Category: Change Management
Recently a client told us that their organization spends an excessive amount of time ‘navel gazing’ in absolute fascination of their own internal structures, processes and, let’s face it, silos. This fascination can’t help but influence the type of information that they create in order to conduct their business and share information with their external world.
When asked what they should be doing differently, they replied that they need to stop ‘navel gazing’, and start providing the information that clients and/or those external to the organization are looking for.
Finally, an explanation of transformation that I can relate to.
Assuming this to be true, isn’t it time the whole of the Government of Canada started thinking and acting like the one big team that they really are? They are one team tasked with providing information and services to Canadians. The average Canadian isn’t very interested in how the service is delivered, so long as the service meets their needs.
The optimist in me hears the distant sound of silo walls coming crashing down, but let’s not get ahead of ourselves. Remember that we generally don’t play well together and that many organizations are actively resisting any suggestion that may result in their silo walls being lowered, let alone removed entirely.
The realist in me only has to attend departmental meetings currently being held to increase collaboration and build partnerships. Without fail these meetings turn into an opportunity for functional managers to resist all proposed changes and further cement the mortar on their own silo walls. The actions and outcomes don’t even remotely resemble the original intent of the meeting. So much for us all acting like one big team!
What this tells me is that people don’t really consider themselves to be one big team. It further tells me that TBS could be doing a better job at building awareness and sponsorship for the GC transformation. Information does not travel on its own, it must be carried forth by human beings in order to be heard.
What it also tells me is that we are not effectively translating the messages coming from TBS into our own operational or service reality. We hear the messages, yet continue to conduct business as usual (i.e. navel gazing) and will do so until a large force acts upon us and sends us into another direction. The laws of physics are at play here. The major problem with this approach is the large impact that it has on staff, emotionally, physically, and professionally.
Here’s my wish list for a better transformation world:
1. That TBS would create a powerful sponsorship / leadership coalition, comprised of representatives from all departments, and arm them with the information and authority to guide and enable the transformation. This powerful coalition could help us all to feel and act more like one big team.
2. That departmental leaders would embrace consolidation and centralization, and seek more information from TBS, SSC, etc to guide their departmental strategic planning efforts, even (and especially!) if it challenges their current mandate. This strategic alignment would save time and effort on misaligned priorities, and deliver internal efficiencies in short order.
3. That departmental leaders would embrace collaboration and innovation, and start partnering with one another in a more meaningful way to find new and creative solutions, even (and especially!) if they come from outside of their silo walls. This collective ownership of true collaboration would spread throughout departments and deliver solutions that actually exceed expectations.
4. That departmental leaders would embrace effective communication, and start driving messages down to their functional management teams for translation and alignment with ongoing activities. This shared management responsibility for transformation would save time and effort on project delays, and also deliver internal efficiencies.
5. That departmental leaders would embrace change management, with their actions instead of just their words, and start weighing the human factor in their decision-making. This compassion and engagement of staff would increase morale, improve productivity and build teams ready and able to deliver on the transformation objectives.
We all know this is not business as usual, so the faster we all stop behaving in the ways of the past, and start building the bridges for tomorrow, the more successful the Government of Canada’s transformation will be for all of us.
The key to effective horizontal collaboration may only be found by first looking vertical. For years I have tried to see things differently, and focus less on the vertical reporting structures (that were all the rage in the private sector) because clients have simply been asking more about horizontal collaboration. But can you have strong horizontal collaboration without first having strong vertical alignment? The answer is no, particularly if you are driven to have more factual, evidence-based information.
1. Vertical Alignment
Vertical alignment is the state of having all levels in an organization focused on the same priorities. It is achieved through the ongoing review and validation of detailed information across Staff, Team Leads, Chief/Managers, and Directors. Once validated, this information is then ready for sharing with senior management and horizontal partners.
People are frustrated about their inability to get the facts rights (and the right facts), resulting in the cry from all leaders in government to deliver more factual, evidence-based information. A noble cry for sure, but how does one go about getting more of this type of information? The answer lies in dashboards.
2. Dashboard Reporting
At the centre of my new (and old at the same time) discovery lies the dashboard report. Lots of government departments are embracing the idea of a dashboard, and if created and implemented well, it serves as the impetus for strengthening your vertical alignment.
It can focus all individuals within a functional work team on the same priorities. This same exercise can be repeated in all functional work teams across an organization. When the buzz around certain priorities gets loud enough (goes viral), momentum can’t help but kick in. How does one go about creating buzz? The answer lies in communication frameworks.
3. Communication Framework
A well designed dashboard report is definitely important. It then must be anchored within a communication framework to ensure the right information is being reviewed by the right people at the right time (on an ongoing and consistent basis). Only then can it move mountains. This is not pie in the sky thinking, I’ve seen this happen many times in my thirteen years implementing them in the private sector.
The quest for meaningful horizontal collaboration lies in first achieving and implementing three things: vertical alignment, dashboard reporting, and communication frameworks. This is the straightest path available for gathering the factual, evidence-based information required for sharing effective information with senior management and horizontal partners.
The news is good here. The path is straight. The path is well trodden. For those who choose the path, success is right around the corner.
Footnotes on Communication Frameworks:
How do they work?
Just think of the letter V – it starts at the top, dips down to the bottom, and then comes back up. A Communication Framework works through the chain of command in the same V shape. Strategic priorities are defined by Senior Management and they are then translated down through the chain of command. And in return, operational performance results based on those priorities are reported back up again. Everyone along the way is providing the right people the right information at the right time.
Why is it called a Communication Framework?
The process of leveraging the chain of command (described above) serves to validate information. Armed with the right facts, people will communicate more effectively and more timely information. Over time, people will develop better communication habits enabling them to more consistently meet their organization’s communication needs.
Over the past three years, I must confess that I have been confused by the terms change management, transformation, and consolidation. And lately, I have found myself ‘finding and replacing’ these terms in documents in a rather random and interchangeable manner. They are obviously very distinct terms and processes, as evidenced by the definitions presented below:
- Change Management is a set of tools and techniques for managing the people side of change. It is also the principle that must underpin all major projects and initiatives that impact people.
- Transformation is a process of radical change that takes an organization in a new direction. It implies a basic change of character that will have little or no resemblance with the past configuration or structure.
- Consolidation is a process of combining two or more organizations through purchase, merger, or ownership transfer to form a new organization. It involves the combining of assets, equities, liabilities and operating accounts into one financial statement.
The difference in their definitions is significant, so why all the confusion?
I believe the answer lies in our history and proven track record as task masters. I don’t think we spend a lot of time considering their definitions. When presented with a new challenge or term, we simply get busy assigning tasks and start working on deliverables. After all, definitions are secondary when we are on such tight timelines to show results.
I have seen a fairly technical approach being applied to the way departments are approaching the new GC direction as a whole. After all, this task-based recipe has delivered results in the past, so why wouldn’t it work in the present environment?
The present environment is not business as usual. The present environment will not respond to recipes from the past.
In fact, many change management practitioners claim that 20% of a change implementation is technical, and 80% is tactical. So any organization approaching their change management, transformation, or consolidation efforts in a technical manner are just getting started, as 80% of the work still lies ahead.
Note: Technical refers to the development of plans, objectives, tasks, deliverables; Tactical refers to the implementation of the technical plans through engaging people, changing behaviours, managing resistance, communicating effectively.
I believe that leaders throughout the Government of Canada right now are beginning to realize this reality, but are unsure of what to do to achieve the other 80%.
Here’s some ideas:
1. Embrace that change management, transformation, and consolidation are big initiatives. They involve an intricate web of process, technology, and people changes that require enterprise-wide approaches.
- Pick your leaders carefully, it’s directly correlated to an initiative’s success
- Do not assign critical responsibilities to already over-tasked staff, dedicate the resources required
- Start accepting that trade-offs are a necessary part of the process (i.e. lower service levels, extensions on other initiatives, etc.)
2. Accept that people cannot even begin to think in terms of changing, transforming, or consolidating services until they first understand the process of changing, transforming or consolidating themselves and their teams.
- Place organizational end state decisions as the highest priority
- Do not require people to work in uncertain conditions for extended periods of time
- Stop under-estimating the importance of defining where people will ‘live’ (it’s a basic need in their Hierarchy of Needs)
3. Get real about progress made to-date, and commit to achieving the other 80% on a go-forward basis.
- Commit to adapting the overall approach, it’s never too late
- Build a powerful coalition consisting of both tactical and technical experts
- Accept ideas that may not fit with past practices, remember it’s not business as usual
Throughout the ages, top management teams have been challenged by the implementation of complex changes in their organizations. This is hard stuff, not to be underestimated. The ultimate test for all teams has always been their ability to be agile and adaptive throughout the change process.
The recipe for success is not fixed, and differs from one organization to the next. However, it has always contained a balanced combination of technical and tactical ingredients. It is encumbent on all of us to find that balance, and deliver change, transformation and consolidation implementations that not only achieve their intended results, but do so in a manner that considers the people in the process.
After all, change is not accomplished by an organization, it’s accomplished by individuals.
I’ve always been fascinated by the complex machinery of large organizations. And I don’t think organizations get any more complex than large government departments. If that isn’t enough, these complex large government departments are now implementing large scale transformation agendas, which include new organizational models, major program changes, and new service models all contained within the same initiative. Let’s just say that my levels of fascination have hit new heights.
All across the country, government departments of all sizes and mandates are forging ahead with their transformation agendas fueled by sheer determination and a massive commitment to deliver on all fronts. Now that they are well entrenched in their detailed planning and implementations, many common challenges are being identified. Let’s check in and see how we’re doing so far, from the staff perspective.
Here are 5 of the most common challenges that we have come across:
1. Expected outcomes are defined at senior levels, and are not always well understood by those being asked to implement them.
- Staff are asking for less concept and more concrete information that will allow them to better visualize the organization (and their role) in the future or end state.
- Possible Solutions:
- Define the organizational end states as early in the change process as possible
- Describe characteristics of the end state in terms that people can relate to
- Communicate to staff in plain language that is easily understood
- Present more opportunities for open forums where staff can ask questions
2. Trade-offs are not being accepted as a necessary part of the process.
- Workloads are continually increasing (with no end in sight), yet organizations still expect their staff to deliver high levels of service excellence and/or to continue to meet an ever increasing number of deliverables.
- Possible Solutions:
- If new priorities arise and work must be added, management should strive to understand their staff’s current work capacity, and when required, identify other work that can be removed or delayed.
- Is the new work required? (or nice to have?)
- Is the new work a higher priority than other work already assigned?
- Can some work be extended in its timelines?
- Can some administrative work be delayed or eliminated?
- Can certain meeting participation be reduced or eliminated?
- Can any work deliverables be delayed or halted entirely?
3. Client expectations are not being re-set or re-communicated during transitional times.
- Organizations are not sharing with clients the short-term impacts of the change on their services and/or relationships, requiring staff to bear the burden of sheltering the client from any and all impacts.
- Possible Solutions:
- Clients should be engaged early in the change process and made aware of the pending changes. There should be an open discussion around impacts and potential changes to service levels during the transitional times. Clients should be provided a contact person in the event that extraordinary impacts are felt, or should they require additional assistance at any time.
4. Staff engagement is a popular term, but one that is not well understood or implemented in practice.
- Staff engagement is not an event (e.g. annual employee survey), rather a systematic approach to prioritizing, planning, implementing, and following through on the involvement of staff in the achievement of an organization’s objectives. (Note: Low morale is a clear indicator that it is not going well.)
- Possible Solutions:
- Staff engagement should be a measured indicator in the performance measurement framework within every organization. It should have its own unique section on every dashboard in every organization. It should be the responsibility of every manager at every level. Some indicators could include (in addition to annual survey results):
- # of regularly held 1×1 meetings (or bi-lats)
- # of regularly held team meetings
- # of employee recognition events
- # of ADM/DM Open Forums (two way meetings)
- # of improvement ideas submitted
- # of hits on the “tell us what you think” button
- # of page visits (i.e. news, highlights, etc.)
5. The role of internal communications is massive during times of change, yet it is approached in an ad-hoc and reactive manner.
- Everyone says that internal communications is a top priority throughout times of change, yet it is seldom integrated into the transformation approach or structure, rendering it too late to the party to be truly effective.
- Possible Solutions:
- Assign dedicated internal communications resources directly to change initiatives, starting in the early planning stages
- Create horizontal teams of cross-functional experts in the areas of transformation oversight, change management, project management, and internal communications
- Create centres of expertise for critical competencies related to change management, i.e. internal communications, project management, change management to ensure the expertise is available to better structure these approaches and activities
Perhaps the largest lessons being learned so far relate to the gap that exists between what we say and what we do. In order to be more successful in this next phase of transformation, it would be prudent for us to better bridge that gap. Sure there are limited resources, and challenges associated to this approach. But we’re up for the challenge. We all know who will be implementing the changes at the end of the day, the staff, so we should all make it a priority to better position our organizations (and our people) for transformation success (and sustainment).
First, the Systemscope crew extends a warm Happy New Year to our friends, clients and associates. May the year ahead bring many successes to you personally and in your various endeavours.
Ahead of the maelstrom that is the fourth quarter for the federal government, we took a moment to mark down some of our insights about transformation in the public sector. These predictions come from interactions with our clients, research of emerging business process and information technology trends and our own exploration of new ideas and approaches. And, frankly, our own gut feelings.
Let’s just say it won’t be a quiet year.
The Fog Starts to Clear
- Service delivery models will be architected while being engineered. The gauntlet has dropped. Transformational priorities have been thrust upon the community, from GC Web Renewal to regulatory service transformation, through to centralized IT and clustered service delivery. The GC does not have the luxury of time, nor of resources to demonstrate results. As a result, gone are the days of infinite strategizing, planning, requirements collection, procurement, design, build, implement, operate… all of which are fraught with risk. This year we expect to see the GC adopt more agile approaches writ large. The successful ones will embrace the innovative mojo the GC once had in order to enter into an effective cycle of plan-do-measure-learn-improve. By blending business, information and applications architecture into engineering design, through an agile and iterative approach, we will see lower risk, faster time-to-value, and accelerated benefits realization for clients, stakeholders and the GC.
- Lead departments, in the execution of IM strategies that focus on maximizing the use of valuable digital information assets, will radically transform the way digital information is stored, accessed and managed in enterprise information management systems. For too long now in information management the focus has been on designing systems and processes that enable information creation and information retention and disposition but do not enable or facilitate information use. Lead departments, taking cues from successful information rich web and e-commerce sites, will develop systems in which leveraging the value of information for the benefit of the organization will dominate the design paradigm, achieving the necessary, but more mundane, records management requirements in the background.
- There will be a surge of true enterprise wide transformation management. Although many people believe we have lived through these types of massive changes before, we’re not sure we agree. It seems like today’s large scale transformations are different, and in many ways are presenting us with the perfect storm. They involve organizational restructuring, client needs and client service redefinition, and a total reinvention of existing service delivery channels. And within each of these major initiatives, there are people, process, technology, and system changes. And if that all wasn’t enough, we are continually being asked to work collaboratively with new ‘partners’ and/or people whom we may have never worked with before.
We believe that 2013 will be the year that we all stop thinking of transformations from exclusively the project management (PM) perspective. We are fast learning that they must be approached as enterprise-wide programs that impact each and every individual within an organization. A PM approach is simply not created for that purpose. So 2013 (and beyond) will focus on the creation of new enterprise-wide program tools and techniques that will provide the ‘umbrella approach’ necessary to better weather that perfect storm!
- ROT will be removed in 2013 whether you like it or not. Some think that ROT is done and gone, but the reality is that the initial thrust has passed with dismal results. I’m seeing 2-3% of content identified as redundant, outdated or trivial which is a far cry from the 40-60% being targeted. That’s not a prediction, just a fact. So where will go from here? I think we will see two different paths followed this year. First, communications branches will start to take the bull by the horns, and rather than trying to get program areas to identify the ROT, Communications is going to do it for them. Comms will start owning the problem, making the decisions, and removing the content as needed. The second path will be for those who continue with inertia. Rather than the department being able to identify their ROT and dissect their pages tactfully with a scalpel, someone is going to come along with a machete and do it for them. While it may end up being efficient, I’m not convinced this will be optimal for departments or users.
- GC Web consolidation efforts will initially meet a wall, and then overcome it. The pressure to start implementing “something” in 2013 will produce some initial strategies for information architecture and governance. But with the challenges of handling this huge effort by committee and not by a dedicated team, odds are that progress will be minimal by Q2 and anything visible will not feel like a transformation, but more of the same. Rather than let the momentum falter, there will be a rethink at the drawing board and a better plan that looks more keenly at an enterprise model and sustainable, iterative development. Governance will be framed around the role of content owner and the supporting, centralized mechanisms that must deal with the issues of user experience design, interoperability and performance.
What’s in a Name? That Which We Call…
- Intranets will be reborn as digital workspace. Intranets will gain prominence this year, but under the guise of a new “digital workspace”. Intranets, as we have known them in the past, are outdated, dull and in many departments, a useless junk drawer. I think we’re going to see a new push to turn this around and create useful, effective and efficient digital workspaces for staff, of which the intranets are a component. Why now? There are a few GC priorities and cultural influences that are all now converging, leaving us in a position where we can’t help but look to our digital workspace as a new priority. These include:
- The evolving internet renewal driven by TBS priorities: a lot of the good ideas from these are also going to be viewed as good ideas for internal web presences).
- Workplace 2.0: with an eye to working differently the collaboration and communication spaces used by staff will need to evolve if there’s to be any success with “working smarter”.
- Enterprise Information Management, TBS RK compliance and GC Docs are all going to require some sort of interface and document collaboration space and the internal web space will have a critical role here.
- Departments will start to evolve to developing “digital workspace” strategies, rather than IM/IT strategies, to keep pace with public and employee expectations for the delivery of open, efficient and effective government.
- A cultural shift in departments where the DRAP ideals of efficiency are now not just being applied to the web sphere, but a driving force behind the scoping and management decisions for our web spaces.
- We start caring less about social media but more about mobile. As mobile device ownership overtakes desktop and laptop computers, anywhere anytime access to web content via a smartphone or tablet will be expected by both citizens and government employees. Social media will simply be a component of a basic communications strategy instead of a separate stand-alone channel. Mobile media, however, and the features untethered web access allows for such as location-based services or augmented reality, as well as the mobile wallet, will require clear understanding of user contexts and close alignment of GC-wide enterprise needs to prevent duplicate mobile services and multiple similar-use apps.
- Task-based design starts to turn towards transaction-based design. The new TBS standards for the Web have put the concept of “task-based design” in the lime light. Departments are cutting huge swaths out of their websites (in theory) based on defining what tasks users are trying to complete, and what they are not. This isn’t going to go away in 2013 and nor do I think it should. However, I think some of the struggles we have in delivering on this task completion due to internal capacity and alignment of mandates with user needs will give way to a new focus on “transaction-based design”. As departments get increasingly serious about streamlining their websites this year, I think we will see transactional concepts emerging as the definition for not just “what’s really important to users”, but more so the intersection between important to users and useful content or services that can actually be provided.
Practising change management in the private sector taught me much about what to do and what not to do. I believe the lessons learned are applicable in many different sectors and business environments. Although I carry these lessons with me always, sometimes they need to be put aside for a moment.
For the purpose of this blog, I am sharing the lessons learned primarily through my experience working within the public sector. I have noticed some trends that appear to be common across many government departments and agencies. These observations formed the basis for this blog and the 7 lessons learned presented below.
1. Assemble the right team of experts, including Project Management (PM), Change Management (CM), and Communications
- Create strong (and integrated) working relationships across PM and CM roles
- Think differently about communications, be strategic in its application
- Assign dedicated project management, change management and communications resources sooner rather than later
- Strive for CM rigour in the same manner as PM rigour
2. Start planning early and continually integrate all efforts
- Planning is an on-going process and needs continual time and effort to keep it relevant
- It also requires an integrated and enterprise-wide approach that is also surprisingly agile
- It will take time to define the details and once you do, the entire enterprise may shift towards a new direction
3. Do not over-saturate your organization with many concurrent major changes
- But if you do … assign dedicated resources to coordinate and integrate all concurrent projects
- The corner of many desks is usually not the way to go …
- Be sure to plan extensively to avoid collisions and manage inter-dependencies
- Adopt creative thinking around resources and work assignments
4. Be mindful of your enablers, partners, and stakeholders and engage them in the process early
- You have more dependencies than you realize, you need support from enabling functions (HR, Finance, Legal, Procurement) in order to be successful
- Start working with partners early to benefit from the identification of opportunities to work differently
- Horizontal collaboration is the new normal and we need to strengthen our existing channels for working together
5. It takes time to reorganize and redesign org structures and working relationships
- Always write team mandates and clarify people’s roles (using a RACI format)
- Never under-estimate organizational history and culture
- Recognize that your people cannot even begin to think in terms of integrating services until they understand the process of integrating themselves and their people
- People are invested in the current state and don’t ‘believe’ things really need to change
6. Be mindful of your governance and approvals processes and streamline them wherever possible
- Executives and Sponsors should communicate endlessly to senior management committees and governing bodies to bring them along in the process
- Change is complex enough without factoring in lengthy delays caused by governance
- Define a diligent but streamlined process for gaining approvals for critical decisions
7. Accept that operational requirements will always trump change agendas
- Get ahead of the curve and communicate to clients that it is not business as usual
- Set new/modified expectations with clients for the duration of the change process
- Manage the concept of trade-offs and reset expectations as required
- Set new/modified priorities with staff for the duration of the change process
- Avoid calling everything a priority at all times, as staff need clear priorities when caught in the daily demands of heavy workloads
All of these lessons learned are either foundational pieces or they are related to the importance of setting realistic expectations during times of change. Perhaps a general acceptance that there will always be trade-offs associated with any major change is a great place to start. Those trade-offs inevitably require us to respond by doing things differently.
After all, when has the adoption of any major change ever afforded an organization the luxury of operating their business as usual? Instead, let’s embrace it for what it is. Let’s start taking more concrete steps to better lay the foundation required for everyone to be successful in their own change management process.
We all know communications are important, especially during major change. But the Government has a different context. It’s a context where the very basic communications approach during transformation – of planning, then announcing, then implementing – is not always possible. They have communicated a particular way in the past, and now that has become a habit. read more
Know your enemy, know yourself, and opportunities multiply as they are seized. Wise words for those about to live through one of the most significant transformations the Government of Canada has undergone in a generation.
For over 9 years, Systemscope has been a proud GTEC sponsor and offers presentations that showcase Systemscope’s collective approach to helping federal government departments and agencies find efficiencies and deliver better outcomes. As part of 2012’s presentations, Innovations from the Systemscope Lounge was a journey though each of Systemscope’s different practice areas united by a theme of “Thinking in Threes”.
In my introduction to this unique presentation format, I discussed how GTEC’s theme this year – innovation and collaboration to make a difference for Canadians – is part of the message that we who work in or with federal government receive. Innovation and collaboration, however, are ideals that have to be translated into the current context of our actual working environment. We all form perceptions of the current environment through newspaper headlines announcing job cuts, through the Administrative Services Review or the Deficit Reduction Action Plan. How then, can we, as stated in the Prime Minister’s Advisory Committee Report, “Get used to a new world”?
The habitual response is to rely on theoretical approaches and survey best practices or conduct environmental scans. The useful response is to bring and share with you insights founded in lived experience. If you’ve lived through major government or departmental changes and been part of transformation at all levels, you might agree that the useful response trumps the habitual one. Our first seminar aimed to highlight the multi-faceted experiences from our various transformation architects and equip you with practical and applicable information.
I was proud to see each of our Systemscope presenters provide our audience with knowledge, whether from Denis’ personal experience with brain surgery and transformation to Kathy’s outlining of how to harness all efforts to enable change or Linda Daniels-Lewis’ Blinding Flashes of the Obvious about Electronic Data Records Management Systems (EDRMS) and Denise’s view on the new Treasury Board Web Standards.
Seemingly disparate in topic areas, each of the eight presentations were views into how many different components of any organization are involved in transformation. My conclusion, and one I hope the audience walked away with, was a call to action to understand the true message and opportunity that innovation and collaboration bring as concepts for all of us.
I framed this call to action with three guiding Sun Tzu principles:
- Know yourself: Understand your own limitations, your organizational culture and capabilities and how you deal with the personalities around you. Also know your strengths and use these effectively to build and maintain momentum.
- Know your enemy: Consider the enemy within – your fears, not just of failure but of success; mistrust; inertial attitude, e.g. “it’s not my job”; understanding real vs perceived barriers.
- Opportunities multiply as they are seized: Each of the presentations offered opportunities to innovate and collaborate. By seizing those opportunities, you will be able to demonstrate value and success, which in turn will bring you more opportunities. You never know what’s around the corner unless you journey to the corner.
Ultimately, what all of us have to decide is whether the glass is half-empty or half-full (yes, I know, not a Sun Tzu quote, but I’m sure he would agree).
I would like to extend a sincere thank you to our GTEC audience. GTEC is a meaningful and significant event at Systemscope as it offers us the opportunity to collaborate and celebrate our long-standing relationships with our federal government clients. We appreciate your support and look forward to our continued innovation and collaboration together.
By Stephen Karam, Partner and Practice Lead, Government Service Excellence (email@example.com)