-topics

within each primary topic and clarify the subject ‘building blocks’ for the

development of the discussion. The third author/researcher (who was not involved

37

in the fieldwork stage) analysed the text extracts from an outside perspective and

arrived at a similar classification of topics.

vi Here, we draw on Toulmin’s argumentation theory and on his famous

argumentation scheme (Toulmin, 1958; Walton et al., 2004). Due to space limitations,

we cannot elaborate on details of Toulmin’s argumentation theory, which has been

applied to various genres while investigating strategies of justification and

legitimation with much benefit (Reisigl & Wodak, 2001, 2009).

vii Topoi serve as warrants in arguments where the evidence is not explicitly

provided or where appeals to presupposed common sense knowledge are made. See

Reisigl and Wodak (2001), Kienpointner (1992) for more details.

Table 1 – DSI Australia Executive Board of Directors

Mike

Bradley

Harris

Adam

Larry

Greg

Will

Charlie

Ted/Joe*

CEO

Chief Operating Officer (COO)

Director of Finance

Director of Human Resources

Director of Engineering

Director of Contracts and Procurement

Director of the Osprey Programme

Director of the Peregrine Programme

Director of Aircraft Maintenance

* In April Ted was on sick leave and represented by Joe

Figure 1a - Topic map for November episode

New

Build

ing

Site

Ratio

nal-

isatio

n(2

-66)

Stor

e Ca

pex

Spac

e Sh

orta

gePe

regr

ine

Proj

ectio

nsRe

crui

tmen

t Lo

catio

n(6

6-12

5)

Pere

grin

e Pr

ojec

tions

Capa

bility

Lo

catio

nPo

rtfol

ioRi

skHe

adco

unt

Tren

dsIB

P Pr

ojec

tions

(1

25-2

56)

Adel

aide

Oth

er

Loca

tions

Pere

grin

e Pr

ojec

tions

Star

t Dat

eRe

sour

ce

Adeq

uacy

Risk

M

itigat

ion

Dedi

catin

g Re

sour

ceLe

ader

ship

Busin

ess

Sust

aina

bility

(2

57-3

94)

Out

side

IBP

IBP

Fore

cast

sTo

p-Do

wn

Plan

ning

Head

coun

t Tr

ends

Top-

Down

Pl

anni

ngM

ore

Scen

ario

sAc

com

-m

odat

ion

Qua

lity

(395

-418

)

Adel

aide

Oth

er

Loca

tions

Seco

ndBu

ildin

g(4

62-5

88)

Head

coun

tTr

ends

Capa

bility

Loca

tion

Acco

m-

mod

atio

nQ

uality

Spac

eSh

orta

geAc

com

-m

odat

ion

Qua

litySp

ace

Shor

tage

Acco

m-

mod

atio

nQ

uality

Capa

bility

Loca

tion

Acco

m-

mod

atio

nQ

uality

Spac

eSh

orta

geAc

com

-m

odat

ion

Qua

lityTo

p-Do

wnJu

dgem

ent

(589

-627

)

Land

Busin

ess

Furth

erPr

ojec

tions

Alte

rnat

iveAp

proa

ch(6

28-6

55)

Spac

eSh

orta

geAc

com

-m

odat

ion

Qua

lityBu

ildin

gPl

ans

(656

-677

)

Child

care

Facil

ities

Acco

m-

mod

atio

nQ

uality

Macro

Top

ic

Rete

ntio

n Re

crui

tmen

t (4

19-4

61)

Head

coun

t Tr

ends

Stak

ehol

der

Invo

lvem

ent

Out

side

IBP

Busin

ess

Sust

aina

bility

Gro

wing

Ca

pabi

lities

Prim

ary

To

pic

w/

line n

um

bers

in b

rackets

Seco

nd

ary

To

pic

s

Figure 1b - Topic map for April episode

Resource

Sharing

Peregrine

Transition

(16-95)

Custom

erMeeting

Contract

Refusal

Resource

Testing

Contract

Refusal

Resource

Testing

Contract

Refusal

Resource

Testing

Contract

Refusal

Resource

Adequacy

Managing

Capability

(96-353)

Consolidating

Capability

Resource

Sharing

Stakeholder

Involve

ment

Managing

Personnel

Busin

ess

Unit

Autonomy

Resource

Sharing

Capability

asProduct

Stakeholder

Involve

ment

Potential

Synergies

Account

ability

Programme

Priority

Implem

ent

-ation

(354-632)

Stakeholder

Involve

ment

Leadership

Enterprise

Behavio

urs

Programme

Priority

Resource

Sharing

Enterprise

Behavio

urs

Risk

Mitig

ation

Stakeholder

Involve

ment

Enterprise

Behavio

urs

Managing

Capability

Sourcin

gCa

pability

Discussio

nSummary

(633-718)

Straw

Man

Start

Date

Plan

Feasibility

Enterprise

Behavio

urPeregrine

Baseline

Stakeholder

Involve

ment

Straw

Man

Resource

Sharing

Enterprise

Behavio

urs

Contract

Refusal

Peregrine

Baseline

Resource

Adequacy

Start

Date

Resource

Adequacy

Risk

Mitig

ation

Dedicating

Resource

Leadership

Risk

Mitig

ation

Resource

Adequacy

Risk

Mitig

ation

Sourcin

gCa

pability

Resources

Sharing

Programme

Priority

Start

Date

Managing

Capability

Stakeholder

Involve

ment

Leadership

Org

Restruct

uring

Managing

Capability

Programme

Priority

Org

Restruct

uring

Risk

Mitig

ation

Appendix AThe November Episode

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

AA

dam

:!Any

way

– [i

ncre

asin

g la

ught

er]

Cha

rlie:!S

till h

ave

Cap

ex in

com

man

d of

the

ratio

naliz

atio

n, a

s tho

ugh

it’s

a pr

ojec

t tha

t Mik

e di

d la

st y

ear.

Mik

e:!C

apex

for a

stor

e. W

e’ve

est

ablis

hed

a co

mm

erci

al –

Brad

ley:!W

ell h

e’s g

one

on –

Who

ow

ns th

e st

ore?

Ted:!M

e [la

ught

er].

Wel

l, I r

emem

ber w

e ha

d a

proc

ess t

hat r

ecom

men

ded

we

wou

ld b

uild

a n

ew st

ore,

and

that

the

cost

of t

hat s

tore

wou

ld b

e ro

lled

in w

ith th

e ot

her d

elib

erat

ions

on

the

site

exp

endi

ture

.M

ike:!B

ut h

ave

we

arriv

ed a

t a co

nclu

sion

that

says

‘reg

ardl

ess o

f wha

tel

se w

e're

doin

g, w

e ne

ed a

new

stor

e’?

Gre

g:!I

thin

k w

e’re

ther

e, y

eah.

Mik

e:!D

oes a

nyon

e be

lieve

we’

re n

ot th

ere?

[sile

nce]

Doe

s any

one

know

any

bette

r?G

reg:!I

don’

t hav

e it

[unc

lear

] –M

ike:!I

don’

t kno

w w

hat y

ou –

Gre

g:!T

he d

iscu

ssio

n w

e ha

d w

as e

xact

ly th

at a

s wel

l. If

we

roll

it in

with

the

over

all

faci

lity,

we

didn

’t ne

ed a

pur

pose

-bui

lt fa

cilit

y as

such

, we

just

do

som

ethi

ngch

eap

and

nast

y –

Cha

rlie:!P

oten

tially

had

one

, was

n’t i

t?A

dam

:!Yes

, tha

t’s w

hat w

e sa

id.

Mik

e:!T

hat’s

1.9

mill

ion.

Har

ris:!W

ell,

I’m n

ot su

re –

I th

ink

in m

y un

ders

tand

ing,

and

I ha

ven’

t spo

ken

to

Scot

t bec

ause

he’

s in

the

UK

, but

the

cost

ass

ocia

ted

with

the

stor

e w

as cl

ose

to$5

mill

ion

Ada

m:!I

thou

ght i

t was

$4

mill

ion

Har

ris:!

– m

aybe

that

incl

udes

relo

catio

n, p

eopl

e an

d re

fit o

ut o

f the

exi

stin

g –

Ada

m:!T

here

are

som

e ad

ditio

nal i

nfra

stru

ctur

e th

ings

with

the

stor

e, to

go

with

the

sprin

kler

syst

em a

nd th

e fa

cilit

ies w

hich

–M

ike:!A

nd is

this

in th

e ca

pita

l pla

n fo

r nex

t yea

r?H

arris

:!It’s

par

t of t

hat 1

3.7

in S

cott’

s pla

nnin

g, y

es.

Mik

e:!S

o ca

n w

e ge

t a ca

pex

in?

Cha

rlie:!B

ut I

mea

n –

The

driv

er fo

r me,

the A

vion

ics g

uys h

ave

built

a 11

4, a

nd a

reliv

ing

on b

orro

wed

tim

e, a

nd b

eing

com

plie

d w

ith S

ecur

ity o

n th

e do

or. T

he lo

nger

we

leav

e it

they

mig

ht b

e fo

rced

to d

o an

othe

r upg

rade

d 11

4, w

e sh

ould

thro

w it

aw

ay.

Mik

e:!N

ow, i

s tha

t – T

his fi

ts p

erfe

ctly

with

the

stor

es a

rgum

ent,

does

it?

Cha

rlie:!Y

es, b

ecau

se th

ey w

ill m

ove

into

bui

ldin

g 71

, whi

ch is

whe

re a

maj

or p

art o

f th

e st

ores

is. A

vion

ics’s

in p

art o

f bui

ldin

g 71

.Br

adle

y:!If

you

take

the

stor

e in

to 7

1, w

e co

uld

have

room

for a

bout

80

mor

e –

Cha

rlie:!Y

eah.

If a

lot o

f Avi

onic

s guy

s mov

e in

ther

e, a

long

with

FA

LCO

N -

Mik

e:!W

here

’s 71

?Te

d:!N

ext t

o 70

.M

ike:!S

o 70

’s w

here

you

r guy

s are

in th

at st

age?

Seve

ral:!

Yeah

.C

harli

e:!S

o th

ey’d

mov

e in

but

they

– m

oved

the

Avio

nics

offi

ce in

ther

e, so

that

’s th

e st

ore

ther

e. S

o th

at ro

om’s

ther

e, A

vion

ics c

an

mov

e in

ther

e, a

nd th

at’s

Avio

nics

.W

ill:!Y

eah,

bec

ause

I ne

ed sp

ace

for S

inga

pore

now

, obv

ious

ly. A

lso,

sinc

e th

ey g

ave

me

the

Isra

eli E

mba

ssy

to b

uild

–C

harli

e:!Y

eah,

wel

l, on

e of

the

optio

ns w

as to

clos

e in

bet

wee

n 70

and

71,

as w

e’ve

do

ne w

ith so

me

othe

r bui

ldin

g. T

hat’s

one

of t

he o

ptio

ns. S

o yo

u ha

ve to

go

over

Avio

nics

in o

ne –

C

harli

e:! –

you

just

wor

k ou

t whe

re it

is, b

ut a

dec

ent o

ne.

53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

101

102

103

104

AM

ike:!D

o yo

u ne

ed sp

ace

for S

inga

pore

, in

– a

timin

g se

nse?

Will

:!You

coul

d ta

ke q

uite

a [u

ncle

ar] o

ut o

f las

t wee

k. T

he p

rogr

am’s

goin

g to

go

out t

hree

yea

rs fr

om n

ow. I

t’s n

ot g

oing

to fi

nish

till

the

end

of 2

009.

You

kno

w, t

hat

mea

ns w

e’re

goi

ng to

kee

p th

e sa

me

reso

urce

pro

file

– pr

obab

ly u

nlik

ely,

we’

re

prob

ably

goi

ng to

dro

p th

e O

SPRE

Y, li

ke, s

tretc

h th

e re

sour

ce p

rofil

e a

bit.

But I

just

don

’t kn

ow n

ow q

uite

how

muc

h at

the

mom

ent.

Mik

e:!F

ALC

ON

and

Gro

und?

Will

:!Les

s so,

mor

e so

gro

und.

Stre

tche

d, th

e FA

LCO

N w

ill p

roba

bly

drop

, or p

eopl

e w

ill

go to

Sea

ttle

to d

o m

ore

of th

e FA

LCO

N.

Mik

e:!Y

eah,

but

you

’re g

oing

to n

eed

the

sam

e he

adco

unt l

evel

that

you

hav

e rig

ht

now

thro

ugh

2009

?W

ill:!N

ot fo

r OSP

REY

– I t

hink

it w

ill d

rop,

but

I ju

st d

on’t

know

by

how

muc

h ye

t, be

caus

e w

e’re

still

tryi

ng to

wor

k ou

t wha

t the

ext

ra w

ork

is to

find

and

I ne

ed to

ha

ve d

one.

Mik

e: S

o yo

u’re

sayi

ng y

ou‘re

goi

ng to

nee

d to

recr

uit p

eopl

e in

Ade

laid

e?W

ill:!I

’m g

oing

to n

eed

to re

crui

t peo

ple

som

ewhe

re. W

hat I

wou

ld li

ke to

do

is

mov

e m

ore

of th

e O

SPRE

Y cr

itica

l mas

s as w

e m

ove

to cl

ose

for C

anbe

rra

/ M

ike:

Alri

ght /

so

that

that

mov

es in

to th

e su

ppor

t com

pone

nt o

f tha

t. I w

ould

prob

ably

like

to m

ake

Sydn

ey th

e ce

ntre

of e

xcel

lenc

e of

one

of t

hose

com

pone

nts,

so id

eally

we’

d sa

y th

at m

aybe

the A

SF o

r FA

LCO

N V

ehic

le, s

omet

hing

ge

ts d

one

from

Syd

ney.

/ M

ike:

Oka

y /

I mea

n, if

you

fold

in O

SPRE

Y do

wn

from

pha

se o

ne, y

ou’d

pro

babl

y w

ant t

o do

the

sam

e th

ing

with

thos

e gu

ys a

s w

ell,

so it

’s no

t jus

t – y

ou a

ctua

lly m

ake

the

com

pany

a ce

ntre

of e

xcel

lenc

e ra

ther

than

just

a se

t of p

rogr

ams,

and

then

you

bui

ld th

at cr

itica

l mas

s aro

und

that

. //A

dam

: And

you

’re sa

ying

wou

ld w

e do

Sin

gapo

re in

Syd

ney?

Will

:!You

wou

ld, y

ou co

uld

do p

arts

of S

inga

pore

, lik

e Avi

onic

s I w

ould

n’t m

ove

up

to S

ydne

y, I’d

kee

p th

e cr

itica

l mas

s / A

dam

: at A

dela

ide

– /

at A

dela

ide.

Be

yond

that

thou

gh, I

wou

ld p

roba

bly

keep

at A

dela

ide.

/M

ike:

You

’ve

got t

he p

eopl

e no

w, y

ou w

ere

talk

ing

abou

t the

firs

t one

? W

ill:!Y

eah,

wel

l, yo

u kn

ow, i

s tha

t diffi

cult

and

I don

’t w

ant t

o re

lear

n th

e le

sson

s ag

ain.

/M

ike:

Yea

h, a

bsol

utel

y /

The A

SF –

par

t of t

he A

SF -

is a

ctua

lly a

lread

y in

Sy

dney

, so

that

wou

ld m

ake

sens

e, to

act

ually

- be

twee

n Sy

dney

and

C

anbe

rra,

is to

max

imiz

e th

at, o

ur a

sset

capa

bilit

y /M

ike:

Hm

m, y

eah/

the A

SF

capa

bilit

y, an

d bu

ild th

at ce

ntre

of e

xcel

lenc

e th

ere,

and

then

fold

the

OSP

REY

Phas

e 1,

whi

ch y

ou’v

e go

t sim

ilar b

its a

roun

d th

ose

site

s in

the

sam

e so

rt o

f way

.Th

at to

me

wou

ld b

e th

e ce

ntre

of

–/

Larr

y:!Y

our e

-spa

ce b

ecom

es y

our s

uppo

rt fa

cilit

y, ef

fect

ivel

y, do

esn’

t it?

Will

:!Sor

ry?

Larr

y:!Y

our e

-spa

ce, w

ith th

e ex

cept

ion

of O

SPRE

Y, is

you

r sup

port

hub

. W

ill:!Y

eah.

And

I’d

argu

e th

at y

ou m

ight

eve

n w

ant t

o lo

ok a

t tha

t for

OSP

REY

as

wel

l.La

rry:!Y

eah.

Will

:!You

kno

w, y

ou m

ight

, it’s

it’s

a re

al –

a g

ood

capa

bilit

y in

term

s of o

ur a

sset

s an

d w

hat’s

bei

ng d

one

ther

e. S

o yo

u do

that

bet

wee

n Sy

dney

and

C

anbe

rra.

It’s

clos

e en

ough

and

you

can

–Br

adle

y:!S

o yo

u’re

hol

ding

core

des

ign

capa

bilit

y he

re.

Will

:!I th

ink

I’d m

ove

the

core

des

ign

to th

e su

b-sy

stem

des

ign

spac

e lo

catio

ns.

the

syst

em d

esig

n an

d ow

ners

hip

wou

ld re

mai

n he

re. /

Brad

ley:

Yea

h /

It’s l

ike

the

syst

em d

esig

n an

d ow

ners

hip

of O

SPRE

Y Ph

ase

1, I

wou

ld se

e in

Mel

bour

ne, s

oI t

hink

you

just

take

a v

iew

on

whe

re th

at sy

stem

des

ign

capa

bilit

y si

ts.

Mik

e:!Y

ou –

the

syst

em d

esig

n ca

pabi

lity

– W

hat d

o yo

u do

with

that

whe

nyo

u m

ove

into

supp

ort?

How

do

you

keep

thos

e pe

ople

em

ploy

ed?

105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156

ABr

adle

y:!W

ell y

ou h

ave

to u

se fu

nded

capa

bilit

y.M

ike:!S

o, th

e cu

stom

er’s

a pa

rt o

f the

capa

bilit

y, /

Brad

ley:

Yep

. Will

: Yep

/w

ould

you

say?

Will

:!Yea

h. [p

ause

] The

leve

l of t

hat s

yste

ms c

apab

ility

act

ually

/ M

ike:

Yep

/ re

duce

s su

bsta

ntia

lly.

Mik

e:!A

ll rig

ht.

Will

:!So

I thi

nk g

oing

bac

k to

my

poin

t abo

ut a

top

dow

n vi

ew o

f whe

re w

e w

ant t

o pu

t the

se p

iece

s, I m

ean

wha

t’s th

e re

sour

cing

aro

und

that

? I th

ink

that

’s a

bette

rw

ay to

go,

just

to sa

y ho

w w

e ac

tual

ly d

o it,

and

then

conf

orm

to it

.M

ike:!W

ell n

ow, I

thin

k w

e’re

ove

r-ex

pose

d as

it –

/Har

ris:!Y

es, i

f you

look

at i

t fro

m a

, sor

t of,

port

folio

risk

pos

ition

, you

’ve

got t

o th

ink

that

you

’re b

ette

r off

havi

ng 3

par

ts w

here

you

can

ram

p up

, ram

p do

wn,

and

see

a dr

oppa

ble

/ /T

ed:!Y

ou’re

not

goi

ng to

do

any

bette

r tha

n in

Ade

laid

e /H

arris

: Hm

m?/

I sa

idyo

u're

not

goi

ng to

do

any

bette

r tha

n in

Ade

laid

e.A

dam

:!In

term

s of h

eadc

ount

, if y

ou b

ridge

that

gap

so w

e’ve

got

1100

, and

then

100

in

Mel

bour

ne, 4

00 A

dela

ide,

you

get

that

clos

e up

, it l

ooks

goo

d. O

r Syd

ney.

/Har

ris:!O

r wha

teve

r.A

dam

: !Ye

ah, t

hat’s

righ

t.H

arris

:!You

kno

w, E

ast c

oast

, Ade

laid

e /A

dam

: Yea

h, y

eah/

sort

of a

ppro

ach.

/Mik

e:!S

o I’l

l say

, rig

ht –

800

soun

ds li

ke a

goo

d nu

mbe

r? H

ow d

o yo

u ar

rive

at th

e nu

mbe

rs se

nsib

ly?

Ada

m: C

an w

e go

to th

e pa

ge o

n th

e pr

esen

tatio

n an

d H

arris

can

take

you

thro

ugh

the

num

bers

in th

e pr

esen

tatio

n –

/Mik

e:!Y

eah,

yea

h. B

ecau

se y

ou w

ant t

o ar

rive

at th

e nu

mbe

rs b

otto

m u

p.[b

ackg

roun

d le

afing

thro

ugh

pape

rs a

nd fi

ndin

g pa

ges]

Har

ris:!I

’ll ta

ke y

ou th

roug

h th

is p

age

as a

sum

mar

y, bu

t whe

n w

e co

me

to lo

ok a

tth

e co

st-b

ase

pack

, I’ll

take

you

thro

ugh

the

num

bers

that

hav

e le

d to

this

pag

e,w

hich

is re

ally

aro

und

a ba

selin

e –

if yo

u lo

ok a

t the

top

bloc

k he

re, i

t’s a

bas

elin

eIB

P po

sitio

n, a

nd th

e bo

ttom

blo

ck is

wha

t we’

re ca

lling

a p

roba

ble

IBP

posi

tion.

I’ll t

ake

you

thro

ugh

the

indi

vidu

al sc

enar

ios t

hat m

ake

up th

e pr

obab

le, b

ut in

a

nuts

hell,

as f

ar a

s ‘he

adco

unt’

- wha

t it i

s, it’

s the

bas

elin

e po

sitio

n, p

lus 1

0%

on d

irect

labo

ur –

you

kno

w, w

e’re

sayi

ng th

at w

e’re

alw

ays u

nder

by

10%

on

dire

ct la

bour

in te

rms o

f ris

k m

oney

, and

the

head

s ass

ocia

ted

with

risk

mon

ey

and

/ C

TP in

the

plan

./

Larr

y: !O

nly

10%

?H

arris

:!Yea

h, 1

0%’s

pret

ty co

nser

vativ

e, y

eah.

And

it in

clud

es S

inga

pore

- th

e as

sum

ptio

ns a

roun

d Si

ngap

ore

befo

re W

ill ju

st ta

lked

abo

ut th

e pr

ogra

m a

nd w

hat w

as

happ

enin

g on

the

OSP

REY

profi

le, s

o I’l

l go

back

to th

at, b

ecau

se I

thin

k w

e ne

ed to

just

pro

gram

wha

t we’

ve g

ot in

her

e fo

r OSP

REY

and

Sing

apor

e a

bit m

ore.

So

wha

t it’s

sayi

ng o

n th

e to

p bl

ock

here

, is t

hese

are

the

– rig

ht a

cros

s the

top

is th

e ba

selin

e FT

s, w

hich

is p

retty

muc

h ho

w it

is d

irect

and

indi

rect

at A

dela

ide

as

budg

eted

, OK

? The

– th

at’s

the

1068

goi

ng d

own

to 6

22 in

2 a

nd a

– O

K? I

’ll co

me

back

to w

hat c

ompr

ises

that

. The

act

uals

are

the

– it

incl

udes

the

um p

art-t

ime

wor

kers

, tem

ps, a

nd a

ll of

thos

e pe

ople

that

app

ear o

n th

e pa

yrol

l, an

d th

at’s

abou

t 80

diffe

renc

e, a

nd w

e’ve

mai

ntai

ned

that

pro

port

ion

in te

rms o

f the

diff

eren

ce g

oing

fo

rwar

d. O

K? S

o th

ey’re

goi

ng to

see

the

1137

toda

y go

ing

dow

n to

662

. In

term

s of

the

capa

city

on

the

nort

h si

te a

t the

mom

ent –

so a

ssum

ing

you

had

to v

acat

e ev

eryo

ne

from

the

sout

h si

te to

day,

we

wou

ld h

ave

a ca

paci

ty p

robl

em o

f 331

peo

ple.

OK

? And

if

you

follo

w th

at th

roug

h to

200

8 w

ith th

e he

adco

unt r

educ

tions

that

we’

re

proj

ectin

g, w

e w

ould

be

abou

t rig

ht-s

ize

at th

e en

d of

200

8, w

hich

is w

hen

we’

re d

ue

to g

et o

ut o

f the

leas

es, a

nd w

e w

ould

hav

e sp

are

capa

city

, if y

ou b

elie

ve th

e fo

reca

st

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

Anu

mbe

rs in

thos

e ar

eas p

er h

ead

– bu

t we

wou

ld h

ave

spar

e ca

paci

ty in

the

nort

h si

de o

f the

site

as o

f tod

ay. O

f 129

goi

ng u

p to

144

, bas

ed o

n th

e ba

selin

e po

sitio

n. I

f you

then

go

dow

n to

the

seco

nd b

ox, a

nd y

ou sa

y ‘R

ight

, wel

l, th

is n

ow

incl

udes

10%

mor

e on

dire

ct la

bour

on

all o

f our

pro

ject

s and

it in

clud

es w

inni

ng

Sing

apor

e’, n

othi

ng ch

ange

s in

term

s of t

he to

day

posi

tion,

but

in ’0

7, y

ou k

now

, if w

e ha

d to

mov

e ev

eryo

ne, w

e’d

have

a p

robl

em o

f ano

ther

100

, whi

ch is

real

ly w

hat’s

- or

140

– o

r 130

– w

hich

is re

ally

wha

t the

impa

ct o

f Sin

gapo

re a

nd 1

0% la

bor i

s, go

ing

thro

ugh

to th

e en

d of

the

plan

, whe

re w

e w

ould

still

hav

e a

surp

lus o

f spa

ce o

f 112

. N

ow if

you

look

dow

n at

the

foot

note

her

e, th

ere’

s a co

uple

of a

ssum

ptio

ns th

at g

o bo

th w

ays.

Um

m –

in te

rms o

f the

spac

e re

quire

men

t, so

alth

ough

we

calc

ulat

ed th

e sp

ace

for 8

06 p

eopl

e, w

hat i

t doe

sn’t

do is

it d

oesn

’t al

low

for 2

thin

gs th

at w

ill a

ffect

th

at sp

ace.

It a

ssum

es a

stan

dard

spac

e pe

r per

son,

as o

ppos

ed to

reco

gniz

ing

that

di

ffere

nt ro

les w

ill h

ave

diffe

rent

spac

e re

quire

men

ts, a

nd D

M, a

nd th

ings

like

that

, an

d D

MC

and

stuf

f, cl

early

are

mor

e th

an ju

st th

e st

anda

rd sp

ace.

It d

oesn

’t fa

ctor

th

at in

yet

, and

the

othe

r thi

ng th

at it

doe

sn’t

fact

or in

, whi

ch is

not

e 3,

is it

doe

sn’t

– it

puts

peo

ple

in sq

uare

foot

and

in d

esks

, but

it d

oesn

’t al

low

for t

he fa

ct th

at th

e sp

ace

avai

labl

e m

ight

not

be

suffi

cien

t, in

any

1 a

rea,

to h

ouse

a co

mpl

ete

team

, sha

ll w

e sa

y, so

it d

oesn

’t, so

rt o

f, al

low

for t

he sh

uffli

ng a

nd w

hat y

ou m

ight

lose

in th

at,

sort

of –

Larr

y:!T

hat w

ill ch

ange

all

the

time

thou

gh?

Har

ris:!T

hat w

ould

chan

ge a

ll th

e tim

e.

Larr

y:!S

o yo

u w

ould

n’t h

ave

to [i

ndis

tinct

]C

harli

e:! Y

es b

ut th

ey le

ft th

e la

bora

tory

spac

e, p

roje

ct ce

ntre

wor

k ar

eas,

that

kin

d of

th

ing.

Har

ris:!I

don

’t th

ink

it do

es. T

his i

s jus

t stu

ff th

at w

e go

t fro

m S

cott

befo

re h

e w

ent,

and

thes

e so

rt o

f que

stio

ns h

ave

aris

en si

nce

he’s

been

aw

ay. N

ow lo

ok, t

here

are

a

coup

le o

f peo

ple

wor

king

on

this

at t

he m

omen

t, bu

t I th

ink

Scot

t nee

ds to

run

thro

ugh

it. O

n th

e ot

her s

ide,

if y

ou lo

ok a

t the

ver

y la

st n

ote

abou

t pot

entia

l co

ntin

genc

y sp

ace,

whi

ch w

ould

add

to th

e so

rt o

f sur

plus

spac

e ca

lcul

atio

ns, t

hat

we’

ve g

ot –

ther

e’s 2

are

as th

ere:

bui

ldin

g 71

, whi

ch w

e w

ere

talk

ing

abou

t ear

lier

– if

you

mov

e th

e st

ores

out

and

put

it so

mew

here

els

e an

d yo

u re

furb

ish

that

and

re

confi

gure

that

you

get

ano

ther

85

head

s in

ther

e; a

nd w

e’ve

had

just

hig

her d

ensi

ty,

high

er o

ccup

atio

n le

vels

if y

ou li

ke, i

n th

e M

ain

build

ing.

We

said

if y

ou’v

e go

t 225

pe

ople

in th

ere

at th

e m

omen

t, if

you

incr

ease

that

by

10%

, whi

ch if

you

thin

k ab

out i

t is

5 o

n th

e to

p of

eac

h ha

lf of

the

build

ing,

5 o

n th

e bo

ttom

of e

ach

half

of th

e bu

ildin

g, w

hich

doe

sn’t

seem

like

it’s

a bi

g as

k, y

ou g

et a

noth

er 2

2 pe

ople

ther

e. S

o if

we’

ve g

ot th

e nu

mbe

rs w

rong

, we’

ve st

ill g

ot th

e po

tent

ial t

o ge

t ano

ther

110

or so

pe

ople

thro

ugh,

you

kno

w, b

uild

ing

71, a

nd th

roug

h in

crea

sing

the

dens

ity a

bit

in

Mai

n bu

ildin

g.

Mik

e:!S

o, if

IBP

/ H

arris

: Yea

h. /

is sh

owin

g 62

2, y

ou k

now

, a re

duct

ion

from

10

68 to

622

– /

Har

ris: Y

eah/

is it

show

ing

a co

ncom

itant

rise

bec

ause

we’

re n

ot

quite

ver

y st

able

, and

are

we

assu

me

we’

re lo

sing

all

of th

ese

peop

le in

A

dela

ide

– th

ey’re

not

gro

win

g an

ywhe

re e

lse.

Is th

at w

hat h

appe

ns?

Har

ris:!W

ell,

over

all –

and

we

need

to. T

his m

orni

ng, w

e sa

id w

e w

ere

goin

g do

wn

abou

t 250

peo

ple

in IB

P, o

vera

ll –

and,

you

’d sa

y he

re ‘w

ell,

base

d on

this

, w

e’re

goi

ng d

own

abou

t 400

in A

dela

ide’

, so

yes,

that

’s an

othe

r /M

ike:

The

re

mus

t be

150?

/ 1

50 so

mew

here

./

Ada

m:!Y

eah,

it’s

a gr

owth

, it’s

gro

wth

in A

bbot

sfor

d.

Har

ris:!T

here

’s gr

owth

in th

e M

elbo

urne

, and

I th

ink

ther

e’s g

row

th in

1 o

r 2 o

f the

ot

her p

roje

ct a

reas

.M

ike:!T

here

’d ce

rtai

nly

be g

row

th in

Will

iam

stow

n I w

ould

hav

e th

ough

t. H

arris

: Yea

h, y

eah

And

of c

ours

e, it

’s th

is re

duct

ion,

whi

ch is

giv

ing

rise

to

209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260

Ath

e bi

g un

der-

reco

very

, whi

ch is

the

cost

-bas

e pa

ck in

Ade

laid

e go

ing

forw

ard.

No

chan

ge o

f tas

king

s tha

t we

had

in th

e ou

t-goi

ng.

Will

:!Is i

t tha

t the

IBP

over

the

past

5 y

ears

, doe

s it s

how

a si

mila

r tre

nd, l

ike

equi

vale

nt v

ecto

r IBP

for 2

001?

Tha

t is t

hat t

he –

Larr

y:!T

he IB

P fig

ures

are

alw

ays l

ess t

han

the

actu

al.

Har

ris:!I

n te

rms o

f, in

term

s of h

eads

, the

y’re

alw

ays l

eft i

n te

rms o

f rec

over

ies,

so

they

’re a

lway

s les

s, pa

rtic

ular

ly w

hen

you

get –

Larr

y:!T

hat’s

the

trend

–W

ill:!Y

eah,

no,

the

2001

one

show

ed th

at w

e’re

goi

ng to

be

700

head

s in

2006

,so

this

then

you

kno

w, y

ou co

uld

– is

that

the

trend

that

you

’re se

eing

all

of th

em,

so –

this

is th

e st

atis

tic w

ith e

very

thin

g in

adv

ance

.H

arris

:!Thi

s is m

ore

mar

ked.

It i

s a tr

end,

that

we’

ve b

een

unde

rsta

ted,

but

this

is

mor

e m

arke

d, I

thin

k, a

nd it

’s re

ally

bec

ause

, if y

ou lo

ok a

t the

2 a

reas

that

’s dr

ivin

g th

is, a

nd th

is is

why

I w

ent b

ack

to y

ou a

nd Ja

mes

2 o

r 3 ti

mes

on

this

: it’s

O

SPRE

Y, a

nd it

’s th

e AIR

supp

ort b

usin

ess i

n A

dela

ide,

it’s

KES

TREL

, and

it’s

all o

f the

FA

LCO

N su

ppor

t stu

ff. B

ut b

y th

e en

d of

this

per

iod,

you

kn

ow, y

ou g

uys a

re fo

reca

st –

wel

l, ob

viou

sly

KES

TREL

will

be

out o

f the

way

, but

yo

u kn

ow, s

till F

ALC

ON

fore

cast

ing

a lo

wer

thro

ughp

ut th

roug

h th

e Tr

aini

ng A

ids

busi

ness

. Te

d:!Y

eah

– co

uld

be th

at, o

r tha

t – so

we

carr

y th

at b

ranc

h –

Ada

m:!U

h-hu

h.W

ill:!E

very

ass

umpt

ion’

s rou

nd O

SPRE

Y Ph

ase

1A. W

as th

at sp

lit b

etw

een

Ade

laid

e an

d M

elbo

urne

? C

harli

e:!N

o. th

e O

SPRE

Y –

Har

ris:!S

orry

, OSP

REY’

s exc

lude

d fr

om th

is co

mpl

etel

y at

this

stag

e. N

ot in

her

e.

No-

one’

s tak

ing

a vi

ew o

n th

e he

ads i

n FA

LCO

N S

uppo

rt.

Cha

rlie:!I

was

goi

ng to

say

it’s o

nly

OSP

REY’

s got

from

IBP

is IA

staf

fing.

incl

udin

g M

elbo

urne

– th

at I’

m a

war

e of

//

Larr

y: O

n th

e m

easu

rem

ent /

/ A

dam

: It’s

not

goi

ng a

nyw

here

els

e?C

harli

e:!D

on’t

thin

k so

. H

arris

:!I m

ean,

if I

give

you

just

som

e to

p-le

vel n

umbe

rs h

ere,

if th

e AIR

Sup

port

oc

cupa

ncy

of d

irect

s, at

the

mom

ent,

in A

dela

ide

goes

from

224

toda

yto

88

in 2

011,

the A

vion

ics l

ine

of b

usin

ess g

oes f

rom

250

toda

y, an

d th

is is

the

end

of ’

06 p

roje

ctio

n, a

s opp

osed

to O

ctob

er /

/ La

rry:!W

hat’s

the

actio

n?H

arris

:!...

to 1

8.. W

e’ve

bee

n ar

ound

this

3 ti

mes

//

Will

: !Is

that

with

Sin

gapo

re o

r with

out S

inga

pore

? /

Har

ris:!T

his h

as g

ot S

inga

pore

in it

, Will

.M

ike:!F

or 2

011?

Will

:!Can

you

get

a p

rint-o

ut –

Har

ris:!Y

eah.

Thi

s is w

hat I

’m ta

lkin

g to

one

of y

ou a

bout

–

Will

:! –

Sing

apor

e st

arts

nex

t yea

r, an

d it’

s mea

nt to

run

4 ye

ars,

so..

Har

ris:!Y

ep.

Will

:!Sou

nds a

ll rig

ht.

Brad

ley:!Ju

st o

n th

at, i

s the

re b

usin

ess a

fter S

inga

pore

?W

ill:!T

here

’s M

alay

sia

out t

here

, the

re’s

hom

elan

d de

fenc

e th

at’s

out t

here

, so

ther

e’s

alw

ays t

hing

s tha

t are

out

ther

e, b

ut it

’s-M

ike:!W

e ca

nnot

be

in th

is g

ame

– bu

t we

can’

t mak

e an

ass

umpt

ion

that

we'r

e go

ing

to g

o fr

om 2

50 to

18

just

on

–Br

adle

y:!Y

eah,

you

’ve

got t

o ha

ve so

met

hing

of a

pro

duct

line

. It's

a b

ette

r ass

umpt

ion

to sa

y th

at y

ou’re

goi

ng to

sust

ain

the

busi

ness

bey

ond

that

win

dow

–

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

AW

ill:!D

epen

ds o

n ho

w b

road

ly y

ou d

efine

‘the

bus

ines

s’. B

ecau

se I

thin

k th

ere’

s so

met

hing

ther

e fo

r OSP

REY.

Um

– w

hat h

appe

ns if

you

brin

g in

mar

itim

e /

Mik

e:

yeah

/ p

atro

l? Y

ou k

now

– d

o th

at, a

nd th

at’s

the

ques

tion

roun

d th

e O

SPRE

Y Ph

ase

1, b

ecau

se th

at w

ill a

lso

use

capa

bilit

y w

ith co

mpe

tenc

ies t

hat h

ave

been

est

ablis

hed

with

in O

SPRE

Y, so

I’ve

, sor

t of,

said

that

they

wou

ld m

ove

out o

f OSP

REY

the

FAP,

to

exe

cute

the

busi

ness

thro

ugh

FAP,

and

that

’s w

here

I th

ink

ther

e co

uld

still

be

a bi

t of

wor

k fo

r the

m a

roun

d ‘w

hat e

xact

ly is

the

OSP

REY

Phas

e 1

goin

g to

look

like

?’.

And

wha

t wou

ld b

e th

e re

sour

ces s

lip, b

ecau

se w

e w

ould

n’t w

ant t

o re

-sta

rt th

e tr

aini

ng ca

pabi

lity,

if yo

u lik

e –

we’

ve g

ot th

e tr

aini

ng a

ids c

apab

ility

, we’

ve g

ot th

e Be

yond

-the-

type

capa

bilit

y an

d ai

r par

ts, y

ou –

that

capa

bilit

y m

ust o

rder

som

ethi

ng

into

OSP

REY

Phas

e 1.

So

that

hea

dcou

nt sh

ould

be

in A

dela

ide

rath

er th

an

Mel

bour

ne, i

s my

assu

mpt

ion.

But

– /

Cha

rlie:!T

hat h

eadc

ount

isn’

t any

way

, tha

t’s m

y gu

ess /

So

then

ther

e m

ay. T

hat’s

whe

re I’

m n

ot su

re o

f the

impo

rtan

ce o

f ord

er

inta

kes t

hat w

e’re

–A

dam

:!No

–C

harli

e:!L

et’s

rew

ind

it gu

ys –

the

OSP

REY

Phas

e 1

wen

t FA

P in

to IB

P. W

e w

ere

look

ing

at it

pur

ely

as IA

S, th

e gr

ound

supp

ort e

nviro

nmen

t got

into

som

ethi

ng.

That

’s w

here

it w

as w

hen

we

did

IBP.

So

we

know

our

num

bers

, it’s

in IB

P as

I’m

aw

are

of, s

ettli

ng fr

om th

e FA

P si

de, i

t’s w

hat w

e th

ough

t the

gro

und

segm

ent

wou

ld b

e, a

ssur

edly

that

all

the

grou

nd si

de w

ould

und

erst

and

in re

spec

t of

wha

t the

opt

ion

was

. Tha

t’s th

e IB

P. S

o th

ere’

s not

hing

in IB

P th

at I’

m a

war

e of

I'll p

ut w

hat’s

in to

day,

for,

you

know

, any

stuf

f it w

ould

com

e un

der,

Mal

aysi

a or

C

omm

s or w

hate

ver –

Will

:!So

if w

e w

ere

to d

o th

e tr

aini

ng e

lem

ent,

if w

e de

cide

to d

o th

e m

issi

on

plan

ning

ele

men

t.../

Cha

rlie:

Yea

h, b

ecau

se th

at’s

all a

dditi

onal

/ a

nd o

ther

thin

gs li

ke

that

, whi

ch h

as p

roba

bly

anot

her 1

00..

Cha

rlie:!W

hich

is w

hy y

ou’re

onl

y gi

ving

me

OSP

REY

num

bers

in M

elbo

urne

. /W

ill:

Righ

t./ B

ecau

se it

wou

ld h

ave

been

the

IS le

vel.

Will

:!Whi

ch is

why

I as

ked

the

ques

tion

abou

t tha

t - d

urin

g th

at p

roce

ss, t

hat w

ould

th

en cu

t you

out

from

wha

t the

201

0 pe

riod

says

, tha

t the

n if

you

defin

e th

at a

s the

, so

rt o

f, bu

sine

ss -

alon

g w

ith ca

pabi

lity,

min

d - t

hen

I thi

nk th

ere’

s mor

e th

ere.

Br

adle

y:!A

ren’

t you

then

sayi

ng, t

he b

asic

pro

posi

tion

is, t

hat w

e ha

ve a

sust

aina

ble

busi

ness

. Alth

ough

we

can’

t put

/W

ill: U

h hu

h /

prec

isio

n th

at, w

e ha

ve th

e be

lief t

his

busi

ness

is g

oing

to b

e su

stai

ned.

So

the

fund

amen

tal q

uest

ion

for u

s on

that

bas

is

wou

ld b

e w

hat’s

the

mix

of c

apab

ilitie

s bet

wee

n M

elbo

urne

, Syd

ney,

and

Ade

laid

e?M

ike

& C

harli

e: !Y

eah,

yea

h.M

ike:!W

ell,

ther

e yo

u ha

ve it

.Br

adle

y:!Y

es.

Will

:!Yes

, bec

ause

my

bit o

f IBP

, obv

ious

ly, o

nly

look

s at O

SPRE

Y. It

doe

sn’t

ente

r Bo

eing

. So

it do

esn’

t loo

k at

the

cust

omer

into

thos

e ca

pabi

lity

stre

ngth

s tha

t we’

ve

defin

ed...

Mik

e:!Y

eah,

wel

l, w

antin

g to

– a

nd I

thin

k fo

r the

pur

pose

s of f

acili

ties p

lann

ing

– yo

u’ve

got

3 in

– H

ow m

any

peop

le h

ave

you

got i

n O

SPRE

Y?W

ill:!1

00.

Har

ris:!Y

eah,

but

you

see

that

’s 19

2, b

ased

on

this

at t

he e

nd o

f ’06

, on

OSP

REY.

The

re’s

250

in th

e O

SPRE

Y BU

, it’s

got

PEA

CE

EAG

LE, i

t’s g

ot

ISS

– W

ill:!Y

ou’v

e go

t a n

umbe

r of t

he P

EAC

E EA

GLE

peo

ple

mov

ing

here

into

Syd

ney,

so th

at sh

ould

be A

dela

ide

base

d –

Har

ris:!W

ell,

no I’

m ju

st g

oing

off

the

num

bers

that

are

subm

itted

.M

ike:!B

ut it

’s m

ore

than

192

?H

arris

:!Yea

h, n

o, I

mea

n I t

hink

– a

nd y

ou k

now

...

313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364

AW

ill:!1

92 w

ing?

Har

ris:!A

t the

end

of D

ecem

ber?

Mik

e:!N

o –

Har

ris:!O

SPRE

Y A

dela

ide.

Mik

e:!R

ight

. Now

– [p

ause

]W

ill:!2

50 fo

r sup

port

, and

then

2 fo

r –

Har

ris:!W

ell,

250

is th

e fo

reca

st ra

nge,

evi

dent

ly, b

ut a

gain

, say

you

’ve

got 2

5 Si

ngap

ore,

16

PEA

CE

EAG

LE, a

nd 7

9 IS

S. T

hat’s

the

250.

192

OSP

REY.

W

ill: !

192

Wed

geta

il?H

arris

:!Thi

s is w

hat I

’ve

been

giv

en.

And

goi

ng b

ack

to th

e O

SPRE

Y th

ing,

and

th

e RE

D R

OO

M, a

nd a

ll –

Will

:! –

RED

RO

OM

, yea

h m

ade

it to

yea

r-en

d, y

es.

Mik

e:!S

o yo

u’ve

got

the

gree

n ro

om, y

ou’v

e go

t Sin

gapo

re co

min

g on

, you

’ve

got t

he

likel

ihoo

d of

MM

A, t

he li

kelih

ood

of M

alay

sia,

wha

t we’

re g

oing

to d

o w

ith O

SPRE

Y –

I mea

n. Y

ou’v

e go

t to

assu

me

you’

re g

oing

to h

ave

a co

uple

of h

undr

ed p

eopl

e in

A

dela

ide

wor

king

on

this

/ W

ill: U

m. /

thro

ugh

the

plan

and

bey

ond.

Will

:!Wel

l wha

t Gil

says

in th

e tr

aini

ng si

mul

atio

n bu

sine

ss is

that

ther

e is

bus

ines

s th

ere.

And

that

’s w

hat w

e sa

id w

e’d

have

read

y by

the

end

of th

e ye

ar, i

s wha

t we

wer

e pl

anni

ng fo

r tha

t cap

abili

ties s

tuff.

/ C

harli

e: Y

es, t

his t

rain

ing

and

sim

ulat

ion

is –

/

It’s a

lmos

t the

re.

Ted:!W

e’ve

take

n th

at v

iew

on

IBP,

FA

LCO

N S

imul

ator

Sys

tem

s and

ther

e is

a

dete

riora

tion

acro

ss th

at. T

he K

ESTR

EL p

rogr

am, f

rom

mem

ory,

they

ram

ped

dow

n th

at, k

eepi

ng a

full

airc

raft

inte

grat

ion

capa

bilit

y, bu

t the

re is

a d

eep

min

ein

resp

ect t

o th

at, s

o –

It’s w

here

that

trai

ning

ele

men

t, w

hat w

e’re

fore

cast

ing

is th

e de

clin

e. S

o w

hat y

ou’re

fore

cast

ing

is –

W

ill:!I

thin

k it’

s – d

o w

hat w

e’re

doi

ng is

– w

e’re

doi

ng...

look

ing

at cl

osin

g ba

se

busi

ness

es, a

nd w

e’re

fore

cast

ing

dow

n to

pro

ject

’s en

d, ra

ther

than

sayi

ng w

ell,

it's a

capa

bilit

y-ba

sed

busi

ness

hea

ding

out

ther

e, in

a tr

aini

ng si

mul

atio

n co

mpe

tenc

y –

That

’s th

e w

ork

that

Dav

e an

d M

ike

have

bee

n do

ing

for m

e, I’

m

goin

g to

get

Nic

k in

ther

e to

star

t to

brin

g th

at u

p…M

ike:!I

don’

t min

d lo

okin

g at

the

capa

bilit

ies –

for t

he p

urpo

ses o

f the

IBP,

you

’re

goin

g to

hav

e to

dep

loy

that

capa

bilit

y on

pro

ject

s, yo

u’re

goi

ng to

hav

e to

bad

ge it

ag

ains

t pro

ject

s at s

ome

poin

t – /

Will

: Tha

t’s w

hat w

e’re

doi

ng –

/ to

bui

ld u

p yo

ur

IBP,

but

from

a ca

pabi

lity

poin

t of v

iew

, fro

m a

bus

ines

s poi

nt o

f vie

w, w

e’ve

got

to

be p

lann

ing

your

faci

litie

s at a

hig

her l

evel

you

kno

w, t

han

proj

ect b

y pr

ojec

t.

Gre

g:!Y

ou’re

nev

er g

oing

to –

you

’ll n

ever

get

at i

t tha

t way

.W

ill:!Y

eah

– do

n’t –

I’m

not

dis

agre

eing

with

that

–G

reg:!If

you

follo

w tr

ends

in th

e w

orkf

orce

, and

Har

ris y

ou co

rrec

t me

– is

that

the

wor

kfor

ce h

as b

een

grow

ing,

take

out

the

cont

ract

s lik

e N

orw

ich

whi

ch e

nded

with

abo

ut 8

0 pe

ople

, tak

e ou

t flig

ht si

mul

atio

n w

ith a

bout

100

peo

ple

that

wen

t ac

ross

. You

’ll se

e th

e tre

nd is

the

busi

ness

gro

ws.

Con

tinua

lly. T

hink

abo

ut th

e op

tions

we’

re ta

lkin

g ab

out.

That

’ll h

ave

som

e im

plic

atio

ns –

you

thin

k ab

out t

o ge

t do

wn

to th

e fin

er d

etai

l of w

hat’s

goi

ng to

hap

pen

with

the

Trai

ning

Aid

s, in

and

out

, w

hat S

inga

pore

coul

d lo

ok li

ke ‘G

REEN

RO

OM

’-wis

e et

c., it

alm

ost s

ound

s to

me

lik

e th

e IB

P nu

mbe

rs th

at y

ou’v

e sa

id a

re fu

zzy-

like,

its n

ot re

ally

fixe

d. I

’m in

a p

lace

th

at sa

ys, h

ave

a lo

ok a

t the

capa

bilit

ies s

ide

of it

, you

’ve

got 8

00 p

eopl

e, y

ou’v

e go

t th

e pe

ople

that

you

’ve

got t

oday

, you

pla

n on

that

bas

is b

ut th

ere’

s – y

ou d

o a

mat

ch

agai

nst t

he p

rogr

amm

es, p

erha

ps la

bel t

he ca

pabi

lity

but b

y an

d la

rge,

you

’ve

got

wha

t you

’ve

got a

nd it

’s go

ing

to ch

ange

by

two

or th

ree,

four

hun

dred

peo

ple

is

wha

t we’

re sa

ying

toda

y.M

ike:!T

here

’s a

burd

en th

ere

behi

nd y

ou g

uys.

Brad

ley:!I’

m a

t the

sam

e pl

ace

as y

ou, t

hat p

roba

bly

the

only

diff

eren

ce I’

d m

ake

to th

at

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

AI’d

say,

we’

ve g

ot w

hat w

e’ve

got

toda

y at

Ade

laid

e, w

e’d

bette

r cat

er fo

r tha

t at

Ade

laid

e an

d w

e’d

bette

r loo

k to

gro

w a

dditi

onal

man

pow

er w

here

ver w

e ca

n in

Mel

bour

ne a

nd S

ydne

y [M

ultip

le sp

eake

rs in

terr

upt:

Yep]

Br

adle

y:!S

o bu

ild th

e fu

ckin

g bu

ildin

g. [

laug

hter

aro

und

the

room

]M

ike:! –

whi

ch is

whe

re I’

ve b

een

for t

he p

ast t

hree

or f

our y

ears

– [

mor

e la

ught

er]

– H

arris

kee

ps tr

ying

to ta

lk m

e ou

t of i

t – I

just

kee

p sa

ying

I do

n’t

belie

ve h

im.

Har

ris:!W

ell w

e, w

e ob

viou

sly

need

to d

o so

me

mor

e sc

enar

ios a

roun

d th

is b

ecau

se

this

as I

say

at th

e m

omen

t is s

how

ing

that

eve

n on

the

prob

able

scen

ario

whi

ch

incl

udes

the

10%

of a

dditi

onal

labo

ur a

cros

s all

proj

ects

, inc

lude

s Sin

gapo

re, t

hat

we'd

still

hav

e an

d le

t’s ju

st ta

ke 2

11 fo

r con

veni

ence

, 112

surp

lus s

pace

plu

s the

pote

ntia

l for

ano

ther

107

so th

at’s

220

odd

– ba

sed

on th

is.

Now

the

scen

ario

s tha

tw

e've

also

got

in th

e pa

ck, t

he co

st-b

ased

pac

k, w

e’ve

look

ed a

t MM

A, w

e lo

oked

at

at M

alay

sia

– ok

ay a

nd o

bvio

usly

they

– th

ey’re

not

in th

e pr

obab

le b

ecau

se I

thin

k yo

u w

ere

– W

ill:!W

ell w

hen

I sai

d I w

as d

odgy

abo

ut S

inga

pore

–H

arris

:! –

but y

ou’re

als

o ve

ry d

odgy

abo

ut M

MA

. [s

ever

al p

eopl

e ta

lk a

t the

sam

e tim

e]G

reg:! –

so y

ou’v

e go

t $60

mill

ion

in fi

ve y

ears

and

we’

re g

oing

to d

rop

300

peop

le

in th

e sa

me

time

fram

e /

Will

: !Ve

ry si

mpl

y /!

I jus

t thi

nk th

at th

at d

ata

–

Har

ris: !

– w

ell t

hen

– $6

0 m

illio

n is

$50

mill

ion

and

$30

of th

at in

crea

se is

task

ing

that

doe

sn’t

actu

ally

exi

st in

pro

ject

s – /

Gre

g: S

o –

/ it’

s flat

ther

e an

d th

at’s

assu

min

g th

at in

flatio

n’s g

oing

at 3

% p

er a

nnum

.G

reg:! –

so w

e’re

goi

ng to

dro

p to

that

– o

kay

say

we

are

at w

here

we

are

toda

y.

The

busi

ness

doe

sn’t

chan

ge in

the

next

five

yea

rs, w

e’re

goi

ng to

dro

p 30

0 pe

ople

. I

don’

t bel

ieve

it.

Brad

ley:!N

eith

er d

o I /

Gre

g: !/

I do

n’t b

elie

ve it

/Br

adle

y:!/

Whi

ch is

why

this

is g

oing

to e

nd u

p be

ing

a ju

dgm

ent.

It’s

goin

g to

end

up

–M

ike:!W

hat w

ould

be

the

qual

ity o

f the

acc

omm

odat

ion

if yo

u de

cide

d to

– th

e ot

her t

hing

you

’ve

got i

s tha

t Ade

laid

e si

te –

we’

ve g

ot a

who

le b

unch

of

peop

le in

the

Mai

n Bu

ildin

g, w

e’ve

got

a b

unch

of p

eopl

e in

sort

of h

alf d

ecen

t ac

com

mod

atio

ns so

mew

here

els

e, a

nd th

en y

ou st

art t

o re

furb

ish

very

old

bu

ildin

gs –

so w

e ca

n m

ove

the

peop

le fr

om th

e no

rth

to th

e so

uth

–A

dam

:!You

’ve

got t

o co

nsid

er th

e in

fras

truc

ture

that

com

es w

ith th

at, f

or e

xam

ple

the

smal

l caf

eter

ia th

at’s

used

on

the

sout

hern

side

is a

ppar

ently

wel

l util

ized

, so

we’

re

goin

g to

hav

e to

incr

ease

per

haps

the

size

of t

he ca

fete

ria o

n th

e no

rthe

rn si

de so

th

ere’

s ext

ra co

st, a

nd th

ere’

s pot

entia

lly a

dditi

onal

car p

arki

ng a

s wel

l bec

ause

we

can’

t all

park

on

the

road

, and

the

addi

tiona

l car

par

ks w

e ha

ve w

ill n

ot a

ccom

mod

ate

the

400

or w

hate

ver i

t is o

n th

e so

uthe

rn si

te, s

o th

ere’

s add

ition

al ca

r par

king

, ca

fete

ria in

fras

truc

ture

type

wor

k as

wel

l tha

t has

to b

e ac

com

mod

ated

if w

e go

for

build

ing

B, a

nd th

en if

you

to fo

r bui

ldin

g B

– /

Cha

rlie:

yea

h bu

t – /

I th

ink

and

my

view

is –

sor

ry C

harli

e –

to g

et o

ut o

f the

leas

ed b

uild

ings

– th

e m

ain

ones

, we’

ve g

ot

thos

e un

til 2

008,

so if

thes

e nu

mbe

rs a

re a

nyw

here

nea

r cor

rect

, by

the

time

we

get

out o

f tha

t by

the

end

of 2

008,

acc

ordi

ng to

thes

e pl

ans,

we

don’

t hav

e a

surp

lus o

n si

te.

Mik

e:!W

ell w

e do

, I m

ean

we

don’

t hav

e th

e su

rplu

s.C

harli

e: !I

don

’t be

lieve

it –

you

mak

e yo

ur d

ecis

ion

on w

hat i

t is.

Ada

m:!S

o he

re’s

the

deba

te.

You

mak

e th

e ca

ll no

w a

nd sa

y w

e w

ill, o

r do

you

go

base

d on

wha

t Har

ris’s

doin

g an

d w

hat I

’ve

been

par

t of w

hich

is tr

y to

bot

tom

this

up

and

find

out w

hat a

ctua

lly –

[sev

eral

peo

ple

spea

k at

onc

e] a

nd th

en y

ou m

ake

the

417418419420421422423424425426427428429430431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465466467468

Ade

cisi

on, a

re y

ou g

oing

to b

uild

on

Ade

laid

e an

d/or

Har

ris P

oint

, or d

o yo

u bu

ild in

Mel

born

e an

d/or

Syd

ney?

Br

adle

y:!I

thin

k, w

e’ve

got

wha

t we’

ve g

ot, w

e’ve

got

peo

ple

spre

ad a

ll ov

er th

e fu

ckin

g pl

ace

in re

ally

subs

tand

ard

oper

atin

g en

viro

nmen

ts, w

e’ve

got

a h

uge

chal

leng

e ar

ound

the

busi

ness

in te

rms o

f ret

entio

n –

we’

re n

ot g

oing

to a

ssis

t our

ca

use

on re

tent

ion

at a

ll w

ithou

t a h

alf d

ecen

t wor

king

env

ironm

ent t

hat f

acili

tate

s co

mm

unic

atio

n on

site

, whi

ch y

ou co

uld

say

is d

ysfu

nctio

nal a

t the

mom

ent –

soif

you

take

the

deci

sion

that

you

’re a

sust

aina

ble

busi

ness

, whi

ch I

don’

t thi

nk a

ny

of u

s dou

bt, i

s get

ont

o it

and

crea

te th

e en

viro

nmen

t tha

t’s a

ppro

pria

te a

nd g

oing

to

attr

act p

eopl

e an

d bu

ild th

e bu

ildin

g.

Ada

m:!I

f you

bui

ld th

e bu

ildin

g, th

at’s

fine,

then

we’

ll ta

lk a

bout

com

plet

ion

in 2

008,

w

e’ll

put u

p w

ith it

now

. / B

radl

ey: M

m h

mm

/ T

hat’s

righ

t. Bu

t the

pro

posa

l we’

ve

been

kno

ckin

g ro

und

is w

e pu

t all

the

func

tions

with

in th

at b

uild

ing.

And

then

you

le

ave

the

othe

r bui

ldin

gs a

s pro

ject

s, w

hich

you

can

flex

up o

r dow

n de

pend

ing

on w

hat t

he p

roje

ct si

ze is

and

wha

t you

nee

d, la

bs a

nd su

ch.

Brad

ley:!W

ell,

I thi

nk y

ou’v

e pr

esen

ted

a si

mpl

e ar

gum

ent.

/ A

dam

: We’

re n

ot ca

pabl

e of

– /

If I

can

arra

nge

it.

Ted:!T

he g

uys t

hat c

harg

e us

are

beg

inni

ng to

do

– /

Mik

e:!th

ey’re

bui

ldin

g so

met

hing

– [l

augh

ter]

I th

ink

thou

gh y

ou ca

n ha

rdly

– a

ll rig

ht, I

’ll p

roba

bly

wat

ch it

thro

ugh

ther

e. B

ut th

is b

usin

ess i

sn’t

goin

g to

get

any

sm

alle

r. /

Ada

m: N

o, n

o, I

thin

k –

fair

enou

gh, b

ut w

here

is th

e gr

owth

? /

/ M

ike:!T

here

will

be

som

e gr

owth

– b

ut w

e ha

ve so

me

capa

bilit

y in

Ade

laid

e. R

ight

? Fo

r exa

mpl

e, th

at b

usin

ess t

hat W

ill’s

desc

ribin

g, a

roun

d O

SPRE

Y Ph

ase

1 an

d Ph

ase

2, th

e sy

stem

s des

ign

capa

bilit

y is

in A

dela

ide,

and

that

’s w

here

we’

re

goin

g to

/ B

radl

ey: T

hat’s

righ

t/ h

ave

to k

eep

it.

Will

:!Wha

t has

n’t b

een

bake

d in

to IB

P is

clea

rly th

e su

stai

nmen

t of t

he g

roun

d su

ppor

t cap

abili

ty co

st-b

ase

supp

ort s

yste

ms,

and

OSP

REY

you

don’

t nee

d to

see

if if

it’s p

roje

ct-c

entr

ic, s

o, if

I lo

ok a

t wha

t’s th

ere

in th

e ca

pabi

litie

s, st

uff t

he g

uys

have

gon

e th

roug

h, id

entifi

ed a

ll th

e pr

ojec

ts th

at th

at w

ould

app

ly to

, so

they

’re w

ell

behi

nd th

e bu

sine

ss p

lann

ing

side

of t

hat.

If yo

u’re

look

ing

abou

t, if

we

belie

ve w

e co

uld

sust

ain

that

at 1

50 p

eopl

e m

ovin

g fo

rwar

d, th

en w

e’d

prob

ably

say

‘Wel

l,th

at's

the

way

to g

o’.

Har

ris:!W

hat a

re th

ey d

oing

thou

gh, i

f the

y ha

ven’

t ass

igne

d us

pro

ject

spec

s..?

Will

:!Wel

l, no

, the

y’ve

gon

e th

roug

h, so

rry,

the

BCP

and

they

’ve

iden

tified

eve

ry

sim

ulat

ion-

base

d pr

ojec

t tha

t’s in

ther

e, th

ey’v

e lo

oked

at w

ho th

e in

cum

bent

s are

, w

hat t

hey

thin

k th

ey ca

n pr

agm

atic

ally

win

, wha

t sor

t of b

ody

wou

ld d

o th

at, a

ll th

e de

tails

of t

his w

ould

be

in st

ep.

Har

ris:!I

s tha

t in

the

oppo

rtun

ity, t

hen,

if n

ot in

bot

h si

des?

Will

:!It’s

not

in th

e IB

P, /

Har

ris: B

ecau

se n

o /

beca

use

no o

ne h

as th

e re

spon

sibi

lity

of

putti

ng th

at in

to th

eir I

BP. I

’ve

done

the

wor

k an

d fu

nded

the

wor

k ar

ound

sim

ulat

ion

and

trai

ning

mis

sion

pla

nnin

g th

is y

ear,

as a

bac

kgro

und

activ

ity to

try

and

scop

e w

hat t

hat m

arke

t spa

ce is

, to

say

‘Do

we

inve

st o

r not

?’, j

ust t

o gr

ow th

at ca

pabi

lity.

Then

, wor

king

on

seei

ng so

met

hing

com

ing

out o

f tha

t say

s ‘ye

s, th

ere

is so

met

hing

th

ere’

.M

ike:!S

o in

my

head

is, i

s, th

e de

faul

t pos

ition

is 2

bui

ldin

gs, t

hen

if w

e ne

ed to

do

anyt

hing

els

e ar

ound

som

e of

this

oth

er st

uff t

o re

furb

ish,

we’

ll do

that

, but

let’s

get

th

e se

cond

bui

ldin

g.

Ada

m:!S

o w

hat w

ould

you

say

for t

he si

ze o

f the

Ade

laid

e si

te 8

00, 6

00

peop

le?

Mik

e:!S

ay, i

t’s g

oing

to b

e so

mew

here

ove

r 800

and

less

than

1100

.W

ill:!a

nd a

150

afte

r the

se n

umbe

rs w

ere

read

y.

469

470

471

472

473

474

475

476

477

478

479

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

507

508

509

510

511

512

513

514

515

516

517

518

519

520

AA

dam

:!Why

don

’t w

e, so

rt o

f, su

gges

t mak

ing

this

unm

ade,

and

giv

ing

grow

th in

[u

ncle

ar]?

Mik

e:!B

ecau

se th

e ca

pabi

lity’

s the

re, y

ou ca

n’t j

ust m

ake

it sm

alle

r!Br

adle

y:!It

’s ju

st n

ot se

nsib

le to

do

that

.M

ike:!Y

ou ju

st ca

n’t m

ake

this

smal

ler b

y w

antin

g to

put

it so

mew

here

els

ebe

caus

e it’

s sen

sibl

e. T

hing

is w

e sh

ould

be

grow

ing

ther

e –

his d

esig

nca

pabi

lity,

the

desi

gn ca

pabi

lity

arou

nd th

e FA

LCO

N tr

aini

ng a

ids b

usin

ess,

is a

ll in

Ade

laid

e A

dam

:!Han

g on

, we’

ve st

arte

d th

is –

OK

, fine

. We’

ve st

arte

d th

is co

nver

satio

n by

all

of u

s, I t

hink

, rec

ogni

zing

attr

ition

and

rete

ntio

n is

sues

we’

ve g

ot in

Ade

laid

e. A

nd

wha

t we

need

to d

o is

add

ress

that

. We’

re n

ow sa

ying

‘Wel

l, to

o ba

d, w

e ha

ve th

e pr

ojec

ts in

Ade

laid

e –

Mik

e:!N

o, n

o, w

hat I

’m sa

ying

is –

Rea

listic

ally

if y

ou’re

goi

ng to

gro

w th

e bu

sine

ss

you

need

mor

e pe

ople

in S

ydne

y, m

ore

peop

le in

– b

ut a

min

imum

of 8

00 o

r so

/ Br

adle

y: /

Cor

e ca

pabi

lity

/ in

Ade

laid

e.H

arris

:!Now

, Mik

e, ju

st o

n th

e 80

0, th

at is

the

spac

e w

e ha

ve n

ow, i

n th

e no

rth

site

. 80

6 –

Mik

e:!Y

eah,

but

they

’re a

ll cr

appy

, shi

tty b

uild

ings

!W

ill:!Y

es, a

gree

d, I

agre

e w

ith w

hat B

radl

ey sa

id. M

aybe

on

the

nort

h-w

est

envi

ronm

ent.

Mik

e:!Y

es.

Brad

ley:!C

reat

e th

e en

viro

nmen

t, w

hich

will

–M

ike:!L

ook

at b

uild

ing

70.

Is it

‘OK

’?

Will

:!Ins

ide

it’s n

ot b

ad –

Mik

e:!In

5 y

ears

’ tim

e w

ill 7

0 be

OK

?H

arris

:!Ok.

So

in m

y vi

ew, w

e m

ight

be

bein

g at

cros

s pur

pose

s her

e, A

dam

? Be

caus

e, w

hat w

e w

ere

talk

ing

abou

t is a

shor

tfall

and

a re

quire

men

t tha

t did

not

ap

pear

to b

e co

nvin

cing

for m

ovin

g ba

sed

on d

eman

d fr

om S

outh

side

mov

ing,

but w

hat y

ou’re

sayi

ng is

som

ethi

ng d

iffer

ent,

I thi

nk. Y

ou’re

sayi

ng ‘e

ven

thou

gh

you’

ve g

ot 8

06 w

orke

rs’ s

pace

s on

the

nort

h si

de, I

don

’t lik

e ha

lf th

ese

build

ings

, le

t’s g

et ri

d of

them

’. A

dam

:!Yea

h, H

arry

’s –

The

poin

t Har

ry’s

– Re

furb

ish

them

in, b

ecau

se th

ey’re

cr

appy

eve

n on

the

nort

h si

de.

Har

ris:!T

hat’s

wha

t –C

harli

e:!It

’s no

t qui

te a

s sim

ple

as th

at –

Har

ris:!W

e’ve

refu

rbis

hed

2 of

them

alre

ady.

Cha

rlie:!G

uys,

if w

e co

uld

look

at C

4 to

the

Mai

n bu

ildin

g, ri

ght?

Wha

t we’

re sa

ying

is

Mai

n bu

ildin

g, th

ere’

s goi

ng to

be

anot

her r

educ

tion

in st

aff,

beca

use

OSP

REY’

s go

ing

to co

ntin

ue a

nd O

SPRE

Y ba

sica

lly o

ccup

ies m

ost o

f it.

And

64/

65, u

nles

s Mik

e’s

mov

ing

out t

o m

anuf

actu

ring,

they

’re g

oing

to b

e pr

etty

muc

h th

e sa

me.

I do

n’t k

now

if

you

wan

t to

mov

e up

to m

anuf

actu

ring,

but

I m

ean

that

’s../

Har

ris:

– as

sum

ed in

her

e.

/ I w

as lo

okin

g –

So th

at b

uild

ing’

s ful

l. 70

’s fu

ll w

ith O

SPRE

Y –

PEA

CE

EAG

LE.

I wan

t to

fill u

p 71

with

Pau

l and

the

peop

le fr

om A

vion

ics /

Will

: Yea

h /

from

11

4, th

ey’re

in th

e 71

, and

mak

e th

em 7

0-71

, ‘Av

ioni

cs ca

pabi

lity’

, and

not

hing

els

e.

Will

:!You

got

a P

orta

cabi

n th

ere.

Cha

rlie:!A

nd y

ou g

ot a

Por

taca

bin

ther

e. S

o th

at’s

– W

here

’s al

l the

oth

er p

eopl

e go

ing

to g

o?H

arris

:!Yea

h. It

’s fin

e sa

ying

‘OSP

REY’

s ful

l’, C

harli

e, b

ut I’

m w

orki

ng o

n th

ese

num

bers

, whi

ch w

e’ve

bee

n ar

ound

3 ti

mes

, whi

ch sa

y 25

0 do

wn

to 1

8. S

o yo

u’re

go

ing

to h

ave

to co

me

back

with

ano

ther

set o

f num

bers

whi

ch sa

y yo

u’ve

look

ed a

t th

e si

mul

atio

n an

d tr

aini

ng, a

nd y

ou’re

now

sign

ing

up to

som

e di

ffere

nt n

umbe

rs.

Will

:!If w

e ta

ke st

ock

of th

at’s

wha

t - w

here

’s th

e bu

sine

ss g

oing

to d

o, a

nd w

e ba

ke

521522523524525526527528529530531532533534535536537538539540541542543544545546547548549550551552553554555556557558559560561562563564565566567568569570571572

Ait

into

that

IBP,

then

yes

, the

task

that

I w

as g

iven

– th

e qu

estio

ns I

wan

t ans

wer

ed

abou

t ‘(a

) he

does

n’t s

ee S

inga

pore

in th

at’ I

did

n’t k

now

who

has

the

sim

ulat

ion,

tryi

ng

to g

et th

ose

sim

ulat

ion

and

trai

ning

que

stio

ns so

soon

abo

ut O

SPRE

Y Ph

ase

1,

beca

use

I tho

ught

‘tha

t’s b

usin

ess p

roje

ct’.

Not

yet

as I

A –

Brad

ley:!G

oing

to H

arris

’s po

int,

thou

gh, w

hich

is, i

n te

rms o

f arg

uing

case

, it’s

a v

alid

po

int o

f arg

umen

t to

say

‘Loo

k, w

e w

ish

to su

stai

n a

core

capa

bilit

y –

you

know

, lik

e A

dela

ide.

In o

rder

to d

o th

at, w

e ha

ve to

crea

te th

e ap

prop

riate

env

ironm

ent.

That

app

ropr

iate

env

ironm

ent’s

goi

ng to

be

cons

truc

ted

as fo

llow

s:’ T

hat r

equi

res a

bi

t of b

uild

ing.

Now

, you

can

unde

rpin

that

: you

’ve

got t

he IB

P, w

hich

says

that

w

e’ve

got

bus

ines

s vol

umes

and

pro

fitab

ility

whi

ch su

ppor

t tha

t inv

isib

le ca

se in

the

broa

d...

/ W

ill: y

ep /

... a

nd o

ur p

ositi

on a

s a b

usin

ess i

s we

don’

t exp

ect t

he n

umbe

rsto

dim

inis

h in

our

/ W

ill: y

ep /

But

whe

re w

e ca

n gr

ow, o

ur m

anpo

wer

in M

elbo

urne

and

Sydn

ey, w

e w

ill d

o th

at.

Will

:!Wel

l, to

me

it’s a

lso

to m

ap th

e ca

pabi

lity

cont

rain

ts th

at w

e’ve

iden

tified

to

site

s. A

nd th

en y

ou sa

y ‘H

ow b

ig is

that

capa

bilit

y, w

ill th

ey n

ow b

ecom

e th

e ce

ntre

of e

xcel

lenc

e?’,

/ B

radl

ey: l

ike

that

/ so

pro

ject

s will

run

acro

ss si

tes.

Mik

e:!P

art o

f tha

t, I j

ust –

eve

n if

this

get

s dow

n to

800

. I w

ant 8

00 p

eopl

e ac

com

mod

ated

in m

oder

n, g

ood

build

ings

. Rat

her t

han

spen

ding

a p

ile o

f mon

ey

refu

rbis

hing

, you

kno

w, W

orld

War

2 b

lood

y bu

ildin

gs!

Ada

m:!Y

eah.

Will

:!Agr

eed.

Har

ris:!W

e’ve

alm

ost r

un o

ut o

f bui

ldin

gs to

refu

rbis

h [la

ught

er],

beca

use

we’

ve d

one

118

– [la

ught

er] T

hat l

eave

s, so

rt o

f, 70

and

71

effe

ctiv

ely.

Mik

e:!W

ell,

we’

ve d

one

70.

Har

ris:!W

e’ve

don

e 70

?W

ill:!W

ell,

70, t

he in

side

s of t

he b

uild

ing

are

clea

n. N

ot b

ad!

Har

ris:!W

ell,

that

wou

ld b

e –

Ada

m:!7

1 –

the

supp

ort b

uild

ing

open

ing

is C

1 –

Site

faci

litie

s and

wha

t hav

e w

e –

that

’s al

l. /

Har

ris: O

K. /

We

have

to lo

ok a

t exp

andi

ng th

e ca

fete

ria in

som

e w

ay,

and

addi

tiona

l car

par

king

, tow

ards

the

–M

ike:!I

don’

t see

how

we

don’

t nee

d an

othe

r bui

ldin

g.W

ill:!W

e ne

ed in

side

toile

ts.

Ada

m:!W

hat’s

the

purp

ose

of th

e la

rger

bui

ldin

g, b

uild

ing

44?

Har

ris:!T

he tr

aini

ng a

ids.

Ada

m:!W

ill th

at a

lway

s be

the

case

? Will

you

be

plan

ning

for a

ny re

duct

ion

in

that

?H

arris

:!Ah,

wel

l – A

h, so

you

don

’t pl

ace

– A

h, y

ou’re

talk

ing

abou

t – th

at’s

wha

t yo

u’re

talk

ing

abou

t –A

dam

:!Tha

t’s w

hat I

’m ta

lkin

g ab

out.

Ted:!Y

eah,

it’s

got t

he h

eigh

t for

this

env

ironm

ent..

Ada

m:!Y

eah,

he’

s –C

harli

e:!T

hat’s

wha

t I th

ough

t it i

s, fo

r lab

for p

eopl

e in

MSS

–A

dam

:!Yea

h, th

at m

akes

sens

e.W

ill:!Y

ou k

now

, bui

ldin

g 59

you

just

wan

t it d

emol

ishe

d, so

–M

ike:!W

e’re

just

– fr

iggi

ng ta

lkin

g ou

rsel

ves o

ut o

f bui

ldin

g a

build

ing

and

it se

ems

clea

r to

me

that

we

need

it. T

hat’s

mak

ing

the

assu

mpt

ion

abou

t OSP

REY

that

you

hav

en’t

been

abl

e to

mak

e.H

arris

:!Wel

l, no

, I m

ean,

my

actio

ns I’

ve g

ot d

own

in te

rms o

f hea

dcou

nt is

– a

nd

thes

e I’m

ass

umin

g yo

u gu

ys a

re g

oing

to co

me

back

with

new

hea

dcou

nt fi

gure

s on

OSP

REY,

Sin

gapo

re in

clud

ing

the

loca

tion,

OSP

REY

– I’l

l cal

l it R

ED R

OO

M,

but w

hate

ver w

e w

ant t

o ca

ll it,

OSP

REY

exte

nsio

n –

and

this

sim

ulat

ion

and

trai

ning

capa

bilit

y yo

u w

ere

talk

ing

abou

t.

573

574

575

576

577

578

579

580

581

582

583

584

585

586

587

588

589

590

591

592

593

594

595

596

597

598

599

600

601

602

603

604

605

606

607

608

609

610

611

612

613

614

615

616

617

618

619

620

621

622

623

624

AW

ill:!T

here

’s 2

capa

bilit

ies,

Sim

ulat

ion

and

Trai

ning

and

Mis

sion

Pla

nnin

g. T

hose

tw

o ca

pabi

litie

s hav

e be

en a

war

ded

and

are

bein

g do

ne th

is y

ear.

Har

ris:!S

o m

issi

on p

lann

ing?

Will

:!So

real

ly, t

here

’s to

be

LG a

nd A

S.M

ike:!I’

m n

ot p

ayin

g to

MM

A. O

SPRE

Y fle

et p

hase

one

or t

wo.

Har

ris:!S

o w

e, so

rt o

f, ne

ed th

ose

ones

dow

n in

term

s of w

hat’s

bas

elin

e an

d w

hat’s

ef

fect

ivel

y op

port

unity

? And

we’

ve d

ecid

ed th

at’s

a sc

enar

io sh

eet I

’ll co

me

to

whe

n w

e ge

t to

the

end

of th

is p

rese

ntat

ion.

[lau

ghte

r] A

nd th

e ot

her –

Will

:!And

then

[unc

lear

] the

end

of t

he y

ear!

Har

ris:!W

ell,

the

end

of th

e ye

ar’s

prob

ably

a b

it la

te, g

iven

/ W

ill: a

nd so

/ [l

augh

ter]

A

nd th

e ot

her a

rea

that

we

have

n’t a

ctua

lly d

iscu

ssed

yet

, in

term

s of b

uild

ing,

is th

e op

tions

. Lan

d, I

mea

n K

ESTR

EL p

roba

bly

does

n’t a

ffect

it –

you

kno

w, t

here

mig

ht b

e so

me

mor

e th

roug

hput

goi

ng th

roug

h Bu

ildin

g 70

.Te

d:!I

mea

n, L

and’

s mig

ht g

et fa

cilit

ies t

hrou

gh a

cqui

sitio

n, o

r mig

ht n

eed

a ne

w

build

ing

som

ewhe

re? /

Har

ris: a

nd th

e /

The

cost

s of t

hat w

ould

be

cove

red

off i

n ru

nnin

g th

e bu

sine

ss –

Brad

ley:!T

he th

ing

abou

t thi

s situ

atio

n is

that

it’s

not g

oing

to b

e am

enab

le to

pre

cise

ar

ticul

atio

n of

the

supp

ort p

ositi

on, o

ur ju

dgm

ent –

H

arris

:!No,

no.

wha

t I’m

tryi

ng to

do,

Bra

dley

, is t

here

’s a

num

ber o

f sce

nario

s we’

re

mod

elin

g, a

nd w

hat I

’m su

gges

ting

is th

at if

ther

e is

any

thin

g in

the

land

opt

ion

/Bra

dley

: Ye

ah/,

I’m

just

thin

king

abo

ut th

e di

scus

sion

we

had

befo

re lu

nch

arou

nd th

e 4

optio

ns. I

t’s n

ot im

med

iate

ly o

bvio

us to

me

that

ther

e’ll

be a

ny sp

ace

requ

irem

ent

issu

es, h

eads

in /

Mik

e: In

Ade

laid

e /

in A

dela

ide.

Mik

e:!a

nd I

wou

ld a

gree

with

that

. I th

ink

it is

still

– I

actu

ally

spok

e to

som

eone

in

the

Land

bus

ines

s in

Mel

bour

ne -

that

’s w

hat,

for a

ny ty

pe o

f hea

dqua

rter

act

ivity

, th

at’s

whe

re th

e Arm

y is

– o

r on

the

base

s, w

hich

is w

here

they

wan

t to

fix th

eir

vehi

cles

, or m

aint

ain

thei

r veh

icle

s.Te

d:!L

and

and

Mel

bour

ne is

, sor

t of,

go to

geth

er.

Mik

e:!S

o w

e’ll

cert

ainl

y di

rect

that

act

ivity

tow

ards

Mel

bour

ne a

s bes

t you

coul

d...

Har

ris:!S

o yo

u go

t all

thos

e, A

dam

, in

term

s of 5

or 6

cate

gorie

s for

the

actio

n m

inut

es?

Ada

m:!T

he O

SPRE

Y –

OSP

REY

exte

nsio

n –

sim

ulat

ed O

SPRE

Y m

issi

on –

plan

ning

.H

arris

:!Yea

h, in

term

s of r

emod

elin

g th

ose.

Ada

m:!R

emod

el th

ose.

Har

ris:!A

nd th

e ot

her a

rea,

Cha

rlie,

that

wen

t dow

n, is

in th

is fo

rwar

d-lo

oker

s. Is

FA

P fr

om 1

62 a

t the

end

of t

his y

ear t

o 97

at t

he e

nd o

f the

per

iod,

and

, you

kno

w, t

he

bigg

est r

educ

tion

ther

e’s o

bvio

usly

aro

und

FALC

ON

. FA

LCO

N 5

416’

s, C

130J

, and

ba

sica

lly a

ll yo

u’ve

got

goi

ng a

t the

end

of t

hat p

erio

d in

you

r hea

dcou

nt is

, you

kn

ow, A

vion

ics o

ther

, Com

ms o

ther

, effe

ctiv

ely,

and

–Te

d:!W

ith 2

0 m

illio

n I’m

not

surp

rised

.H

arris

:!No,

no,

it’s

not a

criti

cism

, I’m

just

sayi

ng th

at th

ose

are

the

ones

that

are

, sor

t of

, rem

aini

ng. Y

ou’v

e ob

viou

sly

seen

the

redu

ctio

n in

FA

LCO

N p

roje

ct.

Cha

rlie:!Y

es, t

he b

ig q

uant

ity n

umbe

rs a

re th

ere

/Har

ris:!Y

ep /

The

y’re

into

Nav

al, a

nd

have

to b

e qu

antifi

ed.

Har

ris:!Y

eah.

Gre

g:!D

id y

ou so

rt o

f see

20/

48, t

hat’s

the

num

ber.

You’

d se

e ot

her A

vion

ics,

FALC

ON

W

arfa

re D

estro

yer,

prog

ram

s – fa

ctor

ed in

that

can

pote

ntia

lly –

Cha

rlie:!Y

eah.

But

I’m

not

sure

that

it w

ill b

e as

big

as –

It w

on’t

be a

s big

as F

ALC

ON

.W

ill:!P

roba

bly

not,

but –

It’s

a st

andi

ng ca

pabi

lity.

Cha

rlie:!Y

eah,

you

’re st

ill g

oing

with

it –

Will

:!But

hea

ding

out

tow

ards

thos

e LE

Us f

or A

vion

ics,

you’

d ex

pect

that

ther

e m

ight

625626627628629630631632633634635636637638639640641642643644645646647648649650651652653654655656657658659660661662663664665666667668669670671672673674675676

Abe

som

ethi

ng o

n th

e au

tono

mou

s – /

PM

C a

nd o

ther

s spe

ak o

ver /

– P

hase

1,

and

MM

A re

plac

ed a

t rou

ndin

g up

, so

you’

re p

roba

bly

– be

a ch

unk

ther

e w

hich

is n

ot b

aked

into

IBP

–H

arris

:!Wel

l, m

aybe

ther

e’s a

scen

ario

, giv

en w

hat w

e w

ere

talk

ing

abou

t thi

s m

orni

ng, a

bout

the

oppo

rtun

ities

aro

und

orde

rs a

nd sa

les t

hat a

ren’

t in

the

plan

, m

aybe

we

shou

ld ta

ke a

vie

w o

n th

ose,

may

be w

e sh

ould

take

20%

, let

’s as

sum

e, fo

r he

adco

unt p

lann

ing

purp

oses

, tha

t we

get 2

0% o

f tho

se a

nd tu

rn th

at in

to h

eads

, jus

t as

ano

ther

scen

ario

. You

kno

w li

ke –

/ A

dam

:!In

Ade

laid

e? /

Um

m /

Ada

m: A

ssum

ing

in

Ade

laid

e?/

Wel

l, a

perc

enta

ge. W

ell,

as y

ou sa

y, w

hat w

ould

it b

e.. W

hat w

ould

that

tr

ansl

ate

to if

it w

as 1

0% in

Ade

laid

e, o

r 20%

in A

dela

ide,

add

ed to

our

scen

ario

sh

eet?

So

I’m h

appy

to g

o th

roug

h al

l of t

his s

tuff,

(and

) tur

n it

into

a sh

ort-f

all e

xces

s m

odel

, and

als

o ta

king

on

boar

d M

ike’

s poi

nt, A

dam

, whi

ch w

as a

roun

d th

e re

furb

ishi

ng, o

r non

-ref

urbi

shin

g, o

f som

e of

the

nort

h si

te b

uild

ings

, bec

ause

ob

viou

sly

that

effe

ctiv

ely

mea

ns th

at th

e 80

6 us

able

spac

e w

e ha

ve to

day

is n

ot a

ll us

able

spac

e in

the

sens

e th

at so

me

of th

at sp

ace

is n

ot a

ccep

tabl

e sp

ace.

Ada

m:!Y

ep.

Har

ris:!W

hich

is a

noth

er fa

ctor

we

have

n’t b

roug

ht in

to th

is a

t the

mom

ent.

Will

:!Wha

t are

you

r pro

gram

s tha

t you

’re g

oing

to h

ave?

You

’re g

oing

to h

ave

to

allo

w so

me

sort

of l

ab sp

ace

as w

ell.

This

mig

ht a

dd fl

oor s

pace

, but

may

be th

ere’

sth

ere's

a p

erce

ntag

e pe

r per

son

that

you

’ve

got t

o ad

d on

from

that

spac

e.H

arris

:!Yea

h. It

’s ag

reed

. And

that

was

one

of t

he k

ey a

ssum

ptio

ns o

f you

r rep

ort.

Will

:!So

that

has

bee

n ad

ded

on, h

asn’

t it?

Har

ris:!N

o, th

at’s

one

of th

e as

sum

ptio

ns th

at sa

id, ‘

No,

we’

ve o

nly

used

stan

dard

sq

uare

foot

per

per

son,

we

have

n’t a

llow

ed th

ose

sort

s of t

hing

s’. B

ecau

se th

at

real

ly re

quire

s Sco

tt’s i

nput

.Te

d:!H

ow m

any

peop

le ca

n fit

into

the

Mai

n Bu

ildin

g?H

arris

:!230

, it’s

225

at t

he m

omen

t, bu

t the

capa

city

is 2

30 a

s cur

rent

ly co

nfigu

red,

bu

t I d

on’t

thin

k th

ere’

s any

arg

umen

t tha

t say

s we

coul

dn’t

get i

t in

a de

cent

...

[sev

eral

talk

] You

kno

w, i

f you

take

it –

Ada

m:!3

00...

Tak

e th

e O

SPRE

Y ou

t –M

ike:!N

ow, p

rovi

ding

that

...

Brad

ley:!L

ook

at th

is b

uild

ing.

[gro

up o

pens

pla

n of

bui

ldin

g]A

dam

:!All

right

, I w

on’t

get i

nto

that

in th

is p

rese

ntat

ion,

we’

ve g

ot tw

o op

tions

, bu

ild n

ow o

r def

er –

so...

Will

:!Are

we

allo

win

g fo

r thi

ngs l

ike

child

care

faci

litie

s and

thin

gs li

ke th

at? S

houl

d w

e be

thin

king

abo

ut th

ings

like

that

as o

ptio

nal?

Mik

e:!Y

ou’re

not

goi

ng to

hav

e us

all

– pu

t our

child

ren

in th

ere.

.. [p

oint

s at t

he

WW

II bu

ildin

gs –

follo

wed

by

laug

hter

]W

ill:!I

f we’

re lo

okin

g at

rete

ntio

n an

d th

ings

like

that

–A

dam

:!We

are

look

ing

at..

Mik

e:! –

put

them

in th

at a

sbes

tos r

oofe

d bu

ildin

g w

ith a

– [l

augh

ter]

Ada

m:!

– gi

ve th

em ch

alk

to w

rite

on th

e flo

or –

[mor

e la

ught

er]

– no

t in

Ade

laid

e, [j

okin

g by

seve

ral]

but w

e an

d ot

her e

mpl

oyer

s will

go

for a

ch

ildca

re ce

ntre

, but

not

on

our s

ite. W

e’ll

buy

plac

es in

a ch

ildca

re ce

ntre

clos

e by

– b

ut I

have

n’t a

llow

ed fo

r on-

site

.W

ill:!W

e co

uld

fix m

otel

faci

litie

s for

all

the

trav

eler

s and

late

nig

ht se

rvic

e st

aff?

Ted:!O

n th

e rig

ht-h

and

side

and

– so

why

wou

ld y

ou g

et ri

d of

that

car p

ark,

now

, so

the

stor

es w

ould

be

mov

ed?

Ada

m:!W

e’ll

have

to re

thin

k th

at.

Will

:!Nex

t to

the

gym

.M

ike:!O

n th

e ro

of o

f the

Por

taca

bin!

677

678

679

680

681

682

A[h

umor

ous c

omm

ents

& la

ughs

]M

ike:!A

ll rig

ht? N

ext,

next

, we’

ll w

ork

on th

e /

/ H

arris

:!Do

you

wan

t to

just

stic

k w

ith th

is h

eadc

ount

thin

g, b

y fa

r //

Ada

m:!D

o yo

u w

ant t

o go

–H

arris

:!Sor

ry, t

hey

go in

reve

rse

orde

r her

e, D

ave.

[shu

fflin

g pa

pers

for n

ext s

tage

of m

eetin

g]

Appendix BThe April Episode

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52

AM

ike:

!Alri

ght t

hen.

Can

we

have

a –

can

we

just

– A

vion

ics.

Can

we

talk

abo

ut A

vion

ics?

Will

:!Yep

.La

rry:!O

K.

Do

you

wan

t me

to ..

. M

ike:

!Yea

h [ta

lkin

g to

geth

er, l

augh

ter]

.La

rry:!U

m –

wel

l – p

erha

ps, m

y co

mm

ents

will

be

arou

nd re

sour

ces

/ M

ike:

Res

ourc

ing?

/ra

ther

than

the

tech

nica

l iss

ues,

whi

ch is

a se

para

te b

ut re

late

d is

sue.

So

I’ll a

ddre

ss th

e re

sour

ce is

sue

–C

harli

e:!A

re y

ou g

oing

to h

ave

a m

eetin

g w

ith u

s and

then

a m

eetin

g w

ith G

eral

d?La

rry:!O

K, t

hat m

ight

be

the

bette

r way

to d

o it.

Get

the

big

pict

ure

first

and

then

dr

ill d

own

into

it.

[talk

ing

toge

ther

, lau

ghte

r, jo

king

]M

ike:

!A

lrigh

t, kn

ock

your

self

out t

here

.A

dam

:!We

got t

he p

roce

ss ri

ght.

Cha

rlie:

![in

dist

inct

]M

ike:

!G

o ah

ead.

Cha

rlie:!W

e go

t Ian

to b

rief J

osse

y an

d G

eral

d on

it la

st T

hurs

day.

The

brie

f, th

e te

chni

cal b

rief w

as d

one

by B

ill T

hom

son

and

Sara

h M

ilne,

whe

re th

ey w

ent t

hrou

gh

spec

item

s on

the

OSP

REY

tech

nica

l iss

ues w

ith a

nd w

heth

er th

ey d

id o

r did

n’t fl

ow

into

PER

EGRI

NE.

Som

e of

them

act

ually

did

n’t fl

ow d

own

at a

ll, so

they

wer

e no

t an

issu

e. T

he b

otto

m li

ne w

as th

at th

ere

wer

e no

show

stop

pers

flow

ing

dow

n fr

om

OSP

REY

Avio

nics

tech

nica

lly th

at w

ould

giv

e yo

u en

ough

– co

ncer

n th

at y

ou w

ould

n’t

sign

a co

ntra

ct. T

he v

oice

ove

r fro

m F

arad

was

that

ass

embl

y sh

ould

n’t b

e a

wor

ry

and

solu

tions

com

ing

up a

nd th

ey’re

just

par

t of t

he n

orm

al e

ngin

eerin

g pr

oces

s.

Ther

e w

as n

o re

al m

ajor

issu

es. T

he g

uys f

rom

OSP

REY

Avio

nics

, the

RA

AF

guys

–

Dav

id –

hel

p m

e ou

t Will

. Dav

id –

Will

: U

h. S

am D

onal

dson

, the

Win

g C

omm

ande

r.

Cha

rlie:!A

nd D

avid

som

ebod

y?W

ill: !D

avid

John

s, th

e tr

ansp

ort a

nd la

nd –

Cha

rlie:!T

hey

all n

odde

d –

ther

e w

as a

gen

eral

agr

eem

ent t

hat n

o re

al te

chni

cal i

ssue

s th

at w

ould

stop

PER

EGRI

NE

from

sign

ing

the

cont

ract

. So

then

whe

n w

e w

ere

talk

ing

to

the

reso

urci

ng is

sues

, and

whe

n w

e to

ok th

em th

roug

h th

at, t

he e

nd re

sult

of th

at w

as th

at

we

coul

d do

a a

lette

r tha

t was

bas

ical

ly a

voi

ceov

er o

f Lar

ry’s

pres

enta

tion

and

mat

eria

l, he

’ll w

alk

you

thro

ugh.

At t

he e

nd, G

eral

d D

anie

ls a

sked

the

OSP

REY

guys

if

they

coul

d co

mm

ent t

hat t

hey

don’

t hav

e a

sche

dule

or t

he re

sour

ces.

The

y sa

id,

“we

can’

t com

men

t on

any

impa

ct.”

Ger

ald

still

wan

ts to

get

the

cont

ract

sign

ed, t

hat’s

th

e pe

rcep

tion

that

I ha

d at

that

mee

ting.

So

once

we’

ve g

ot th

e PE

REG

RIN

E co

ntra

ct

sign

ed, l

ike

as so

on a

s pos

sibl

e, th

e on

ly b

it w

ould

be

wha

teve

r fee

dbac

k he

get

s has

to

spec

from

Lea

ndro

if it

goe

s tha

t far

, on

thei

r ava

ilabi

lity

of th

e O

SPRE

Y re

sour

ces.

And

th

at w

as m

y su

mm

ary

– La

rry?

Larr

y: !

Yeah

. Yea

h. W

hat I

wen

t thr

ough

was

the

one-

page

sum

mar

y th

at I

thin

k –

at

leas

t all

the

stak

ehol

der g

roup

saw

last

Thu

rsda

y. Th

e im

med

iate

com

men

t on

the

– uh

– th

ose

in th

e tr

ansi

tion

plan

was

– o

n th

e na

mes

in th

e tr

ansi

tion

plan

was

from

th

e O

SPRE

Y gu

ys, s

aid:

“he

y th

ese

are

the

guys

that

we

deal

with

on

an a

lmos

t dai

ly

basi

s, on

the

tech

nica

l iss

ues.”

So

obvi

ousl

y th

ey w

ere

criti

cal,

they

wer

e re

gard

ed a

s cr

itica

l, fo

r OSP

REY.

Or a

t lea

st h

ighl

y vi

sibl

e an

yway

in te

rms o

f OSP

REY,

and

I th

ink

if an

ythi

ng w

as to

stop

us,

stop

the

sign

ing

of th

e co

ntra

ct n

ow, i

t wou

ld b

e by

O

SPRE

Y an

d no

t by

PERE

GRI

NE.

Tha

t is,

if Ri

ck L

eand

ro g

ot re

ally

ner

vous

abo

ut se

eing

–or

the

perc

eptio

n of

losi

ng ca

pabi

lity

thro

ugh

the

reso

urce

tran

sitio

n pl

anni

ng p

roce

ss.

Beca

use

wha

t we

wer

e ca

refu

l to

say

was

that

we

are

tran

sitio

n ca

pabi

lity,

and

in

som

e ca

ses i

t mig

ht b

e on

e-fo

r-on

e w

ith th

e pe

ople

on

the

list a

nd in

oth

er ca

ses i

t m

ight

be

thro

ugh

mul

tiple

peo

ple

and

com

bina

tions

of p

eopl

e. B

ut th

e ca

pabi

lity

– w

hat w

e’re

man

agin

g –

was

the

capa

bilit

y of

thos

e pe

ople

on

that

list

. Um

m, u

hh –

53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100

101

102

103

104

ABr

adle

y:!M

y re

ad w

ould

be

that

he

wou

ld b

e ve

ry u

nlik

ely

to d

o th

at. T

hey

wou

ld b

e ve

ry li

kely

to te

st o

ur re

sour

ce le

vel o

n th

e pr

ogra

m.

Larr

y:!R

ick

Lean

dro?

Brad

ley:!H

e w

ould

be

very

unl

ikel

y to

reac

h ac

ross

into

PER

EGRI

NE

and

stop

– in

terf

ere

with

that

cont

ract

exe

cutio

n.W

ill:!W

hy d

o yo

u sa

y th

at, B

radl

ey?

Brad

ley:

!Bec

ause

to d

o th

at, h

e w

ould

be

real

ly e

xerc

isin

g so

me

Com

mon

wea

lth

man

agem

ent p

rero

gativ

e ov

er th

e de

ploy

men

t of o

ur re

sour

ces.

I th

ink

he’d

be

very

relu

ctan

t to

do th

at /

Cha

rlie:

[ind

istin

ct] /

I th

ink

he w

ill te

st o

ur a

bilit

y to

reso

urce

OSP

REY.

And

I w

ould

exp

ect t

he te

st to

be

early

, but

I w

ould

exp

ect

it th

is sp

ring.

It w

ould

be

very

out

of c

hara

cter

for a

two-

star

to re

ach

out i

nto

our p

rogr

amm

e an

d in

terf

ere.

Cha

rlie:!S

o yo

u ha

ven’

t ans

wer

ed th

e qu

estio

n. S

o if

Ger

ald

[indi

stin

ct] –

Brad

ley:!I

thin

k th

e an

swer

will

ulti

mat

ely

be, i

t’s g

ot to

be

left

to D

SI to

[too

qu

iet].

I th

ink

if w

e ha

ve m

ade

a po

int t

hat w

e ha

ve a

man

agem

ent s

trat

egy,

and

we

are

conv

ince

d th

at w

e ha

ve th

e re

sour

ces t

o m

eet t

he o

blig

atio

ns to

bot

h co

ntra

cts,

that

they

wou

ld st

rugg

le to

tell

us w

e co

uldn

’t do

it.

Ada

m:!S

o if

we

conv

ince

them

by

sayi

ng th

at w

e’ve

got

the

capa

bilit

y an

d so

on,

th

at’s

OK

, rat

her t

han

a re

sour

ce p

lan

with

nam

es o

n a

list,

of p

eopl

e w

e’re

goi

ng to

–C

harli

e:!D

id w

e gi

ve th

em n

ames

? /

Brad

ley:

I di

dn't

say

that

/ L

arry

: Yea

h [ta

lkin

g to

geth

er]

Ada

m:!I

t doe

sn’t

soun

d lik

e it’

s con

ditio

nal i

n te

rms o

f the

cont

ract

sign

ing,

is it

? /

Brad

ley:

!Yea

h/

Larr

y:!W

ell,

we’

re ta

lkin

g ab

out t

wo

diffe

rent

cont

ract

s her

e. /

Bra

dley

: Yea

h ye

ah. /

O

SPRE

Y, th

e re

sour

ced

prog

ram

won

’t be

ava

ilabl

e –

the

upda

ted,

the

amen

ded

one

until

the

end

of A

pril.

Rig

ht?

So a

s far

as P

EREG

RIN

E is

conc

erne

d, th

at’s

too

late

in o

rder

to m

ake

a de

cisi

on in

the

curr

ent g

ate,

curr

ent w

indo

w a

nyw

ay.

Brad

ley:

!He’

s got

now

here

to g

o. I

f he

says

– if

Ric

k sa

ys “

I don

’t be

lieve

you

can

exec

ute

the

PERE

GRI

NE,

ther

efor

e m

y re

com

men

datio

n is

to n

ot si

gn th

at co

ntra

ct...

” an

d w

e’re

in a

pos

ition

of s

ayin

g “w

ell,

we

belie

ve w

e ca

n ex

ecut

e it.

We’

ve g

otth

e ap

prop

riate

reso

urci

ng.”

Tha

t is a

n ex

trem

ely

diffi

cult

posi

tion.

Will

:!Whe

re R

ick

keep

s on

com

ing

from

, tho

ugh,

is th

at th

ere

is n

o fir

m p

lan

to

TRI y

et a

nd h

ence

it's

bedd

ed d

own

in th

e re

sour

ce q

uest

ion

is g

oing

to h

ave

a qu

estio

n m

ark

agai

nst i

t, w

hich

I th

ink

is w

hat h

is p

eopl

e sa

id, f

rom

wha

t I

unde

rsta

nd, w

ith y

ou o

n Th

ursd

ay a

s wel

l.Br

adle

y:!W

hich

is a

pos

ition

he

can

take

. / C

harli

e: Y

eah

but /

He

can

say

“I a

m v

ery

wor

ried

abou

t you

r res

ourc

es.”

W

ill:!A

nd so

he’

s con

cern

ed a

bout

the

Com

mon

wea

lth u

nder

taki

ng a

n ad

ditio

nal

prog

ram

me

with

us,

whi

ch co

uld

caus

e th

at to

be

prob

lem

atic

. M

ike:

!I se

e th

at, b

ut it

’s no

t his

call.

PER

EGRI

NE

is n

ot h

is ca

ll. H

e ca

n ha

ve a

vie

w, a

nd h

e ca

n te

st it

. But

our

– p

resu

mab

ly o

ur co

nten

tion

is st

ill th

at –

with

the

four

mon

th

grac

e –

/ C

harli

e: [i

ndis

tinct

] / W

ith a

four

mon

th co

ntra

ct e

xten

sion

, we

can

back

fill,

to

shad

ow e

noug

h re

sour

ces i

nto

this

to co

ver –

to m

ake

sure

that

bot

h pr

ogra

ms a

re

adeq

uate

ly re

sour

ced.

Larr

y: !T

he a

nsw

er to

that

in m

y vi

ew is

yes

, but

we

will

nee

d to

man

age

the

capa

bilit

y, I t

hink

, as a

com

bine

d or

a co

nsol

idat

ed ca

pabi

lity

/ Br

adle

y: R

ight

/ ra

ther

than

– b

reak

it o

ut in

to b

lack

and

whi

tes,

into

sepa

rate

pro

ject

s. /

Mik

e: O

K /

One

pf th

e re

ason

s for

sayi

ng th

at, w

ith a

leve

l of c

erta

inty

, if y

ou li

ke ..

. we

sat d

own

and

wro

te d

own

the

nam

es o

f the

key

peo

ple

who

pro

vide

that

ove

rall

capa

bilit

y, Av

ioni

cs

capa

bilit

y at

a fa

irly

seni

or o

rder

, at a

ver

y hi

gh le

vel,

uh n

ot ju

st so

me

peop

le w

ith

expe

rienc

e bu

t the

key

peo

ple

– th

e So

rells

, the

Old

field

s, th

e K

ings

, the

Gib

bs, a

nd

the

like,

and

we

we

– w

e id

entifi

ed 1

5 pe

ople

with

sign

ifica

nt A

vion

ics c

apab

ility

. Now

w

e ne

ed to

app

ly th

ose

acro

ss W

EDG

ETA

IL, P

EREG

RIN

E, F

ALC

ON

, as w

ell,

um a

nd u

h

105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156

Aan

d so

the

poin

t is t

hat t

here

are

15

peop

le, 1

5 ve

ry e

xper

ienc

ed p

eopl

e av

aila

ble

to

man

age

thos

e ah

um

the

key

tech

nica

l Avi

onic

s ele

men

ts fo

r tho

se th

ree

proj

ects

. O

n to

p of

that

, whe

n yo

u lo

ok a

t the

way

uh

Bill

Thom

son

– in

a w

eek

– go

t his

min

d ar

ound

alm

ost t

he e

ntire

ty o

f the

OSP

REY

tech

nica

l iss

ues.

Now

, he’

s pro

babl

y an

ex

cept

iona

l per

son,

in th

at g

roup

, as w

ell.

But u

h –

with

that

sort

of l

evel

of c

apab

ility

–

um –

ther

e is

no

ques

tion

in m

y m

ind

that

we

can

man

age

and

deliv

er th

ose

thre

e pr

ojec

ts, i

ts –

wel

l, th

ere’

s no

ques

tion

we

can

deliv

er it

. The

que

stio

n is

abo

ut

man

agin

g th

e re

sour

ces a

nd m

akin

g th

em a

vaila

ble.

Mik

e: !S

o ho

w d

o w

e kn

ow –

so if

that

’s a

cond

ition

upo

n w

hich

– if

you

’re sa

ying

th

at L

eand

ro –

that

may

be

anot

her p

iece

of i

nfor

mat

ion

that

wou

ld g

ive

him

com

fort

, ab

out h

ow y

ou’re

goi

ng to

man

age

thos

e re

sour

ces a

cros

s a n

umbe

r of p

rogr

ams?

Larr

y: !

Yeah

. N

ow.

This

is w

hat w

e –

this

is –

OK

, let

me

go b

ack

a st

ep.

In a

sens

e th

is is

wha

t we’

re a

lread

y do

ing

with

FSG

, flig

ht si

mul

atio

n gr

oup,

and

to a

n ex

tent

with

ISS

and

Can

berr

a op

erat

e th

e sa

me

way

, but

of c

ours

e th

ey’re

just

loca

ted

with

inon

e ge

ogra

phic

are

a. B

ut it

’s al

so o

ne b

usin

ess u

nit a

nd th

ey’re

muc

h m

ore

inte

grat

edth

an w

hat t

he O

SPRE

Y, P

EREG

RIN

E, a

n FA

LCO

N a

re.

But t

here

is a

pre

cede

nt fo

r m

anag

ing

that

capa

bilit

y. Id

eally

we

shou

ld h

ave

been

man

agin

g Av

ioni

cs ca

pabi

lity

in

that

way

any

way

, but

it h

as n

ot b

een

poss

ible

for a

var

iety

of r

easo

ns. W

hat w

e ne

ed

to d

o –

wel

l, th

e po

sitio

n I w

as g

ettin

g to

any

way

– a

nd th

is w

as o

ne o

f the

poi

nts i

n th

e –

in fa

ct, w

as th

e fin

al p

oint

on

the

sum

mar

y sl

ide,

whi

ch I

talk

ed to

last

wee

k –

the

poin

t abo

ut re

sour

ce sh

arin

g ...

inev

itabl

y w

e do

get

to th

e po

int o

f sha

ring

reso

urce

s acr

oss p

roje

cts.

Thi

s pla

n w

as b

ased

on

– th

is w

hole

thin

g ex

cept

for t

hat

last

poi

nt w

as so

rt o

f bas

ed o

n be

ing

blac

k an

d w

hite

, tha

t the

staf

f are

eith

er a

ll th

ere,

or

all

away

, and

it h

adn’

t tak

en in

to a

ccou

nt o

ur a

bilit

y or

the

need

to –

our

abi

lity

to

shar

e st

aff a

cros

s pro

ject

s. N

ow w

e ha

ve n

ot h

ad a

goo

d tr

ack

reco

rd in

doi

ng th

is in

th

e so

rt o

f bro

ader

Avi

onic

s com

mun

ity. T

hose

oth

er e

xcep

tions

, tho

se o

ther

case

s I

men

tione

d w

ere

not A

vion

ics.

Wel

l, FS

G –

[tal

king

toge

ther

] M

ike:

!Wel

l, m

y m

emor

y of

FSG

is a

[unc

lear

] one

, it t

ook

quite

a lo

ng ti

me

to g

et

it w

orki

ng, a

nd w

e do

n’t h

ave

the

luxu

ry o

f tim

e.

Brad

ley:!It

won

’t ta

ke u

s a lo

ng ti

me

to g

et it

wor

king

onc

e w

e’ve

mad

e an

d ex

ecut

ed

the

com

mitm

ent t

o m

ake

it w

ork.

It to

ok u

s a lo

ng ti

me

to g

et to

that

poi

nt.

Larr

y: !Y

es, a

nd I

thin

k w

hat w

e ne

ed to

do

is v

ery

quic

kly

get t

o th

at co

mm

itmen

t po

int h

ere

with

thes

e Avi

onic

s res

ourc

es, a

nd to

get

an

unde

rsta

ndin

g of

wha

t it m

eans

. Be

caus

e it

will

be

– I g

uess

ther

e ar

e a

num

ber o

f sce

nario

s. D

oes i

t mea

n, a

nd it

pr

obab

ly w

ill m

ean

som

ethi

ng li

ke –

taki

ng th

ose

peop

le p

erha

ps n

ot o

ff th

e re

sour

ce

plan

for t

hose

pro

ject

s but

allo

catin

g th

em to

an

Avio

nics

capa

bilit

y gr

oup,

this

is o

ne

scen

ario

– to

an

Avio

nics

capa

bilit

y gr

oup

and

man

agin

g th

em a

t the

leve

l of t

hat

capa

bilit

y gr

oup.

Tha

t mea

ns th

at th

ere

wou

ld b

e pr

ojec

t acc

ount

ing

impl

icat

ions

on

how

we

do st

uff l

ike

that

. But

let’s

ass

ume

our fi

nanc

ial e

ngin

eer c

an h

andl

e it.

But

th

en th

ere

are

the

issu

es o

f – th

e qu

estio

ns o

f how

thei

r tim

e is

allo

cate

d to

eac

h of

th

ose

proj

ects

. We

need

to h

ave

a ve

ry cl

ear v

iew

on

that

and

a p

riorit

y –

mea

ns o

f as

sess

ing

prio

rity.

We

need

to u

nder

stan

d ho

w th

eir t

rain

ing

and

deve

lopm

ent n

eeds

ar

e m

et, a

lthou

gh th

ey sh

ould

be

iden

tified

in th

e fir

st in

stan

ce in

our

tran

sitio

n pl

an

anyw

ay, i

n pa

rt. I

gue

ss b

asic

ally

ther

e’s a

who

le b

unch

of p

erso

nnel

-rel

ated

issu

es,

beca

use

we’

ll be

man

agin

g th

ose

peop

le in

a d

iffer

ent w

ay to

wha

t we’

re cu

rren

tly

man

agin

g th

em. A

nd I

thin

k w

e w

ill n

eed

a –

take

the

lead

with

the

exam

ple

from

A

ir Su

ppor

t her

e w

ith th

eir B

usin

ess L

itera

cy p

rogr

am, b

ecau

se I

thin

k it

wou

ld b

e ve

ry

impo

rtan

t tha

t the

se k

ey p

eopl

e fu

lly u

nder

stan

d w

hy w

e’re

doi

ng th

is, t

he b

usin

ess

sign

ifica

nce

of it

, why

we’

re m

anag

ing

them

this

way

, the

ir ro

le a

nd h

ow th

ey ca

n an

d w

ill co

ntrib

ute

to th

e bu

sine

ss th

roug

h th

is m

eans

. So

ther

e’s a

who

le b

unch

of

stuf

f tha

t we

need

to d

o.A

dam

:!As y

ou sa

y, th

at’s

one

scen

ario

, and

ther

e m

ay b

e ot

hers

/ L

arry

: yup

/.

We

157

158

159

160

161

162

163

164

165

166

167

168

169

170

171

172

173

174

175

176

177

178

179

180

181

182

183

184

185

186

187

188

189

190

191

192

193

194

195

196

197

198

199

200

201

202

203

204

205

206

207

208

Ash

ould

be

very

caut

ious

abo

ut th

at sc

enar

io th

at y

ou’v

e ju

st p

aint

ed, b

ecau

se if

you

’re

putti

ng in

pla

ce a

def

ault

posi

tion

of sh

ared

reso

urce

s – h

eld

at th

e ce

ntre

by

func

tion

pret

ty m

uch,

or c

apab

ility

– w

hich

then

mak

es d

ecis

ions

on

whe

re th

ose

reso

urce

s go,

yo

u’re

then

taki

ng, s

ay, f

rom

OSP

REY,

a lo

t of t

heir

deci

sion

mak

ing

– or

som

e of

th

eir d

ecis

ion

mak

ing

over

into

that

func

tion

abou

t the

ir pr

ojec

t. S

o fa

r, rig

ht o

r w

rong

ove

r the

last

few

yea

rs, w

e ha

ve v

ery

stro

ng b

usin

ess u

nits

, and

ther

e ar

e so

me

good

thin

gs a

bout

that

, and

ther

e ar

e so

me

dow

n si

des a

bout

that

– b

ut th

ey a

re

[unc

lear

] rig

ht, a

nd th

ey d

o –

in a

larg

e de

gree

– co

ntro

l the

ir ow

n de

stin

y. A

nd w

e in

cent

iviz

e th

em a

nd a

ll th

at. I

f we

now

go

to a

diff

eren

t mod

el, a

smal

l mod

el in

that

bi

g sc

hem

e of

thin

gs, I

thin

k w

e ne

ed to

be

very

care

ful t

hat t

he a

utho

rity

of p

ower

w

ill m

ove

to so

mew

here

els

e, a

nd y

ou’ll

hav

e bu

sine

sses

bei

ng a

ble

to sa

y “w

ell,

I co

uldn

’t ge

t the

reso

urce

s fro

m th

e fu

nctio

n,”

or w

hate

ver.

But

whi

le I

thin

k w

e ne

ed

to a

ddre

ss th

e is

sue

of th

e si

los a

nd b

usin

ess u

nits

, I’m

not

sure

this

is th

e be

st w

ay.

/ La

rry:

Wel

l – /

Und

er th

at sc

enar

io [t

alki

ng to

geth

er]

Larr

y: !

I thi

nk th

at’s

a ve

ry, v

ery

impo

rtan

t poi

nt. T

his i

s a d

iffer

ent w

ay o

f wor

king

. I d

on’t

thin

k th

at th

e de

cisi

on a

bout

how

thos

e re

sour

ces w

ould

be

appl

ied

shou

ld b

e le

ft up

to th

e fu

nctio

n. It

shou

ld b

e th

e st

akeh

olde

r gro

up, t

he b

usin

ess,

the

busi

ness

st

akeh

olde

r gro

up sh

ould

be,

in m

y vi

ew, b

asic

ally

lead

ing

that

pro

cess

. Bec

ause

to

geth

er w

e ar

e tr

ying

to d

eliv

er th

is b

usin

ess.

The

bus

ines

s in

its e

ntire

ty a

nd n

ot ju

st

indi

vidu

al b

usin

esse

s. So

yes

, it i

s a d

iffer

ent w

ay o

f man

agin

g. I

thin

k w

e ne

ed to

go

dow

n th

at ro

ute

anyw

ay, f

or o

ur fu

ture

bus

ines

s, be

caus

e I t

hink

this

is th

e w

ay w

e’re

go

ing

to h

ave

to m

anag

e ke

y re

sour

ces i

n th

e fu

ture

. /A

dam

:!I a

gree

, and

I ...

sorr

y /

so,

so to

me

it’s a

pro

toty

pe o

f the

way

the

busi

ness

nee

ds to

ope

rate

. Ye

ah.

Brad

ley:!I

mea

n [to

o qu

iet,

uncl

ear]

if O

SPRE

Y tu

rns t

o H

arris

or G

reg

or L

arry

, for

fu

nctio

nal s

uppo

rt a

nd th

at su

ppor

t doe

sn’t

exis

t, th

e pr

ojec

t fai

ls. I

n th

is se

nse

it’s n

o di

ffere

nt to

the

divi

sion

of f

unct

iona

l sup

port

. It i

s req

uirin

g a

high

leve

l of m

atur

ity

in th

e m

anag

emen

t of t

hose

reso

urce

s, w

here

ther

e ar

e im

min

ent c

onfli

cts a

roun

d de

ploy

men

t of t

hose

reso

urce

s.M

ike:

!Yea

h, w

e do

it a

ll th

e tim

e an

d –

with

Dav

id, f

or e

xam

ple,

we

have

one

la

wye

r, an

d a

fine

law

yer h

e is

, and

it’s

held

at t

he ce

ntre

, and

his

exp

ertis

e –

such

as

it is

[lau

ghte

r] –

is sh

ared

acr

oss t

he b

usin

ess.

But

we’

ve n

ever

don

e it

with

eng

inee

rs

real

ly, w

ith o

utpu

t pro

duce

rs. S

o w

e’ll

find

that

muc

h m

ore

diffi

cult.

And

we

did

with

FS

G, a

nd m

aybe

it’s

a lo

t bet

ter n

ow, b

ut w

e ce

rtai

nly

did

it at

the

star

t. A

nd w

hat’s

m

ore

here

is w

e’ve

got

a v

ery

finite

– w

e’ve

got

a b

urni

ng p

latfo

rm, i

f you

like

–

whi

ch w

e ne

ed to

put

out

, may

be b

efor

e w

e ca

n re

ach

a le

vel o

f mat

urity

that

– is

that

go

ing

to w

ork?

Wha

t do

you

thin

k, W

ill a

nd C

harli

e?C

harli

e: !W

ell,

I mea

n, A

vion

ics a

t the

mom

ent i

s pre

dom

inan

tly –

the

thre

e co

ntra

cts a

re a

ll Av

ioni

cs. I

t’ll b

e PE

REG

RIN

E, O

SPRE

Y an

d w

ith a

stre

tch

you

coul

d sa

y, FA

LCO

N, a

nd

Mik

e: !I

t’s a

big

stre

tch,

that

, for

FA

LCO

N, i

sn’t

it? /

wel

l – /

Alth

ough

that

’s no

t wha

t Be

nny

thou

ght i

t was

– [t

alki

ng to

geth

er]

Will

:!It’s

skill

s at l

east

in co

mm

on.

Cha

rlie:

!It’s

skill

s in

com

mon

. So

I mea

n yo

u’ve

got

that

sort

of c

ore

bit t

here

. To

me

the

issu

e th

at th

e re

ason

we’

re st

rugg

ling

is th

e w

hole

– to

me

the

who

le p

oint

we

wer

eso

le so

urce

d in

the

PERE

GRI

NE

upgr

ade

was

to g

et th

e pr

oduc

t kno

wle

dge

that

we

gene

rate

d on

[tal

king

toge

ther

] flow

ing

into

the

PERE

GRI

NE,

/ M

ike:

FA

LCO

N, y

eah/

beca

use

they

just

ified

to th

emse

lves

that

“he

y, th

is is

why

you

wan

na g

o to

this

com

pany

.”

And

one

wou

ld in

ess

ence

hav

e to

flow

afte

r the

oth

er b

ecau

se ..

. and

you

kno

w, I

just

th

ink

the

two

are

goin

g to

be

linke

d, a

nd th

ey’ll

get

mor

e pa

tch

prog

ram

s, an

d th

ey’ll

ge

t mor

e m

odel

ling.

Bec

ause

wha

teve

r is r

ecor

ded

up th

e PE

REG

RIN

E ch

ain,

eve

n on

ce it

’sst

artin

g, w

ill g

et b

ack

to L

eand

ro, g

ood

or b

ad, o

n th

e W

edgi

e st

uff.

I th

ink

we

need

to

look

at m

anag

ing

the

prog

ram

s mor

e cl

osel

y to

get

/ A

dam

: wel

l my

/ St

eve,

by

defa

ult,

no, I

bel

ieve

has

now

got

two

cust

omer

s to

man

age.

He’

s with

Lea

ndro

and

Tom

209210211212213214215216217218219220221222223224225226227228229230231232233234235236237238239240241242243244245246247248249250251252253254255256257258259260

ARo

se. H

e’s g

ot tw

o ro

utes

up

to L

eand

ro, i

f you

wan

t to

go.

Will

: !I w

as in

a v

ery

sim

ilar s

pot t

o w

hat C

harli

e sa

id, i

f you

mov

e ou

t to

AA

2, y

ou

mov

e ou

t to

FALC

ON

, wha

t you

’re re

ally

talk

ing

abou

t is a

pro

duct

whi

ch is

an

airb

orne

Av

ioni

cs p

rodu

ct, w

hich

is g

oing

to h

ave

to e

volv

e. A

nd L

eand

ro a

ctua

lly se

es th

e lin

k be

twee

n FA

LCO

N, w

ith F

ALC

ON

to O

SPRE

Y to

PER

EGRI

NE,

to P

EREG

RIN

E Ph

ase

II. S

o he

’s lo

okin

g at

it a

s a lo

ng te

rm p

rodu

ct. A

nd if

you

look

at w

hat w

e’ve

talk

ed

with

TEL

IB a

bout

, the

re’s

a st

rate

gy th

ere

abou

t evo

lvin

g th

e pr

oduc

t so

you

get a

way

fr

om m

id-li

fe u

pgra

des a

nd y

ou u

se th

e O

SPRE

Y su

ppor

t, th

e PE

REG

RIN

E su

ppor

t, to

ac

tual

ly in

volv

e an

d en

hanc

e it.

So

I act

ually

sort

of s

ee it

as a

pro

duct

line

, tha

t may

bew

e sh

ould

be

look

ing

at m

anag

ing

it as

a p

rodu

ct li

ne, a

nd se

ries o

f pro

ject

s tha

t com

eof

f tha

t pro

duct

line

. So

a v

aria

nt, L

arry

, of w

hat y

ou’re

sort

of s

ayin

g, b

ecau

se I

fund

amen

tally

agr

ee th

at w

e ha

ve to

do

thin

gs d

iffer

ently

, and

we

have

to d

o it

acro

ss

prog

ram

s. So

ther

e’s n

o is

sue

with

that

. But

it’s

the

man

agem

ent o

f tho

se, a

nd th

e ch

alle

nges

– co

min

g ba

ck to

wha

t Ada

m sa

id –

abo

ut h

ow y

ou e

nsur

e al

l st

akeh

olde

rs a

re in

volv

ed in

the

deci

sion

mak

ing.

One

of m

y fr

ustr

atio

ns to

-dat

e ha

s be

en [t

hat]

it’s b

een

diffi

cult

for u

s to

actu

ally

hav

e pe

ople

und

erst

and

the

impl

icat

ions

on

OSP

REY,

and

und

erst

and

the

impl

icat

ions

on

MLU

, the

cros

s-bu

sine

ss im

plic

atio

ns, a

nd ta

ke re

spon

sibi

lity

for t

he jo

int s

et.

We

have

to g

et b

ette

r at

doi

ng th

at, w

hate

ver t

he so

lutio

n is

. But

I ac

tual

ly th

ink

– an

d if

I loo

k at

Sin

gapo

re in

th

ere

as w

ell –

we

have

got

a p

rodu

ct li

ne, w

e’ve

got

a co

mm

on su

pplie

r, El

bit;

the

core

skill

s we

brin

g to

Avi

onic

ss o

n ai

rcra

ft ar

e th

e so

ftwar

e pa

ckag

e, a

nd if

we’

re n

ot

man

agin

g th

at co

nfigu

ratio

n of

the

MLU

thro

ugh

to S

inga

pore

and

all

thos

e so

rt o

f thi

ngs,

I thi

nk w

e’re

crea

ting

an is

sue

for o

urse

lves

. In

term

s of h

ow w

e do

that

, the

re’s

a w

hole

oth

er in

fras

truc

ture

that

nee

ds to

go

arou

nd th

at. T

he R

F fr

ont-e

nd sk

ills a

re

fund

amen

tal f

rom

a sy

stem

s per

spec

tive

in th

e ai

rbor

ne A

vion

ics s

ide,

but

they

’re n

ot

criti

cal t

o th

e de

sign

, as y

ou w

ould

find

in th

e ra

dar w

arni

ng a

nd th

e FA

LCO

N.

So I

thin

k it’

s tw

o se

para

te sk

ills s

ets.

Ther

e’s a

syst

em sk

ill se

t whi

ch is

the

com

bine

d sk

ill se

t ac

ross

the

lot,

and

softw

are

arch

itect

ure

skill

set,

and

an R

F sk

ill se

t. Th

e sy

stem

skill

se

t is t

he m

ain

one

/ La

rry:

Yea

h /

that

get

s sha

red.

Larr

y:!Y

eah,

par

ticul

arly

the

softw

are

syst

em, t

he so

ftwar

e ar

chite

ctur

e st

uff.

Har

ris:!W

e al

so n

eed

to m

ake

sure

that

in th

is sc

enar

io th

at th

ere’

s not

– th

at th

e ab

ility

to m

ove

peop

le d

oesn

’t in

any

way

dim

inis

h th

eir r

espo

nsib

ility

and

ac

coun

tabi

lity

arou

nd in

volv

ing

cust

omer

’s co

st a

nd p

rogr

am sc

hedu

ling

and

all t

his.

Yo

u ca

n se

e it

may

be g

ettin

g a

bit f

uzzy

– /

Will

: Tha

t’s th

e /

with

peo

ple

mov

ing

too

muc

h. T

hat’s

the

prob

lem

righ

t up

to n

ow.

Will

:!It’s

how

do

you

get t

hat a

ccou

ntab

ility

acr

oss t

hat s

et. S

o on

e pr

ogra

m is

mor

e im

port

ant t

han

the

othe

r.M

ike:

!Wel

l do

we

thin

k it’

s wor

king

for F

SG, U

DFG

? C

harli

e:!I

belie

ve it

is.

They

’ve

achi

eved

thei

r dea

dlin

es fo

r the

– Br

adle

y: !I

f the

com

plai

nt ra

te is

any

indi

catio

n –

[too

quie

t]W

ill:!I

t’s re

al lo

w o

n m

y ra

dar s

cree

n, to

be

hone

st, s

o I’m

like

you

– n

othi

ng’s

rippl

ing

up to

me

so I’

m a

ssum

ing

that

it’s

OK

. Bu

t if y

ou lo

ok a

t it i

n te

rms o

f foc

al

FSG

to th

e Avi

onic

s, I b

elie

ve w

e ta

lkin

g ab

out t

hree

ord

ers o

f mag

nitu

de m

ore

sign

ifica

nt /

Lar

ry: o

h yo

u ar

e /,

so it

’s a

big

step

to ta

ke th

e FS

G a

nd re

late

that

to

the A

vion

ics i

ssue

.La

rry:!A

bsol

utel

y, th

ere’

s no

ques

tion.

The

scal

e is

qui

te d

iffer

ent.

Will

:!Sig

nific

antly

.La

rry:!T

he p

oint

of s

ayin

g it

is ju

st th

at th

ere

are

prec

eden

ts fo

r doi

ng it

. I b

elie

ve it

ca

n be

don

e.A

dam

:!I th

ink

anot

her f

acto

r is t

he cr

itica

l tim

e th

at th

is is

hap

peni

ng. I

don

’t kn

ow

wha

t hap

pene

d w

ith th

at o

ther

gro

up th

at w

as fo

rmed

, but

if y

ou w

ere

form

ing

this

gr

oup

agai

n in

real

tim

e an

d bu

ildin

g fo

r a ca

pabi

lity

that

hop

eful

ly w

ould

be

261

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

271

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

283

284

285

286

287

288

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

297

298

299

300

301

302

303

304

305

306

307

308

309

310

311

312

Ade

ploy

ed in

a y

ear o

r wha

teve

r tim

e, y

ou co

uld

spen

d tim

e w

orki

ng w

ith p

eopl

ean

d ge

tting

them

to th

at co

mm

on v

iew

. For

the

time

on th

e cr

itica

l pro

ject

s lik

e PE

REG

RIN

E an

d O

SPRE

Y, I

thin

k th

at fo

rces

peo

ple’

s beh

avio

urs t

o pe

rhap

s not

be in

the

best

inte

rest

of t

he co

mpa

ny.

Mik

e: !

Wel

l, on

the

othe

r han

d ...

/ A

dam

: Wel

l my

/ –

ther

e’s n

othi

ng li

ke a

bur

ning

pl

atfo

rm to

get

peo

ple

to ..

.A

dam

:!My

varia

tion

on L

arry

’s th

ing

wou

ld b

e to

ince

ntiv

ize

peop

le o

n re

sour

ces,

to sh

are

reso

urce

s with

the

ente

rpris

e, n

ot ju

st o

n pr

ojec

ts, t

o m

ake

them

mor

e re

spon

sibl

e.La

rry:!O

h, o

h, O

K, y

ou m

ean

ince

ntiv

ize

man

ager

s. I

thou

ght y

ou w

ere

talk

ing

abou

t inc

entiv

izin

g th

ese

indi

vidu

als

/ A

dam

: no

/, O

K.

Mik

e: !S

o ar

e w

e ta

lkin

g ab

out H

obso

n’s c

hoic

e he

re, r

eally

? D

o w

e ha

ve a

ny o

ther

op

tion

wha

t to

do, t

his w

ay, o

ther

than

sayi

ng w

e’re

not

goi

ng to

take

the

PERE

GRI

NE

cont

ract

? Tha

t’s th

e tw

o op

tions

.W

ill: !

I bel

ieve

wha

t Lar

ry’s

sayi

ng a

bout

shar

ing

the

reso

urce

s acr

oss t

he p

roje

cts

is fu

ndam

enta

l. If

we

don’

t do

that

, we

will

fail.

Mik

e: !R

ight

, and

then

at s

ome

leve

l of a

bstr

actio

n I a

gree

with

that

, and

abs

olut

ely.

Bu

t now

we’

ve g

ot th

is [b

angs

tabl

e fo

r em

phas

is] c

ast-i

ron,

conc

rete

case

that

we

have

to d

o so

met

hing

abo

ut.

Har

ris:!D

o w

e kn

ow to

day

wha

t the

reso

urce

s ove

rlay

is b

etw

een

the

new

Avi

onic

s re

base

line

and

the

glob

aliz

atio

n –

Will

:!No,

my

issu

e w

as th

at w

e do

n’t h

ave

/ H

arris

: [in

dist

inct

] a b

asel

ine

for A

vion

ics,

and

unlik

ely

to h

ave

a fo

rmed

bas

elin

e un

til th

e en

d of

May

, but

I w

ill h

ave

one

that

’s 90

% a

ccur

ate

at th

e en

d of

Apr

il.H

arris

:!So

you

don’

t rea

lly k

now

wha

t sor

t of d

eman

ds o

r ten

sion

s the

re’s

goin

g to

be

in te

rms o

f thi

s res

ourc

e.La

rry:!E

xcep

t tha

t the

peo

ple

are

not l

ikel

y to

– th

e ke

y pe

ople

are

not

goi

ng to

ch

ange

.M

ike:

!Wel

l, w

hat I

thou

ght I

was

hea

ring

last

wee

k w

as th

at w

e w

ill b

uild

suffi

cien

t an

d ba

ckfil

led

and

shad

ow in

ord

er to

hav

e –

if yo

u ta

ke a

ver

y pr

uden

t vie

w o

f thi

s, w

e w

ill h

ave

enou

gh p

eopl

e to

cove

r to

that

. / L

arry

: Wel

l //

Har

ris:!R

ight

, to

mob

ilize

PER

EGRI

NE

and

to ru

n w

ith O

SPRE

Y.M

ike:

!Tha

t was

the

plan

. Tha

t was

the

plan

.H

arris

:!At w

hat p

oint

, thr

ee m

onth

s out

or t

wo?

Mik

e: !F

our m

onth

s out

.H

arris

:!Fou

r mon

ths o

ut fr

om n

ow.

Mik

e: !S

o, th

e ef

fect

ive

date

, alth

ough

we’

re si

gnin

g th

e co

ntra

ct, t

he e

ffect

ive

date

is

Aug

ust.

Brad

ley:!S

ee I

don’

t thi

nk th

at –

righ

t or w

rong

– th

e co

nclu

sion

I’ve

dra

wn

from

all

of

the

vario

us co

nver

satio

ns I’

ve li

sten

ed is

that

bec

ause

the

dem

and

on O

SPRE

Y is

not

ye

t ful

ly k

now

n, a

nd w

e ar

e cu

rren

tly a

t the

pla

nnin

g st

age

for t

he A

vion

ics,

and

we

have

a

rela

tivel

y fe

w n

umbe

r of p

eopl

e w

ho h

ave

that

capa

bilit

y, th

at –

I do

n’t t

hink

we

can

say

with

any

confi

denc

e th

en w

ith a

four

mon

th p

erio

d w

e ca

n st

and

up tw

o fu

ll ca

pabi

lity

team

s. I d

on’t

hear

that

.M

ike:

!But

wha

t we

are

sayi

ng is

that

we

can

stan

d up

our

reso

urce

s cap

able

of /

/ B

radl

ey: S

ervi

cing

the

/ se

rvic

ing

the A

vion

ics n

eeds

of t

he b

usin

ess.

Brad

ley:!T

hat’s

wha

t I th

ink.

Larr

y: !Y

eah,

wel

l for

me,

for m

e it’

s a ri

sk-m

itiga

tion

activ

ity –

the

shar

ing

or

man

agin

g th

e Avi

onic

s cap

abili

ty a

s a co

nsol

idat

ed ca

pabi

lity.

I bel

ieve

it is

pos

sibl

eto

del

iver

thos

e tw

o pr

ojec

ts se

para

tely

but

ther

e is

a m

uch

high

er le

vel o

f ris

k as

soci

ated

with

that

if w

e ca

n’t e

ffect

ivel

y sh

are

– be

caus

e w

hat h

appe

ns is

, for

ex

ampl

e, y

ou g

et a

ver

y ex

perie

nced

Avi

onic

s guy

– sa

y a

Sorr

ell o

r wha

teve

r, an

d

313314315316317318319320321322323324325326327328329330331332333334335336337338339340341342343344345346347348349350351352353354355356357358359360361362363364

Ahe

's th

e sy

stem

arc

hite

cts –

wha

t rol

e is

he

doin

g? H

e’s b

asic

ally

the

lead

softw

are

arch

itect

as I

und

erst

and

it. If

he’

s ful

ly e

ngag

ed o

n a

sing

le p

roje

ct, w

hat h

e en

dsup

doi

ng is

a w

hole

bun

ch o

f oth

er st

uff a

roun

d hi

s cor

e sk

ills t

hat a

re re

quire

d to

de

liver

: you

kno

w, m

anag

emen

t stu

ff, a

nd m

aybe

doi

ng so

me

chec

king

of d

raw

ings

, an

d st

uff l

ike

that

. It j

ust c

omes

with

that

sort

of p

atch

. So

he o

nly

spen

ds, h

e on

ly

mig

ht sp

end

60%

of h

is ti

me

actu

ally

dep

loyi

ng h

is re

ally

core

Avi

onic

s kno

wle

dge.

The

rest

of h

is ti

me

he’s

– 40

% o

f thi

s tim

e is

doi

ng o

ther

supp

ortin

g st

uff.

By

putti

ng

him

into

the

capa

bilit

y gr

oup,

he

will

effe

ctiv

ely

be sp

endi

ng n

omin

ally

100

% o

f his

tim

e fo

cusi

ng o

r app

lyin

g hi

s cor

e Avi

onic

s ski

lls /

Mik

e: Y

eah/

. Tha

t to

me

is w

hat

we

get w

hen

we

man

age

in th

is w

ay a

nd /

/ M

ike:

!If y

ou ta

ke so

meo

ne li

ke Ja

mes

on, f

or e

xam

ple,

I m

ean

in a

rela

tivel

y sh

ort

perio

d of

tim

e he

’s ab

le to

brin

g th

at e

xper

tise

to b

ear,

whe

reas

he’

s pro

babl

y be

en

spen

ding

qui

te a

bit

of ti

me

sort

ing

out h

is A

mex

exp

ense

s or s

omet

hing

like

that

[la

ught

er].

Will

:!The

thin

g is

that

Jam

eson

real

ly k

now

s the

pro

duct

, so

... /

Cha

rlie:

He

know

s the

pr

oduc

t his

tory

/ a

nd h

e di

d a

grea

t job

for u

s. Bu

t he

was

n’t c

lear

on

the

OSP

REY

spec

ific s

tuff.

But

wha

t he

knew

abo

ut F

ALC

ON

was

eno

ugh

to g

et o

ver t

he li

ne la

st

wee

k. N

ow, h

e on

ly h

ad a

wee

k so

giv

e hi

m tw

o w

eeks

or t

hree

wee

ks, h

e’d

prob

ably

be

full

thro

ttle

on th

at. I

thin

k th

at’s

the

criti

cal n

atur

e of

the

guy,

beca

use

it’s a

pr

oduc

t. Th

ey te

nd to

kno

w th

e pr

oduc

t and

then

und

erst

and

the

varia

nce

from

the

prod

uct.

Mik

e: !B

ut m

y po

int b

eing

, is t

hat y

ou k

now

, he

– th

e w

ay w

e’ve

trad

ition

ally

run

the

busi

ness

, he

shou

ld b

e sp

endi

ng 1

00%

of h

is ti

me

doin

g so

met

hing

els

e an

d no

thin

g on

this

whi

le it

’s on

fire

/ C

harli

e: M

mm

, hm

m /

so w

e’ll

have

to d

o it

diffe

rent

– so

w

e’ll

clea

rly h

ave

to d

o it

diffe

rent

ly. C

an w

e do

it e

ffici

ently

and

qui

ckly

? [pa

use]

In

orde

r to

mee

t our

...Br

adle

y: !T

hat w

ould

dep

end

on th

e pe

ople

, and

the

lead

ersh

ip. B

ecau

se if

you

just

– in

th

e ch

aotic

wor

ld y

ou co

uld

call

it a

grou

p, th

row

them

toge

ther

, and

hop

e fo

r the

be

st. M

ight

wor

k, m

ight

not

wor

k. B

ut th

e ch

ance

s of i

t wor

king

are

muc

h be

tter i

f yo

u ca

n gi

ve th

em so

me

mea

ns to

reso

lve

issu

es a

roun

d pr

iorit

y an

d st

ill ta

ke

acco

unta

bilit

y fo

r the

ir ou

tcom

es, a

nd th

at’s

goin

g to

take

som

e st

rong

lead

ersh

ip.

So I

wou

ld sa

y it

coul

d w

ork

if th

at g

roup

is le

d w

ith –

if it

’s no

t [to

o qu

iet]

Larr

y:!I

thin

k th

e Bu

sine

ss L

itera

cy e

lem

ent –

app

ly th

at p

rinci

ple

here

in th

is ca

se

will

be

criti

cal t

o its

succ

ess,

or o

ne o

f the

criti

cal e

lem

ents

. Be

caus

e th

ese

peop

le

need

to k

now

why

we’

re d

oing

this

, whe

re th

ey fi

t in,

and

wha

t we

as a

n or

gani

zatio

n ex

pect

of t

hem

as a

resu

lt. I

thin

k w

ithou

t tha

t con

text

it w

on’t

succ

eed.

But

cert

ainl

y, le

ader

ship

and

hav

ing

a [s

ighs

] – o

h w

hat I

call

a co

nsis

tent

nar

rativ

e ar

ound

that

, fr

om a

ll of

us a

nd o

ur n

ext l

evel

dow

n, a

s to

why

we’

re m

anag

ing

this

, why

we’

re

man

agin

g in

this

way

and

beh

avin

g co

nsis

tent

ly in

acc

orda

nce

with

the

mod

el th

at w

e ag

ree,

then

– y

ou k

now

– a

s Bra

dley

says

as l

eade

rshi

p or

ano

ther

ele

men

t of

lead

ersh

ip.

Mik

e: !S

o ho

w a

re w

e go

ing

to d

o it?

Har

ris:!S

houl

dn’t

we

ask

for t

heir

view

s at t

his s

tage

in th

is, r

athe

r tha

n ju

st g

ivin

g th

em th

e m

odel

that

we’

ve d

iscu

ssed

? /

Larr

y: y

es, y

es, y

es. /

As i

n, “

this

is th

e is

sue

that

we’

ve g

ot, t

his a

re th

e sc

enar

ios w

e’ve

look

ed a

t, ov

er to

you

guy

s – se

nior

m

anag

emen

t tea

m w

ill la

rgel

y ow

n th

is g

oing

forw

ard

– w

hich

mod

el d

o yo

u gu

ys

pers

onal

ly b

uy in

to, i

n te

rms o

f del

iver

y of

this

?”G

reg:!C

an I

sugg

est a

noth

er w

ay fo

rwar

d? I

thin

k, if

it w

as m

e, I

was

faci

ng th

e sa

me

prob

lem

com

mer

cial

ly. I

do

face

the

prob

lem

of 2

AA

but

we

still

shar

e re

sour

ces a

roun

d –

is th

at w

hat y

ou n

eed

to d

o –

wha

t I’v

e de

cide

d to

do

is to

take

an

initi

al p

ositi

on a

s to

how

thos

e re

sour

ces a

re sp

read

acr

oss t

he B

U d

irect

ors,

in th

is

inst

ance

Ste

ve, L

arry

and

Cha

rlie.

[lau

ghte

r] S

o if

you’

re g

oing

to d

o th

at, t

hen

the

365

366

367

368

369

370

371

372

373

374

375

376

377

378

379

380

381

382

383

384

385

386

387

388

389

390

391

392

393

394

395

396

397

398

399

400

401

402

403

404

405

406

407

408

409

410

411

412

413

414

415

416

Ale

ader

ship

com

es fr

om S

teve

, Lar

ry a

nd C

harli

e. B

ecau

se, b

y de

faul

t, th

e sc

enar

io I

just

des

crib

ed, I

take

the

lead

ersh

ip d

ecis

ion

with

the

supp

ort o

f the

guy

s inv

olve

d in

th

e co

mm

erci

al a

ctiv

ity to

dec

ide

best

whe

re to

dep

loy

them

at a

ny p

artic

ular

poi

nt.

Now

, I’m

dea

ling

with

thre

e or

four

peo

ple,

you

guy

s are

dea

ling

with

15

peop

le. S

o th

e fu

ndam

enta

l iss

ue is

whe

re is

that

lead

ersh

ip g

oing

to co

me

from

, is i

t you

thre

e?

Is it

as s

impl

e as

that

? Or i

s the

re a

pro

ject

man

ager

that

dec

ides

that

? Bec

ause

ob

viou

sly

–La

rry:!T

here

wou

ld h

ave

to b

e a

proj

ect m

anag

er fo

r the

Avi

onic

s cap

abili

ty, a

bsol

utel

y. G

reg:!O

K, t

hen

the

seco

nd p

art o

f the

que

stio

n is

hav

e yo

u go

t suf

ficie

nt re

sour

ces t

o do

the

task

s? Q

uest

ion

mar

k. I

thin

k th

at’s

prob

ably

to M

ike

to a

nsw

er th

at./

Lar

ry: Y

eah,

w

ell t

hat’s

whe

re w

e so

rt o

f sta

rted

/ I

thin

k if

that

’s th

e m

odel

you

’re g

oing

to p

lug,

le

ader

ship

shou

ld –

my

sugg

estio

n w

ould

be

thes

e th

ree

guys

– I’

m n

ot su

gges

ting

– w

ell M

ike,

you

dec

ide

– bu

t tha

t’s w

here

it’s

got t

o co

me

from

, with

a p

roje

ct m

anag

er

com

ing

in to

you

, to

say

“thi

s is w

hat n

eeds

to b

e do

ne,”

whi

ch is

not

a lo

t diff

eren

t, w

e’re

talk

ing

abou

t sup

ply

chai

n ex

celle

nce,

and

that

sort

of s

tuff.

Har

ris:!Y

ou re

ally

nee

d th

e gu

ys’ b

uy-in

, as w

ell,

who

are

goi

ng to

del

iver

this

. It’s

a

diffe

rent

cons

truc

t to

wha

t the

y’ve

eve

r wor

ked

in b

efor

e.G

reg:!I

agre

e w

ith th

at, I

agr

ee w

ith th

at H

arris

.W

ill:!I

t’s g

oing

to b

e si

gnifi

cant

ly a

chan

ge in

– I’

ll us

e th

e ‘c

ultu

re’ w

ord

– be

caus

e I t

hink

it is

a d

iffer

ent w

ay o

f doi

ng th

ings

. Th

e th

ing

that

wor

ries m

e ab

out i

t, I’m

ju

st p

uttin

g th

e co

ncer

ns o

n th

e ta

ble,

I’m

not

sayi

ng th

ey’re

insu

rmou

ntab

le, b

ut w

e ju

st n

eed

to b

e aw

are

of th

em. /

Gre

g: Y

eah

/ Pe

ople

, at l

east

with

in in

my

team

s, ar

e un

der a

sign

ifica

nt a

mou

nt o

f pre

ssur

e ar

ound

OSP

REY

and

Avio

nics

at t

he m

omen

t. A

lrigh

t, it

is th

e co

rner

ston

e of

a lo

t of m

y is

sues

aro

und

OSP

REY

– w

e ha

ve to

sort

it

out.

We’

re g

oing

100

mile

s an

hour

, and

we

wan

t to

star

t to

incr

ease

the

band

wid

th

to st

art t

o ge

t to

the

thin

g m

ore

broa

dly.

So

we

have

to w

ork

out h

ow to

man

age

thro

ugh

that

, how

to le

ad th

roug

h th

at.

Whe

re’s

the

valv

e to

act

ually

rele

ase

som

e of

th

e pr

essu

re fr

om th

em, t

o gi

ve th

em th

e m

ind

spac

e to

–C

harli

e:!I

wou

ld a

rgue

we

are

–M

ike:

!I g

uess

wha

t we’

re sa

ying

is th

at fo

r the

nex

t fou

r mon

ths,

say,

/Will

: yea

h/,

you

will

– O

SPRE

Y w

ill g

et –

I’m

ass

umin

g th

is is

how

it w

ould

wor

k –

wou

ld g

etth

e bu

lk o

f the

Avi

onic

s res

ourc

es o

f the

com

pany

wor

king

on

that

pro

blem

, on

the

serie

s of i

ssue

s tha

t are

conf

ront

ing

you.

So

you

get s

uppl

emen

ted,

but

at s

ome

time,

/W

ill: Y

up /

and

as t

hat g

ets s

olve

d, th

e fo

cus t

hen

goes

on

to –

PER

EGRI

NE.

And

at t

he sa

me

time,

we’

re tr

ying

to b

uild

a p

lan

bene

ath

that

, tha

t say

s we

have

a pr

oper

succ

essi

on p

lan,

with

pro

per s

hado

win

g w

ith th

e pr

oper

reso

urci

ng, w

ith

prop

er d

epth

and

capa

bilit

y.W

ill:!S

o th

en I

thin

k th

ere

real

ly n

eeds

– if

we’

re g

oing

to d

o th

at, t

here

nee

ds to

be

a pl

an –

like

any

pro

ject

to m

anag

e th

at ch

ange

/La

rry:

yes

, abs

olut

ely/

. It’

s a ch

ange

in p

rogr

am /

Lar

ry: y

es, y

es, y

es /

And

ther

e ne

eds t

o be

som

eone

ther

e to

put

dow

na

plan

and

say,

“thi

s is w

hat w

e’re

goi

ng to

do,

it’s

abou

t peo

ple’

s beh

avio

urs a

s m

uch

as a

nyth

ing

else

.”La

rry:

!Yea

h. W

hat y

ou’re

bas

ical

ly sa

ying

is w

hat –

we’

re e

nvis

agin

g he

re is

the

end

stat

e –

/ W

ill: t

hat w

hat /

you

’re sa

ying

“w

e’ve

got

to fi

gure

out

how

to g

et fr

om

whe

re w

e ar

e to

that

end

stat

e.”

And

that

’s a

high

risk

, tha

t its

elf i

s a ri

sk. T

here

are

risks

ass

ocia

ted

with

/ B

radl

ey: I

agr

ee to

tally

with

/ th

at a

nd w

e ne

ed to

mea

sure

thos

e ca

refu

lly.

Brad

ley:!I

agre

e to

tally

with

Will

, tha

t if y

ou’re

goi

ng to

get

ther

e, y

ou’re

goi

ng to

ha

ve to

get

ther

e w

ith th

e pe

ople

not

top-

dow

n he

adin

g th

at sa

ys “

thou

shal

t do

itas

follo

ws.”

It’s

got

to b

e an

eng

agem

ent a

ctiv

ity th

at re

sults

in th

e co

nclu

sion

of

the

oper

atio

nal c

once

pt th

at th

e pe

ople

will

be

able

to tr

ansa

ct.

Ada

m:!A

nd y

ou’re

onl

y go

ing

to g

et th

at w

hen

you

know

the

size

of t

he p

robl

em, t

he

417418419420421422423424425426427428429430431432433434435436437438439440441442443444445446447448449450451452453454455456457458459460461462463464465466467468

Are

sour

ce p

robl

em, a

nd y

ou d

on’t

know

that

yet

.Br

adle

y:!W

hat y

ou d

o kn

ow, I

thin

k, is

they

hav

e –

impl

icit

in 1

5 pe

ople

with

the

inte

llect

ual

prop

erty

nec

essa

ry to

solv

e al

l the

se p

robl

ems.

You’

ve g

ot to

gro

w th

at g

roup

to b

e 30

– o

r som

ethi

ng li

ke th

at. B

ut m

eanw

hile

, whe

n yo

u’re

gro

win

g, y

ou’v

e go

t to

depl

oyit

in a

way

that

brin

gs th

e w

hole

of t

he re

sour

ces t

o be

ar u

pon

the

key

tech

nica

l pro

blem

s.A

dam

:!And

I th

ink

peop

le w

ill b

uy in

to th

at w

hen

they

can

see

– St

eve,

wha

t you

’ve

said

, the

pla

n, w

here

they

’re g

oing

to b

e w

orki

ng fr

om o

ne d

ay to

ano

ther

, and

they

ca

n se

e ho

w th

ey’re

[too

qui

et] w

ork

thro

ugh

appr

opria

tely

to th

e bu

sine

ss.

I’ll b

uy

into

it.

But w

hen

they

don

’t –

whe

n th

ey se

e ga

ps, i

f tha

t hap

pens

, or t

hey

see

undu

e ef

fort

bei

ng ca

st u

pon

them

, the

y’ll

chan

ge. I

thin

k w

e ow

e it

to th

em to

pai

nt a

ver

y co

mpe

lling

pic

ture

of h

ow it

’s go

ing

to w

ork,

it’s

good

for t

hem

, it’s

goo

d fo

r the

co

mpa

ny, /

Lar

ry: Y

eah,

yea

h /

how

we

shar

e re

sour

ces.

But i

t’s g

ot to

be

abou

t the

‘c

ultu

re’ w

ord

rath

er th

an, I

thin

k, h

oldi

ng re

sour

ces a

t the

cent

re a

nd d

eplo

ying

as

requ

ired

by a

cent

re’s

view

of t

he w

hole

. I th

ink

it ha

s to

be a

corp

orat

e cu

lture

thin

g.A

M:!H

ave

thes

e pe

ople

, tho

ugh,

a k

ey e

lem

ent o

f Avi

onic

s cap

abili

ty, i

sn’t

that

wha

t we

said

we

wer

e go

ing

to n

eed

from

them

? C

apab

ility

man

ager

?La

rry:!W

ell,

no, i

t cou

ld b

e –

the

answ

er is

yes

and

no.

Avi

onic

s is n

ot th

e on

ly A

vion

ics

capa

bilit

y w

e ha

ve.

/ A

M: Y

eah,

yea

h /

Ther

e is

oth

er –

ther

e’s A

vion

icsS

P an

d ot

her

rela

ted

stuf

f. S

o it’

s not

the

entir

e Avi

onic

s cap

abili

ty.

The

capa

bilit

y m

anag

ers t

hat w

e ha

ve in

the

com

pany

are

– th

at ro

le is

act

ually

look

ing

to th

e fu

ture

at f

utur

e ca

pabi

lity.

/ A

M: Y

eah,

yea

h /

Wha

t we’

re ta

lkin

g ab

out h

ere

is m

anag

ing

curr

ent

capa

bilit

y. So

it is

act

ually

not

in th

e /A

M: C

apab

ility

man

ager

’s re

mit/

capa

bilit

y m

anag

er’s

rem

it. In

som

e ca

ses,

it ju

st so

hap

pens

that

it’s

the

sam

e pe

rson

. In

the

case

of A

vion

ics i

t’s M

urra

y Ro

rty.

Ada

m:!C

an w

e fin

d th

ese

peop

le in

oth

er co

mpa

nies

? La

rry:!S

orry

?A

dam

:!Can

we

find

thes

e pe

ople

in o

ther

com

pani

es?

Mik

e: !N

o.A

dam

:!To

me

its ri

sk m

itiga

tion.

Larr

y:!N

o no

t rea

lly [s

ighs

].

Har

ris:!W

hat a

bout

els

ewhe

re in

the

com

pany

La

rry:

!Nas

hua.

Har

ris:!n

o, n

o –

we’

ve ta

lked

abo

ut b

its o

f Mel

bour

ne b

efor

e be

ing

Avio

nics

bef

ore

unde

r so

me

cate

goriz

atio

n. /

Lar

ry: Y

eah,

they

’re –

/ I

know

they

’re n

ot A

vion

ics b

ut d

o th

ey

have

suffi

cien

t –La

rry:!It

’s ra

dar a

nd R

F.H

arris

:!Do

they

hav

e su

ffici

ent c

ore

skill

s to

be a

ble

to m

ake

a us

eful

cont

ribut

ion?

Larr

y:!Y

eah,

I’ve

alre

ady

aske

d M

urra

y Ro

rty

to in

clud

e de

velo

pmen

t guy

s, th

e Se

v G

ilber

ts a

nd p

eopl

e lik

e th

at. T

here

’s no

t a la

rge

num

ber o

f the

m. T

here

’s ju

st a

han

dful

of t

hem

.H

arris

:!But

it a

ll ad

ds u

p do

esn’

t it.

Larr

y:!Y

eah,

abs

olut

ely.

Ada

m:!A

re th

ere

reso

urce

s in

the

UK

?La

rry:!N

ot a

nym

ore

[laug

hs a

bit]

. W

ill:!–

we’

ve m

ade

thre

e of

fers

to U

K p

eopl

e ou

t of C

ambr

idge

, OK

, and

they

’re

head

ing

out.

So o

ne is

pre

tty su

re, b

ut th

e ot

her t

wo

are

a co

uple

of m

onth

s beh

ind

them

. La

rry:!A

nd th

ey’re

alre

ady

fact

ored

into

the

plan

Will

:!To

go b

ack

to –

I th

ink,

Mik

e’s c

omm

ent b

efor

e, I

belie

ve w

e’ve

got

eno

ugh

peop

le, O

K, i

n th

e pl

ayin

g. I

bel

ieve

that

we’

ve g

ot th

e rig

ht p

eopl

e in

term

s of t

he

capa

bilit

y ac

ross

the

top.

The

key

risk

to th

e pl

an is

the

abili

ty fo

r the

one

s tha

t we’

re

seed

ing

in th

ere

to co

me

up to

spee

d w

ithin

the

four

to si

x m

onth

tim

efra

me

that

469

470

471

472

473

474

475

476

477

478

479

480

481

482

483

484

485

486

487

488

489

490

491

492

493

494

495

496

497

498

499

500

501

502

503

504

505

506

507

508

509

510

511

512

513

514

515

516

517

518

519

520

Aw

e’re

look

ing

at.

Cou

ple

that

with

the

‘got

cha’

fact

ors,

whi

ch w

e’re

mor

e lik

ely

to

find

on O

SPRE

Y at

the

mom

ent,

rath

er th

an F

ALC

ON

– w

hat d

oes t

hat d

o? W

here

’sth

e ex

tra

bit o

f cap

abili

ty if

we

need

it, n

ow I

thin

k to

me

the

miti

gato

r aro

und

that

is

the

Nas

hua,

tryi

ng to

act

ually

see

if w

e ca

n ta

p in

to so

me

othe

r sou

rce

if w

e ne

ed /

Larr

y:!a

nd w

e co

uld

use

SDO

if n

eed.

Brad

ley:

!I d

on’t

thin

k so

. As m

uch

as I

thin

k N

ashu

a m

ight

be

good

, may

be

a po

ssib

le

alte

rnat

ive,

that

’s al

l it c

an b

e. I

thin

k w

e’ve

got

to g

o w

ith w

hat w

e’ve

got

. W

e’ve

go

t to

have

a p

lan

[taps

tabl

e fo

r em

phas

is] t

hat s

ays t

hat’s

wha

t we’

ve g

ot.

Will

:!But

Bra

dley

, the

re’s

no co

ntin

genc

y th

at –

wha

t I’m

look

ing

for i

s for

a

cont

inge

ncy

plan

/ B

radl

ey: W

ell a

ll I’m

sayi

ng is

/ It

coul

d be

SD

O, i

t cou

ld b

e ...

Brad

ley:

!Wel

l you

can’

t pla

n on

it.

You

can’

t pla

n on

it.

You’

ve g

ot to

pla

n on

the

reso

urce

s we

know

to e

xist

. W

ill:!I

f I d

id a

Mon

te C

arlo

on

the

plan

that

we’

ve p

ut fo

rwar

d, I’

d sa

y th

at I’

ve g

ot

a ris

k th

ere.

So

...Br

adle

y: !I

’m n

ot sa

ying

don

’t do

it, I

’m sa

ying

bas

ed o

n a

hist

oric

al p

erfo

rman

ce o

f re

crui

ting

peop

le fr

om th

e U

nite

d St

ates

, it s

houl

d no

t be

part

of t

he p

lan.

W

ill:!W

hat I

’m a

lso

sayi

ng is

that

I be

lieve

that

ther

e is

a ri

sk th

ere.

Wha

t are

the

miti

gato

rs fo

r tha

t ris

k? W

heth

er it

be

enga

ging

Nas

hua,

whe

ther

it b

e SD

O, w

hat i

s th

e pl

an to

miti

gate

that

risk

?C

harli

e:!Is

n’t t

he m

itiga

tor t

he Jo

hn B

artle

tt, th

e Th

omso

ns, t

he D

avie

s, Le

s Dom

wel

ls,

the

Bob

Robe

rts –

that

you

’ve

gotte

n in

add

ition

to th

e ba

ckfil

l peo

ple

to

get o

ver t

he h

ump

of –

I ca

ll it

troub

lesh

ootin

g –

but w

hate

ver t

he te

chie

issu

es a

re to

ge

t up

to th

eir s

olut

ions

. Is

that

not

whe

re y

ou –

is th

at n

ot w

here

you

buy

the

– bu

y th

e flo

at fr

om?

Brad

ley:! P

oten

tially

.La

rry:

!Yea

h, th

ere

alre

ady

part

of t

hose

pla

ns, t

hey’

re a

lread

y pa

rt o

f tha

t pla

n ex

cept

fo

r Bill

Tho

mso

n.C

harli

e:!B

ut th

ey’re

not

par

t of t

he b

ackfi

ll?La

rry:

!No.

No.

No,

that

’s tr

ue, t

hey’

re n

ot p

art o

f the

bac

kfill.

Cha

rlie:!T

hey’

re a

dditi

onal

to th

e ba

ckfil

l – t

he a

dditi

onal

reso

urce

s we

put i

n th

ere

to

help

with

som

e of

the

tech

nica

l iss

ues.

Will

:!Tha

t’s w

hat I

’d li

ke to

see,

and

whe

n I’m

talk

ing

abou

t tha

t pla

n –

wha

t are

th

e co

ntin

genc

ies?

/ L

arry

: Yep

/ W

hat a

re th

e ris

ks a

nd w

hat a

re th

e m

itiga

tions

ag

ains

t tho

se ri

sks?

If s

omeo

ne d

oes t

he b

ody

of w

ork,

they

thin

k it

thro

ugh,

and

sa

ys “

yes t

hat i

s the

miti

gatio

n,”

then

I’m

com

fort

able

. La

rry:

!It’

s an

appr

oach

, and

yea

h, a

nd w

e ar

e do

ing

thos

e th

ings

act

ually

. C

harli

e:!B

ut th

at is

all

–M

ike:

!Rig

ht, s

o ho

w d

o w

e m

ove

this

– h

ow d

o w

e ge

t to

the

poin

t tha

t say

s “w

e ca

n ta

ke b

oth

of th

ese

cont

ract

s and

this

is h

ow w

e ar

e go

ing

to m

anag

e th

e re

sour

ce?”

Will

:!Wel

l.H

arris

:!Can

I ju

st m

ake

two

poin

ts. I

mea

n, b

ased

on

hist

ory

Stev

e –

that

risk

you

’ve

high

light

ed w

ill a

lmos

t cer

tain

ly m

ater

ializ

e. /

Will

: Yes

/ It

will

alm

ost c

erta

inly

take

m

ore

peop

le lo

nger

to d

o it.

The

re’s

no d

oubt

in m

y m

ind.

Sec

ond

thin

g is

, is t

here

an

app

roac

h, is

ther

e a

diffe

rent

app

roac

h to

this

rath

er th

an b

alan

cing

it –

is th

ere

an

app

roac

h th

at sa

ys, g

iven

the

depe

nden

ces b

etw

een

thes

e di

ffere

nt p

rodu

cts,

is

ther

e an

app

roac

h th

at sa

ys “

wel

l, ac

tual

ly le

t’s th

row

eve

ryth

ing

at th

e O

SPRE

Ypr

oble

m a

nd tr

y an

d cr

ack

that

fast

as p

ossi

ble,

and

then

thro

w a

ll of

them

to th

e ne

xt o

ne.”

W

ill:!I

thin

k th

at’s

wha

t we’

re d

oing

for t

he n

ext f

our t

o si

x m

onth

s / L

arry

: yea

h,

yeah

//

Har

ris:!B

ut, i

t see

ms t

o m

e th

at th

ere’

s a b

it of

a m

obili

zatio

n ha

ppen

ing

in p

aral

lel

here

, and

that

som

e of

thes

e –

/ La

rry:

Wel

l, w

ell /

wha

t I’m

sayi

ng is

crac

k it,

and

then

521522523524525526527528529530531532533534535536537538539540541542543544545546547548549550551552553554555556557558559560561562563564565566567568569570571572

Am

ove

on?

Larr

y:!W

ell,

yes a

nd n

o. T

he ‘n

o’ b

it is

all

of th

e PE

REG

RIN

E re

sour

ces t

hat a

re a

vaila

ble,

ev

eryt

hing

that

– e

very

per

son

we

can

are

just

bei

ng a

pplie

d to

OSP

REY

to tr

y to

get

/

Cha

rlie:

And

FA

LCO

N /

Har

ris: R

ight

/ W

ill: Y

eah

/ Ye

ah, y

eah,

that

’s rig

ht.

Then

the

othe

r qu

estio

n, th

e ot

her e

lem

ent o

f tha

t is –

if w

e do

n’t a

ct n

ow a

nd m

ake

a de

cisi

on a

bout

uh

– u

nles

s we

can

see

the

way

forw

ard

to m

anag

e th

e PE

REG

RIN

E co

ntra

ct, a

nd g

o to

co

ntra

ct a

lmos

t by

the

end

of A

pril,

then

we

quite

pro

babl

y w

on’t

get a

PER

EGRI

NE

cont

ract

at

all.

Tha

t’s p

roba

bly

the

real

ity.

Har

ris:!I

reco

gniz

e it

as a

n im

pera

tive

to g

et a

cont

ract

dat

e, I’

m ju

st w

onde

ring

if th

ere’

s any

flex

ibili

ty in

the

effe

ctiv

e da

te in

mob

iliza

tion.

Larr

y: !N

o, n

o. I

thin

k th

at’s

hard

.H

arris

:!The

y’ve

dra

wn

the

line

in th

e sa

nd th

ere.

Larr

y: Y

eah.

M

ike:

!Wel

l it w

as k

ind

of o

ur n

umbe

r, it

was

our

num

ber /

Brad

ley:!W

e en

cour

aged

it.

Part

of t

hat l

ine

has i

n it

thos

e ex

pect

atio

ns /

Joe:!Is

it p

ossi

ble

to w

ork

in a

ny co

ntin

gent

term

that

– y

ou k

now

, you

’ve

got a

pr

oble

m w

ith tw

o pr

ogra

ms a

nd y

ou d

on’t

know

whe

re th

ey’re

goi

ng to

go,

from

w

hat I

’ve

hear

d to

day

– th

ey’re

goi

ng to

floa

t ove

r the

top

of e

ach

othe

r, an

d yo

u’re

go

ing

to h

ave

this

big

lum

p in

reso

urce

requ

irem

ents

. Is i

t pos

sibl

e th

at th

e cu

stom

er

wou

ld b

e m

atur

e en

ough

to d

iscu

ss a

cont

inge

nt te

rm in

the

cont

ract

bas

ed o

n so

me

very

spec

ific c

lear

cond

ition

s occ

urrin

g, th

at h

e w

ould

allo

w o

ne sc

hedu

le to

mov

e gi

ven

that

he’

s got

an

inte

rest

in m

anag

ing

the

indu

stry

capa

bilit

y al

so? I

don

’t kn

ow.

You

guys

kno

w th

e cu

stom

er.

Larr

y:!I’

d be

surp

rised

.Br

adle

y:!I’

d be

surp

rised

. [pa

use]

I w

ould

be

– I d

on’t

know

if I

wou

ld g

ive

him

the

–im

poss

ible

. W

ill: !

Yeah

, at l

east

in th

is cu

rren

t.

Har

ris:!D

oes t

he A

ugus

t mob

iliza

tion

tran

slat

e in

to a

n en

d-da

te th

at m

ust m

eet h

is

prog

ram

corp

orat

ion

requ

irem

ents

?La

rry:!Y

es.

Mik

e: !Y

es, i

t doe

s effe

ct th

e po

ssib

le e

nd.

Will

:!I’v

e go

t a th

ing

abou

t Sin

gapo

re p

oten

tially

com

ing

as w

ell /

Lar

ry: y

es, y

es, y

eah

/,

not t

o fo

rget

abo

ut th

at.

Har

ris:!B

ut th

at’s

fact

ored

into

you

r pro

file?

W

ill:!V

ery

rudi

men

taril

y.Br

adle

y:!B

ut e

ven

if yo

u –

to g

o ba

ck in

to L

arry

’s –

at th

is b

egin

ning

with

this

item

–

even

if y

ou to

ok a

way

the

criti

calit

y of

reso

urce

s pro

vide

d, [t

oo q

uiet

] wha

t you

’re

doin

g is

dev

elop

ing

prod

ucts

that

are

a m

ore

logi

cal i

n te

rms o

f dep

loyi

ng th

is ty

pe o

f re

sour

ces,

is to

dep

loy

thos

e re

sour

ces t

o th

e pr

oduc

t lin

e, n

ot to

a p

roje

ct.

So y

our

star

ting

prop

ositi

on sh

ould

be

– th

at’s

the

[too

quie

t]. T

he o

nly

real

que

stio

n sh

ould

be

: “ho

w d

o yo

u ge

t the

re fr

om th

e cu

rren

t sta

te?”

/ L

arry

: yea

h /

to th

at st

ate

in a

way

th

at th

e m

anag

ers c

an m

anag

e as

bes

t we

can.

Will

:!Is t

he cu

stom

er, t

he cu

stom

er in

term

s of L

eand

ro is

up

for i

t / L

arry

: yea

h /

in

term

s of m

appi

ng o

ut th

e /

/ La

rry:

– g

ives

a lo

ng-te

rm ca

pabi

lity,

indu

stry

capa

bilit

y fo

r the

cust

omer

.Br

adle

y:!I’

d ta

ke th

at p

ropo

sitio

n, th

at it

is w

hat w

e [to

o qu

iet],

I w

ould

say

the

‘how

’ is

wha

t we’

ve g

ot to

dea

l with

. Whi

le w

e’re

sayi

ng “

we

are

in th

is g

roup

of 1

5 pe

ople

, w

e ha

ve si

gnifi

cant

inte

llige

nce

char

acte

ristic

s”, a

nd I’

ll ta

ke H

arris

’s vi

ew a

nd I’

d sa

y “p

ut th

em to

geth

er fo

r a p

erio

d of

tim

e.”,

eve

n so

me

fairl

y si

mpl

e te

rms o

f pr

efer

ence

s on

how

to su

ppor

t the

ir bu

y-in

. The

que

stio

n is

“ho

w w

ould

you

supp

ort a

pr

oduc

t lin

e go

ing

forw

ard”

/ L

arry

: yep

, yea

h /,

ask

them

to g

ive

us th

eir v

iew

s. I

thin

k th

at’s

not t

o sa

y th

at w

e w

ill ju

st ta

ke th

eir v

iew

s and

say

“tha

t’s th

e pl

an,”

/ L

arry

:

573

574

575

576

577

578

579

580

581

582

583

584

585

586

587

588

589

590

591

592

593

594

595

596

597

598

599

600

601

602

603

604

605

606

607

608

609

610

611

612

613

614

615

616

617

618

619

620

621

622

623

624

Aye

ah /

, but

we’

ll ta

ke th

eir v

iew

s the

n –

/ La

rry:

yea

h /,

I th

ink

this

is a

n EC

leve

l re

spon

sibi

lity

to /

Will

: act

ually

that

’s /

/ La

rry:

!Tha

t set

s a v

ery

good

poi

nt, a

skin

g th

at k

ey g

roup

to p

ut th

eir –

them

on

to

help

ing

to d

evis

e th

e so

lutio

n, a

ctua

lly g

ets t

heir

enga

gem

ent.

That

in it

self

is a

le

ader

ship

stra

tegy

and

its –

Ada

m:!I

t’s a

lso

the

defa

ult i

n an

y le

ader

ship

or a

ny o

rgan

izat

iona

l str

uctu

re, t

he m

ost

sim

ple

mod

el, a

nd th

eref

ore

in a

nsw

er to

that

que

stio

n, w

hy w

ould

n’t t

he a

nsw

er b

e “w

e’ll

put t

his p

rodu

ct li

ne in

the

dire

ctor

line

s of t

wo,

thre

e, fo

ur d

irect

ors,”

in te

rms

of re

spon

sibi

lity.

La

rry:

!Bec

ause

I th

ink

in th

e lo

ng te

rm, t

his s

ort o

f situ

atio

n w

here

we

need

to d

eplo

y ca

pabi

lity

acro

ss b

usin

ess u

nits

, is g

oing

to k

eep

occu

rrin

g in

diff

eren

t – if

it’s

not i

n Av

ioni

cs in

the

futu

re, i

t’ll b

e in

aut

onom

ous s

yste

ms.

I mea

n –

we’

re a

lread

y se

eing

it

to a

n ex

tent

with

aut

onom

ous s

yste

ms.

/ Br

adle

y: I

agre

e. I

agre

e /

Har

ris:!A

dam

’s ta

king

a d

iffer

ent m

odel

, he’

s say

ing

rath

er th

an d

eplo

y it

acro

ss –

sh

uffle

the

busi

ness

uni

t con

figur

atio

n so

that

it a

ligns

...La

rry:

!But

we’

d be

reor

gani

zing

our

– o

ur b

usin

ess s

truc

ture

with

eve

ry n

ew co

ntra

ct

that

we

won

. Br

adle

y:!W

ell t

hat w

ould

be

for [

too

quie

t]M

ike:

!Alth

ough

ther

e pr

obab

ly is

a ca

se fo

r hav

ing

– fo

r loo

king

at o

rgan

izat

ion

agai

n, w

hich

says

that

thes

e th

ings

are

occ

urrin

g an

d oc

curr

ing

mor

e of

ten,

so le

t’s

have

a th

ink

abou

t org

aniz

atio

n ge

nera

lly.

Whe

ther

you

’re ju

st cr

eatin

g th

e ne

xt

situ

atio

n th

at y

ou h

ave

to ch

ange

. Bu

t any

way

, it’s

wor

th h

avin

g a

conv

ersa

tion.

W

orth

hav

ing

a di

scus

sion

–La

rry:

!Yes

, it i

s. A

s lon

g as

we

unde

rsta

nd th

at th

e si

tuat

ion

will

pro

babl

y ke

ep

occu

rrin

g in

diff

eren

t, w

ith d

iffer

ent c

apab

ilitie

s as w

ell,

so w

e do

n’t –

Mik

e: !B

ut in

the

mea

ntim

e w

e’ve

got

to –

Har

ris:!J

ust t

ryin

g to

floa

t thi

s... [

laug

hter

] no,

on

the

prod

uct l

ine,

on

the

prod

uct l

ine

I don

’t th

ink

you

can

say

that

by

dive

rtin

g al

l the

reso

urce

to th

e fir

st u

nit o

f the

pr

oduc

t lin

e th

at it

nec

essa

rily

– ye

s you

mig

ht n

ot h

it an

Aug

ust m

obili

zatio

n da

te fo

r th

e pa

ralle

l act

ivity

, but

you

still

mig

ht g

et y

our d

eliv

erab

le p

rodu

ct w

ithin

the

cust

omer

’s w

indo

w o

f wan

ting

the

deliv

erab

le p

rodu

ct.

Brad

ley:

Tha

t wou

ld b

e –

our m

anag

emen

t of r

isk.

Tha

t wou

ld b

e up

to u

s to

do th

at

with

in th

e co

ntra

ctua

l fra

mew

ork

we

agre

ed.

/ La

rry:

Yep

/ S

o w

e co

uld

mak

e th

at

choi

ce. W

e ca

n ch

oose

to d

o th

e sc

hedu

led

flow

of P

EREG

RIN

E Av

ioni

cs in

ord

er to

m

ake

a m

ore

succ

essf

ul d

ecis

ion

arou

nd to

tal r

esou

rce.

M

ike:

!But

with

/C

harli

e:!H

elp

with

OSP

REY,

whi

ch is

wha

t we’

re d

oing

, im

pact

s mor

e th

an ju

st P

EREG

RIN

E Av

ioni

cs.

At t

he m

omen

t, an

d of

cour

se I

don’

t hav

e al

l the

guy

s the

re o

n FA

LCO

N /

Har

ris:

– it

wou

ld b

e ta

xing

us /

No,

we

can

talk

a b

it m

ore

on A

vion

ics,

wha

t I’m

get

ting

at, t

here

’s no

t muc

h le

ft. T

hat’s

all

I’m sa

ying

.La

rry:!Y

eah,

we

need

to m

anag

e th

at.

Will

:!One

of t

he d

iscu

ssio

ns th

at th

e le

ad te

am h

ad w

hen

we

wer

e lo

okin

g at

Sin

gapo

re

and

how

to m

obili

ze S

inga

pore

, was

[tha

t] w

e ru

n it

as a

pro

duct

-bas

ed o

rgan

izat

ion,

or

to tr

y an

d ru

n it

as a

sepa

rate

pro

gram

. One

vie

w w

as th

at w

e cr

eate

an

Avio

nics

pro

duct

w

ith tw

o cu

stom

ers:

one

bein

g Si

ngap

ore,

one

bei

ng F

ALC

ON

, and

one

bei

ng

OSP

REY.

The

dec

isio

n th

at w

e en

ded

up g

oing

dow

n th

e pa

th o

f was

that

the

orga

niza

tiona

l mat

urity

is n

ot th

ere

to d

o th

e pr

oduc

t lin

e at

the

mom

ent.

So w

e so

rt

of sa

id th

at w

e’d

set S

inga

pore

up

as a

sepa

rate

pro

gram

and

man

age

it th

roug

h –

if yo

u w

ant t

o us

e th

e do

tted

line

term

– b

ut th

roug

h re

sour

ces b

eing

conn

ecte

d, co

-loca

ted,

al

l tho

se so

rt o

f thi

ngs –

mak

e it

easy

bec

ause

they

’re a

ll in

one

bus

ines

s uni

t, bu

t with

th

e en

d st

ate

that

it co

uld

get t

he m

atur

ity in

to th

e or

gani

zatio

n ar

ound

that

, tha

t pro

duct

is th

e rig

ht w

ay to

go.

So

I thi

nk th

e pr

oduc

t lin

e at

the

end

is w

here

we

need

to g

et to

.

625626627628629630631632633634635636637638639640641642643644645646647648649650651652653654655656657658659660661662663664665666667668669670671672673674675676

AA

s Lar

ry sa

ys, y

ou d

on’t

wan

t to

go re

orga

nizi

ng b

ased

aro

und

proj

ects

all

the

time.

Bu

t I th

ink

you’

ve g

ot to

sort

of s

ay –

bet

wee

n w

here

we

are

now

and

wha

t the

end

st

ate

is –

wha

t’s th

e lo

wes

t ris

k or

gani

zatio

nal r

espo

nse

to g

ettin

g th

e ch

ange

from

w

here

we

are

now

to th

e en

d st

ate,

bec

ause

in fi

ve y

ear’

s tim

e, I

wou

ld li

ke to

say

that

it

does

n’t m

atte

r wha

t bus

ines

uni

t exe

cute

s a p

roje

ct, y

ou’v

e ac

tual

ly g

ot th

at ca

pabi

lity

ticki

ng a

way

. Tha

t bet

wee

n no

w a

nd th

en, I

bel

ieve

ther

e’s s

igni

fican

t ris

k in

term

s of

tran

sitio

ning

it. I

thin

k th

e w

ay w

e do

it n

eeds

to b

e th

ough

t thr

ough

that

who

le p

lan.

So

end

to e

nd, I

’m o

kay,

it’s h

ow a

re w

e ac

tual

ly g

ettin

g be

twee

n th

e tw

o.

Larr

y: !J

ust s

o if

I can

sum

mar

ize

an a

nsw

er to

Mik

e’s t

wo

ques

tions

, the

n, th

e an

swer

to

the

first

que

stio

n is

“ca

n w

e do

it? D

o w

e be

lieve

we

can

do it

?” I

thin

k I’m

hea

ring

yes.

Ther

e’s l

ots o

f ris

ks th

at w

e ne

ed to

man

age,

but

I th

ink

I’m h

earin

g ye

s. I

cert

ainl

y be

lieve

that

we

can.

Sec

ondl

y, in

term

s of “

how

do

we

do it

,” w

hat I

wou

ld

offe

r to

do is

to b

ring

toge

ther

– p

ull t

oget

her a

stra

w m

an –

uh,

an

outli

ne o

f how

we

wou

ld d

o th

at, a

nd b

ring

it to

, to

this

gro

up a

gain

nex

t wee

k, to

star

t the

pro

cess

of,

of

refin

ing

it an

d fle

shin

g ou

t the

det

ail a

nd u

nder

stan

ding

how

we

have

to d

o it.

I kn

ow

Sanj

ay h

as b

een

thin

king

abo

ut th

is so

rt o

f thi

ng a

s wel

l, an

d w

e ca

n en

gage

– e

xcep

t I’l

l be

in th

e U

K n

ext w

eek,

wel

l it d

oesn

’t st

op m

e br

ingi

ng it

forw

ard

next

wee

k yo

u kn

ow /

Bra

dley

: Tha

t's /

Cha

rlie:

[jok

ing]

Was

my

plan

. / B

ut y

ou’d

pro

babl

y ha

ve a

mor

e fr

uitfu

l dis

cuss

ion

if I’m

not

her

e [la

ughs

]. Bu

t I ca

n un

dert

ake

to g

et a

dra

ft, o

r a

stra

w m

an, o

r wha

teve

r to

the

EC fo

r dis

cuss

ion

next

wee

k, it

’s –

Mik

e: !W

hen

do I

have

to si

gn th

is co

ntra

ct? /

Cha

rlie:

Eh

/Br

adle

y:!A

h, a

bout

two

wee

ks, t

hree

wee

ks.

Cha

rlie:!T

wo

wee

ks.

It’s d

own

to th

e av

aila

bilit

y of

Cliv

e an

d –

eh –

Col

e, w

hich

is th

e 28

th?

Brad

ley:!T

hat w

as th

eir t

arge

t dat

e, b

ut th

ey d

idn’

t thi

nk th

at –

Cha

rlie:

Som

ethi

ng li

ke th

at w

as in

my

min

d.M

ike:

!Is k

ind

of th

e ‘y

es’ b

ut I’

m h

earin

g, n

ot q

uite

conc

lusi

on e

noug

h ye

t tha

t we

can

do b

oth

of th

ese

thin

gs. [

paus

e] E

very

one

thin

ks w

e ca

n do

it, b

ut it

’s –

/ H

arris

: Th

ere’

s no

plan

. / T

here

’s no

clea

r pla

n. W

ell –

I’m

less

driv

en b

y a

reas

onab

ly la

rge

unkn

own

on th

e fr

ont-e

nd o

f it.

Doe

s –[S

ecre

tary

com

es to

the

door

to p

ass a

mes

sage

to o

ne o

f the

dire

ctor

s.]La

rry:

The

, the

, I m

ean,

[sig

hs] T

here

is a

que

stio

n of

scal

e ar

ound

the

chal

leng

e in

Av

ioni

cs, b

ut –

we

man

age

chal

leng

ing

proj

ects

all

the

time,

and

, and

we

do h

ave

limite

d re

sour

ces i

n or

der t

o ex

ecut

e al

l of o

ur p

roje

cts.

It is

not

– th

e O

SPRE

Y ch

alle

nge

is

not s

o ex

trem

e in

my

view

that

we

– th

at it

shou

ld so

rt o

f tot

ally

wei

ght u

s to

– to

un

bala

nce

the

orga

niza

tion.

It is

ano

ther

chal

leng

ing

proj

ect,

or p

hase

of t

he p

roje

ct,

that

we

need

to d

eliv

er, a

nd I

thin

k w

hat w

e’re

get

ting

to h

ere,

and

I ho

pefu

lly h

ave

got t

o –

is a

situ

atio

n w

here

eve

ryon

e is

tryi

ng to

hel

p St

eve

to d

eliv

er, a

nd e

very

one

is tr

ying

to h

elp

Cha

rlie

to d

eliv

er. W

here

as b

efor

e it

was

just

sort

of t

wo

sepa

rate

guy

s tr

ying

– tr

ying

to d

eliv

er o

n th

eir o

wn.

Wha

t I n

ow th

ink

we’

re g

ettin

g to

is a

situ

atio

n w

here

eve

ryon

e is

tryi

ng to

hel

p bo

th to

del

iver

, and

we’

re tr

ying

to m

anag

e it

as a

–

as a

uh

– ju

st m

anag

ing

it in

an

over

all b

usin

ess a

ppro

ach.

For

– fo

r me,

yea

h, I

wis

h –

Cha

rlie:!If

you

wan

t som

ethi

ng fa

ctua

l, w

e’re

not

real

ly g

oing

to g

et it

unt

il St

eve’

s sc

hedu

le is

toge

ther

at t

he e

nd o

f the

mon

th. /

Will

: Cor

rect

/ S

o w

e’re

goi

ng to

hav

eto

take

a b

est g

uess

as m

uch

as it

’s –

Mik

e: !Y

eah,

we

did

take

a b

est g

uess

whe

n w

e to

ld th

e cu

stom

er w

e th

ough

t a fo

ur

mon

th /

Cha

rlie:

yea

h, y

eah

/ flo

at w

ould

be

wha

t we

wou

ld n

eed.

La

rry:

!A

nd I

still

thin

k th

at’s

true

. Bu

t wha

t we’

re ta

lkin

g ab

out i

s – is

real

ly [s

ighs

] m

anag

ing

the

risk

arou

nd th

at, b

y m

anag

ing

our r

esou

rces

mor

e ef

ficie

ntly

.M

ike:

!Wel

l the

n le

t’s se

e a

plan

to d

o th

at.

Larr

y:!O

K, y

ep.

677

678

679

680

681

682

683

684

685

686

687

688

689

690

691

692

693

694

695

696

697

698

699

700

701

702

703

704

705

706

707

708

709

710

711

712

713

714

715

716

717

718

AM

ike:

!And

can

we

get t

hese

guy

s eng

aged

so th

at –

do

they

hav

e th

e tim

e to

get

en

gage

d no

w, a

nd sa

y “t

his i

s how

we

wou

ld d

o it?

”W

ill:!T

here

’s a

coup

le o

f key

indi

vidu

als t

hat y

ou’d

wan

t to

get i

nvol

ved,

you

kno

w

peop

le li

ke Jo

hn O

tterm

an, a

nd W

esle

y D

icks

on in

that

are

a.C

harli

e:!W

hich

is b

lood

y w

orry

ing

I tel

l you

//

Larr

y:!I

wou

ldn’

t get

the

PMs –

I’d

leav

e th

e PM

s – th

is is

abo

ut g

ettin

g –

wel

l, th

is

is m

y un

ders

tand

ing,

it’s

abou

t get

ting

the A

vion

ics s

peci

alis

ts to

geth

er sa

ying

//

Cha

rlie:!S

o w

ho w

ould

that

be?

W

ill:!T

he p

roje

ct m

anag

ers a

nd th

e PM

s are

stak

ehol

ders

in th

is. A

nd m

aybe

th

ey’v

e go

t to.

..La

rry:!fo

r tho

se p

roje

cts.

In w

hich

case

we

have

FA

LCO

N a

nd w

e ge

t all

the

othe

rs a

s w

ell,

FALC

ON

– F

ALC

ON

and

FA

LCO

N.

Will

:!If y

ou g

et th

e Avi

onic

s spe

cial

ists

to g

o of

f and

com

e up

with

som

ethi

ng, b

ut if

the

PMs a

nd th

e PM

s are

not

invo

lved

in o

wni

ng p

art o

f tha

t...

Larr

y:!T

hey’

re p

art o

f the

pro

blem

.W

ill:!I

kno

w, w

hich

is w

hy th

ey’v

e go

t to

be p

art o

f the

solu

tion.

Brad

ley:

!I th

ink

we

real

ly o

ught

to le

t Lar

ry g

et o

n an

d ha

ve th

e tim

e to

get

on

with

pr

opos

ing

a pl

an th

at in

clud

es st

akeh

olde

r eng

agem

ent,

and

enga

gem

ent b

y th

epe

ople

that

are

goi

ng to

exe

cute

this

capa

bilit

y.

Larr

y:! Y

ep, u

nder

stan

dabl

y.W

ill:!H

e’s m

eant

to b

e in

at i

t rig

ht n

ow.

Mik

e: !R

ight

Lar

ry /

Lar

ry: O

K /

, str

aw m

an.

Larr

y: !

An

easy

act

ion

[laug

hs].

Giv

e m

e so

met

hing

har

d. [l

augh

ter]

Cha

rlie:!W

hat a

re w

e go

ing

to fo

llow

up

to G

eral

d? J

ust t

he v

oice

ove

r / L

arry

: OK

/

Mik

e: !W

e’re

goi

ng to

forw

ard

the

voic

e-ov

er –

Larr

y: !O

K, i

n w

hich

case

I’ll

take

out

the

sect

ion

num

ber 7

that

was

in th

ere,

bec

ause

I –

I w

as g

oing

to p

ut a

bit

mor

e m

eat t

o ho

w w

e w

ere

– ju

st a

n ap

proa

ch to

reso

urce

sh

arin

g, b

ut I

thin

k it

wou

ld b

e m

ore

appr

opria

te ju

st to

leav

e th

at o

ut, a

nd u

h so

I’ve

go

t a d

raft

of it

her

e. I

’ll ci

rcul

ate

it to

the

stak

ehol

der g

roup

stra

ight

afte

r the

m

eetin

g.C

harli

e:!A

nd th

en th

e ne

w d

ate

as o

ppos

ed to

ED

?La

rry:!Y

eah,

Aug

ust.

So I’

ll ci

rcul

ate

it to

the

stak

ehol

der g

roup

s str

aigh

t afte

r the

m

eetin

g.M

ike:

!And

I be

lieve

we

have

to h

ave

a co

nver

satio

n w

ith Ia

n at

som

e tim

e, y

ou m

ay

rem

embe

r the

re’s

an a

ctio

n be

fore

we

sign

the

PERE

GRI

NE

that

we

have

n’t –

so th

at’s

likel

y to

take

pla

ce th

e 17

th, t

he cu

rren

t – w

ith Ia

n an

d Ri

ck, i

sn’t

it?

Har

ris:!I

thin

k it

was

nex

t Tue

sday

.M

ike:

!I’m

on

my

way

bac

k fr

om Is

rael

at t

hat t

ime.

So

they

’ve

aske

d us

– th

e bu

ffer

is a

chan

ge in

dat

e I t

hink

. I h

ad to

chan

ge m

y fli

ghts

so I

was

n’t fl

ying

that

day

as

wel

l [la

ught

er].

Wel

l sor

t tha

t out

. One

oth

er su

bjec

t I’d

like

to ta

lk a

bout

bef

ore

is th

e C

RW.

If Br

adle

y ca

n br

ing

us u

p to

spee

d on

the

CRW

/ B

radl

ey: W

ell I

’ll ju

st tr

y an

d ke

ep it

/ a

nd C

oron

atio

n St

reet

–