Our guest this week is Rupert Morrison. A native New Zealander and rugby fanatic who grew up on a sheep farm, but off the field, Rupert is leading the way in data-driven organisational planning as CEO of OrgVue. It was in Rupert's years as a management consultant, frustrated by the many tedious hours spent building models in PowerPoint and Excel that were unsustainable for his clients that drove him to build his own solution in OrgVue, a SaaS platform for workforce analytics and modelling.

So impassioned. He's also authored a Chartered Management Institute, shortlisted book of the year on data driven organisation design.

You can listen below or by visiting the podcast website here.

We'll spend much of today's episode in conversation about the following topics:

• How HR needs a serious step change in order to manage the business and not just Human Resources in times of change

• We look at why finance is often stepping in on workforce planning and how HR must partner with them

• We look at the role analytics plays in shaping the future workforce

• As with all our guests on the podcast, we also look into the crystal ball and ponder what the role of HR will be in 2025

This episode is a must listen for any HR professional who wants new ideas, wants to add value to their organisation, and wants a voice at the board level, not just lip service.

I'm sure listeners will enjoy Rupert's thinking on some of the most pivotal and challenging issues that HR isn't addressing.

Support for this podcast is brought to you by OrgVue to learn more, visit orgvue.com.

Interview Transcript

David Green: Today, I'm delighted to welcome Rupert Morrison, CEO of OrgVue and author of data-driven organisation design, to the digital HR leaders podcast.

Rupert Morrison: Great to be here, thank you.

David Green: Thank you. Rupert. Can you give a quick introduction to yourself, and your background first.

Rupert Morrison: So, I grew up on a sheep farm in New Zealand, had lots of fun riding motorbikes and things like that, and then studied economics, mathematical economics and didn't really know what to do.

I didn't have much of an imagination. So do I go into investment banking or management consulting? Really no imagination at all. So chose a management consulting and did that, loved it, but got quite frustrated at clients saying to me, this is fantastic, but what am I gonna do in six months’ time?

Yeah, because all the work was visualised in PowerPoint, mostly crunched in Excel, sometimes in access. And as a one-off piece of analysis. And really the sort of work we were doing was fairly strategic in nature. If you could maintain that analytics, then obviously it would give a lot of value into the future.

So I set up a company which combined technology and management consulting and developed the product OrgVue because I was passionate around organisation design and workforce planning and thought, if we could create a product that enabled you to design the organisation as a system, then that would be really powerful.

And now that's, that's about 12 years ago, so it's been a bit of a journey.

David Green: Yeah, I bet it has, and obviously we've met each other during points in that journey, and I particularly remember when your book was launched, and we'll come back to that towards the end. I think we were reminiscing, the last time we spoke was in an airport lounge in Philadelphia after the Wharton People Analytics conference.

Rupert Morrison: Enjoying a nice rouge together.

David Green: That's right. And I did manage to sleep on the plane after that…

Rupert Morrison: And we said we have to see each other again.

David Green: We did.

Rupert Morrison: We're not good at staying in contact, are we?

David Green: And here we are 18 months later. So, org design, I'm always fascinated when I'm talking to you about your vision around organisation design and I'd really like you to share that, briefly with, with the listeners, but also why organisation design is becoming more and more important in a digital age as well.

Rupert Morrison: So, org design starts with strategy. It presupposes you have a strategy, and that you can document that and then it's around how do you organise the organisation so you can execute that strategy. And that's what it's fundamentally about. And the mistake that people make is they see the organisation as the org chart and who reports to who.

And focused on people. And it's really having a systems approach, which, and there's nothing new in me saying that. So, Galbraith had the star model, McKinsey have got the seven S model, which is all around connecting the different pieces of the organisation. So, if you understand what are the objectives? What are we trying to achieve? You want to understand what is the work and the activities and accountabilities? You want to understand what are the competencies, so the skills and behaviours to be effective at doing that work so you can achieve those outcomes. And then you need to think about what are the roles and those roles get broken into positions and people fulfill those positions.

So, you're connecting. And for me it's data-driven cause these are data-driven. These are pieces of data. what you then do is you manage that on an ongoing basis and another flaw that people think of is they think of an as-is and a to-be world. As if that is that. And all of a sudden, we get to this Nirvana, to be place, job done, we can all go home.

David Green: Yeah. Put our feet up for five years and...

Rupert Morrison: And most organisations, London Olympics maybe is an exception to that. Most organisations are there to keep on growing and becoming, you know, to win in the marketplace. And to do that, you need to continually evolve. And the one thing that's... Disruption's always been around, Schumpeter talked about creative destruction a long time ago sort of pre-war. But the difference now is the pace at which the disruption is happening, and so we call it designing for disruption. How do you stay on top of that and turn it to your competitive advantage? What I found fascinating, cause I was in preparation for this podcast, I was listening to one of your previous ones, and Dave Ulrich who is one of the fathers of modern HR, talked about, people can be champions, but organisations win championships. And, he went further to say it's not talent or people which provide the competitive edge, but organisation systems. And I was fascinated that he was talking like that, because that's very much what we believe.

And what we're really about is creating the house. How do you do that in practice, create that forward looking planning process so that you can be competitive in the marketplace.

David Green: And interesting around the forward planning part. If we look at HR, there seems to be a bit of a fundamental problem.

As you said, things becoming more dynamic, organisation design, is increasing in importance, frequency and probably complexity as well. But the vast majority of HR functions don't necessarily have the tools and capabilities required to succeed. And when we were talking about this last week, you drew a really nice link between Finance and HR and the need to distinguish between operations and planning.

I think that'd be a really great story to, or process, to outline to our listeners.

Rupert Morrison: Thank you. So, let's start with finance and, finance is broadly broken into two sub functions. There is financial control. So that's doing all your financial accounting, bookkeeping, credit control, treasury.

And without that, you literally run out of business. You don't have cash, you can't do your regulatory accounting. You're kind of finished. But it's not the financial controller that is sitting next to the CEO and the executive team, the management team, helping them. It's the other finance function.

FP&A, financial planning and analysis, they do the budgeting, they do the planning, they pull the levers and do the analysis so you can execute the strategy from a financial perspective and FP&A is there in that ongoing planning, forward looking, driving the business forward. Now, what's interesting, according to Deloitte, 75% of the finance function is financial control.

25% is FP&A. So, it's a huge investment in the finance function and financial planning and analysis and data from our own clients bear that to be true as well. We see a similar thing. Now in HR, we have HR operations, the employee life cycle management. So, think Talent Acquisition, joiner, mover, leaver.  Dispute resolution, which is a favourite of many people in HR and without that. You don't have a business. It is fundamental and it's crucial that that operates effectively. But what you also have is organisational planning and analysis. OP&A and OP&A is the workforce planning, which is tied to organisational design and organisational design becomes workforce planning.

Because all your positions that you design as your "to be". Well, your "to be" isn't a point in time. It's every month you have new positions that are coming and going. And so that dynamic process becomes workforce planning. It's also the analysis, which is one of your big passions and it's the forward-looking analytics and the mistake that people often make when they talk about analytics is, they think about historical analysis and, and even they talk like the Nirvana of analytics is being predictive.

Well, I disagree with that respectfully because it's not just about predicting the future, like employee churn, who might leave or who might not. It's about planning the future against that strategy and OP&A as a function. Like FP&A. Now the data, when I look at my clients, when we arrive, most HR functions are between 98 to 100% operational HR.

And it's at most 1% to 2% OP&A. And so, think about that disconnect of investment and resources. 89% of organisations we surveyed are doing HR analytics. But the vast majority are not happy, and the vast majority of CEOs make no decisions based on HR data. I think it's max 15% something like that.

And why is that? It's because they're looking at that HR4HR backward looking, even predictive churn, but not that planning, which was the OP&A.

David Green: And not necessarily converting some of the sometimes-great insights from the looking backwards into something that actually resonates with the business.

Rupert Morrison: What's the action?

David Green: Yeah, what's the action to take. How does this impact our revenue? Our costs, and the strategy.

Rupert Morrison: But it's also, management is about plan, do, review. I plan something, I do something. Where was I successful? Where was I not? And there's a cadence to management. And the issue is, finance gets that cadence.

There are monthly management reports. Quarterly ones, annual ones. Annual budgeting cycles. Some organisations moving to continuous budgeting. That relies on continuous... HR should be the same, plan, do, review and what I call it, cause I love, you have to forgive me, but I love to create TLAs three letter acronyms, it's a sort of a hobby.

So, one of them is TAF. What is your target? What is your actual? What is your forecast? If you don't have a target, how do you know if you're on track or not?

David Green: You don't.

Rupert Morrison: You don't. So, let's start with the target. Where do we want to get to? Strategies about targets hitting, but those have to cascade.

If you don't know where you are versus those targets, again, you are lost. Where are we good, where are we not? Why? And then your forecast is where do we think we're going to get to? And that's what planning is. It's planning for the future and that's what management is. And the seat at the table. Is doing that with organisational data. And that is what I think is the future of HR. Well, not just the future, cause obviously you need to do the operations piece and you need to have excellence in that. And a lot of the OP&A feeds that and feeds the HR business partner because what is the role of the HR business partner if it isn't to help their people they're doing, have the relationship with, to do that planning and it's....

The planning for me isn't just around how many heads do we need. So, the position management, the workforce plan, it's understanding the roles. And so most people have written a job description at some point in their life. So, it shouldn't be too much of a surprise to say, what data do we have on a job description, well we have what's the purpose of the role?

But we also have, what are the objectives? What are you trying, what does the role need to achieve? What is the work and the accountabilities and what are the competencies to be excellent at that. And so you also need to understand that from a job family perspective. So what are the technical competencies?

And also, when you think about the grades. So the seniority and what are the behavioural, and that creates a job grid. And so what I'm really talking about is master data management. A lot of this and the foundation of good analytics is good data and therefore good master data management. And each of these components or components of that data that are connected.

David Green: What's the business impact of good OP&A?

Rupert Morrison: So we just did a piece of research with the CEBR and they do a lot of economic analysis for people like the Bank of England and what have you. And what they found is that people who invest in organisational planning and analysis, even a little bit, have a two-fold increase in productivity growth versus those that don't.

David Green: Wow. Which translates, which translates to dollars and pounds....

Rupert Morrison: For the UK economy, that's over 10 billion, for the US economy, that's close to 100 billion. GDP growth would literally jump up by half a percentage point. So it is significant and at a macroeconomic level, let alone at an individual business level.

And what we found is most organisations invest very little, less than 10,000. So people are just not investing in this, even though those that do have a twofold... And by the way, we calculated productivity as profit per employee. So it's a hard economic measure, and it's not just the impact that it has on the business, it's also the impact it has on employees.

I'm sure you're familiar with Daniel Pink's work around what drives engagement in the workplace. Purpose, mastery, autonomy. So what is purpose? It's about being clear about your objectives and what you're trying to achieve. What is autonomy? It's having clarity around what you're responsible for. So what activities, what you do, what decision rights you have.

And so that's pushing those down. And it's being clear at mastery is do you have the competencies to excel at that? So the same pieces of data that I talked about in the job design, and I talked about in the org as a system. Another lens is it disengages employees and employees, if they don't have role clarity and everyone's falling over each other, politics creeps in, it means you can't be engaged and motivated. And the number of times that people... There is a word in the US called RIF-ing, not sure if you're familiar with that. So another three letter acronym. Reduction in Force, and they call it a RIF. And the number of times that happens with not actually thinking about the work or the impact on the employee, and therefore it feels like chairs on the Titanic.

And the number of times people say, well this being this org change. Lots of my colleagues are being made redundant, but nothing's really changed for me. The work hasn't changed. If you don't change the work first... if you're going to make cost savings, you've got to change the work.

So what they do, they don't focus on the work they just focus on the workforce, make huge cost reductions, say to the same, you know, fewer employees do more. And by the way, have no clarity as to why. It's no surprise that they're going to be pretty unengaged and unhappy. And, and so for me, this is as much a moral imperative as it is an economic one. It's clearly an economic one. The morality, I will tell you, I see so many organisations, commissioning consulting firms to come in and do a RIF a Reduction in Force. Based on one single measure, which is span of control.

David Green: Yeah. We talked about this last week. There's a good example here as well.

Rupert Morrison: Yeah. So it's a very simple measure.

How many people do you manage? And it's very easy to quantify the savings by increasing span of control. I could literally do it for you in two minutes, for any organisation and people are going in not even thinking about the work, the relationships, the competencies, they're just reducing the org structure to take cost savings out.

Cause of a short-term pressure causing chaos, and therefore using that single metric to design your organisation.

David Green: And you gave quite a good example last week. You compared two people with what would appear to be the same span of control. But actually, when you start getting into the detail, it's very, very different.

Rupert Morrison: So, we think a better measure is burden of management. And I'll use an example of Adam and Bridget. So you've got Adam and Bridget, they're both managers. They both got a span of control of eight. So the works the same. There's no difference. But everyone that reports to Adam is in the same location, actually in the same office, with Bridget, different locations, different time zones. Adam, the team's all experienced, been there for a long time. There are no performance issues. Bridget, lots of new people, performance issues. Adam, they all do the same job, managing literally one set of KPIs, across eight people. Bridget, different jobs, different job titles, also different sub functions could even be different functions. So which is harder? Bridget's by some margin. Exponentially harder.

And so this is a way of using organisational data. All that data you have, you have for each manager, you know the number of different job titles, the number of different locations, different time zones. You can calculate. You can look at the performance of the team, the tenure of the team, and even just looking at what is the relationship in terms of tenure between manager and the team members and how that fluctuates will give you some insight into how easy or hard it is to manage. And when you look at that and you say heat map your organisation, you can start to see risk. You can start to say those poor managers who maybe junior, but a huge burden of management that guess what? There's probably a reason why there's high churn on that team because the manager's over stretched, and you also want to look at things like, are the difference in grades appropriate?

So. Often there's a thing called compression if the grades are too similar. An MD reporting to a MD in banking is very common. And then if the grades are too similar you're gonna feel micromanaged. And if they're too different, you're not going to understand each other. So this is when you start looking into, the Elliot Jack model of the requisite organisation.

And again, that's just data that you've got and you have that information. So I just think it's important, there's a moral imperative that HR professionals stop just looking at span of control. As the measure and designing on that basis. And being more holistic and it's not that complicated.

And stop calling an org health check, your span of control analysis.

David Green: It's too simplistic.

So these are great. So, OP&A I get it. You'd expect me to get it as well. Two, kind of related questions. Why aren't more HR functions or more companies investing in this capability?

And what are the key building blocks do you believe, for HR to build this capability moving forward?

Rupert Morrison: So the first thing is a lot of FP&A is not run by people who were financial controllers. They come from other places. They might've come from investment banking or corporate finance.

FP&A is a discipline, you can go and you can be trained in it and you need to be. OP&A is the same. It is a different discipline to Talent Acquisition, L&D and, and these sort of HR for HR functions. So you need to educate yourself and be educated but it's not just a skills thing or a knowledge thing. It's also a system thing. You need the right technology. And with technology, like an FP&A it's not just one set of technology, and it's certainly not just Excel. That's the problem. People rely on Excel and PowerPoint and that just doesn't work at the speed that you needed to work.

So you need your systems, you need the people with the skills, and you need different types of roles. You need people who can design taxonomies, competency taxonomies, who can think about role and role architecture and connect these dots. You need people who can communicate and influence senior executives and, and help them because guess what? They're all struggling with the same problem. If you're a business leader, you spend a huge amount of your time thinking about your organisation and to help them stopping to just think about the people they have and to think about the positions and the roles. They need support and I think it requires a change in mindset from the HR business partner. And, so again, the philosophy is you have to be holistic in your org design. You have to be holistic in FP&A and what I see is a big barrier is HR functions jump to oh let's create a shared service.

Let's create a centre of excellence. Or let's go and put three people in that and under invest X consultants or something. It's not gonna work. And then look at the finance function that didn't do that. So it needs conviction. It needs investment. This is, I always say this is a multi-year journey, this doesn’t just happen in two weeks, three weeks.

This takes real, real commitment to build a team, and to get operational processes working. Cause this is a monthly operational process, operate workforce planning. It's not an annual thing.  And the systems have to talk, but it's also important to bring in the financial data.

So you need to bring in the cost centre information so that you can, with finance, understand what is the cost of your organisation over time by cost centre. What is it by the slices of your organisations? So, by function, by business unit, by geography. So, you have to be able to answer those questions cause your different stakeholders come from a different perspective.

David Green: So OrgVue, you created OrgVue quite a few years ago now, and you've outlined a lot of challenges I think around creating this OP&A capability. How does OrgVue help companies solve some of these problems?

Rupert Morrison: So, everything I've talked about, you're using OrgVue to solve.

And it might be a nice little segway if that's okay. Just talk about how I created OrgVue in the first place. Because, it wasn't a man in a shed, but it was a man with PowerPoint and Excel. You can imagine, hundreds and hundreds of PowerPoint slides, Excel models, and deep frustration at dealing with this data, using those technologies. And actually, I was pretty good at Microsoft Access as well, and building relationship databases. And I sat down with a bunch of computer engineers and designers and said, I want to build something. The data's always bad, it's slowly been changing, and I want to connect all the stuff seamlessly in real time. And by the way, visually, because the way you see the world defines the way you understand it, if you can't see it, effectively you can't understand it. You can't design it. And, so what we did is we created a data model that we can suck in any data and it just, it's forgiving.

So if the data's wrong, we'll tell you it's wrong and we'll give you a report that says that these things could be off, that we can give you, which you can't do in a relationship database. And I did not have an understanding that there was a difference between a relationship database and say, a graph database site.

I didn't have that paradigm. I just thought everything was a relationship My world was Excel with sheets. But actually, what we have to do is not the system as you have nodes that are connected to other nodes and a taxonomy is just a bunch of nodes that are in a hierarchy.

So, what you do, it enables you to do, is take this data in and create new data, cause a lot of it doesn't exist, your position data doesn't exist, your competency data doesn't exist, your activity data. And then connect it through links, and those links have values. So an example, you have a person, David, you have an activity, watching movies, you have a link, what's the frequency, the time, how happy and what have you. And what we then do is we call it traversing the graph. And, so that's where all those calculations come from. So that's why we can calculate things like burden of management or the bureaucracy, which is, how far do you have to traverse the organisation to get decisions done and how far do you have to escalate up to get a decision done?

So all of these metrics, OP&A metrics, planning metrics, and then define in the product, which also has therefore workflow, because you have to be able to do role design, you have to go through a form. To set those roles. And so there's a process and out comes a job description from that data.

But you also need to capture actuals. And so, because the data doesn't exist, we use surveys and mechanisms like that, and that can be, you know, self-reported, manager, etc. It is really fluid. And you kind of have to see it, and we call it painting with data. So, all the data's there, and if you see it's wrong, you drag and drop and change.

And you know, it's a little bit like, vision is a little bit like minority report. You can see something. So I want to move that over there. And one day we'll be in virtual reality, I'm sure. So, OrgVue, it's a SaaS platform and it's used by these growing OP&A functions and the business, anyone doing transformation. So that's a big use case for us. Are you doing post merger integration or some kind of org design. And it's used a lot by the consulting industry as well, cause they can't survive with Excel and PowerPoint anymore. No, those days are fortunately over. So, you know, it's been quite a journey to take it from an idea and we built it all from the ground up. So all the visualisations and everything are all native to the product.

David Green: Well, for anyone who's listening who hasn't seen it, it is very impressive cause I have seen it in an operation and bring it to life for a couple of client examples of how come companies have...

Rupert Morrison: So all these examples, are client examples. So the ones where I talked about the HR process or the post merger integration or the competencies, and mapping those and seeing where you have gaps. We've taken data in from 50 different systems and cleaned it and got it live now. A common use case is pre-Workday implementation.

How do you get your data sorted, pre-Workday, take it into OrgVue, get it clean, get it structured, and then it moves. Another use case is, we've got a really rich card for talent mapping. So all the talent metrics and movements, you know, bringing in the ESAT scores, bringing in the burden of management metrics, all of these into one card so you can see the entire organisation.

And it can get confused with org charting software, which is a problem we have. People just focus on org charting so much. And yes, we produce org charts, but we produce, icicle diagrams and sunburst and sunflowers and all sorts of different visualisations to give you a different lens on that data. And each one gives a different perspective, make it playful.

David Green: And certainly from speaking to some of your clients or customers over the years, they've said that what's really powerful, that they can take it in to meetings with executives and play around with it live so they can model different scenarios, almost in real time, which I think adds...

Rupert Morrison: It's literally in real time. And as you're making the changes, you can see the delta in real time. So whatever that scenario is, let's go to my favourite hate subject span of control. If you can see the spans and you can literally do a scenario and if you want to take everyone who's got a span of control less than X and is function Y.

In less than five seconds, I can drag all of those, drop them in, re draw the org chart, show the impact and see who's going to be affected by that.  So, if anything else, do not spend money on management consultants to do span of control analysis please more for the moral reason. Get them to do the more value added work. But it's that real time. And, and that was the frustration in PowerPoint. Cause I'd go and there's PowerPoint slides and clients would be like, okay, can you change this, this, and this, and then you're back. And then you have to add up all the numbers in Excel. And then the PowerPoint and Excel version control and the iterative time even if you're working through the night, it's at best days, at worst to get everyone together, weeks, months. And that's the thing. It's designing for disruption. Speed of decision making is crucial. And then, and that's why that dynamic thing is really important.

David Green: And better utilisation of time.

Rupert Morrison: Well, one of our consulting partners said that they are four times faster at doing this work.

David Green: Yeah. Which they might not like when it comes to put...

Rupert Morrison: No, it means they can do more value add. Let's get them doing activity where...

David Green: We're not going to denigrate consultants.

Rupert Morrison: Not for a nanosecond. Only those that just sell span of control work.

David Green: So, moving on we ask this question of all our guests on the show and you can go beyond 2025 if you want. So what do you think the role of the HR function will be come in 2025?

Rupert Morrison: I think like marketing before it, like finance, it is a role for specialists, for experts. It is, obviously it's a critical function.

I think it's silly to even have that debate. Is it more critical than finance? Probably. Is it just about talent? Absolutely not. Is talent crucial? Yes. Does talent win the war? No. Organisations do. So I think on the HR operations side, deep experts, Talent Acquisition is crucial. It's getting the right people, L&D, fundamental right. Upskilling, competencies are changing, work is changing. You can't just recruit externally and it's much better to develop internally anyway. That's just kind of a belief Comp and Ben. You have to get right. You don't want to be overpaying or underpaying. You've got to, you know, it's a Goldilocks. And being clear as to why you're paying what you're paying and so that everyone, so it doesn't become destructive from an engagement perspective. So, these processes, joiner, mover, leaver, absentee management, all of that crucial. It's about efficiency and deep expertise.

And in my view. OP&A has to be at the forefront. The Chief People Officer should be spending more of their time thinking about OP&A work. The operations works and it works effectively and efficiently, but if you want to be helping the business drive forward, then you're effectively the HR business partner for the exec.

That's your role in the CEO and the executive. Your HR business partners. Are those for their respective areas, for the function they're supporting or the geography or what have you. And the OP&A, is that forward-leaning brains of the organisation like FP&A is, and to me, all of that working in unison, at speed, and that shouldn't be five years.

There's no excuse for why five years. And this should be happening now and with our clients, that's the journey we're on.

David Green: So hopefully by 2025 every company, but certainly well, why not every company has an OP&A capability in there, which maybe is representative and similar to Finance.

It's 25% perhaps, of the HR investment.

Rupert Morrison: I would hope so. I really would. And I'm tired, I mean, you go to more conferences than I do. But I go quite a few, I'm really, really tired of the seat at the table conversation. It's really dull and this is, you don't get a seat at the table.

You don't. You earn it. You have it, it's there. No one for nanoseconds questions, the FP&A seat at the table. Because of the business value and the importance of that forward-looking decision making. And so I think it's literally the same. And, by the way, finance will be a much better function for it, because they really struggle, FP&A struggles with the same data.

And all the other functions, and particularly the employees and the managers. I mean, I really feel sorry for the managers because managers often are given no training. You get promoted. Just keep your other job, coach them, do this, be an expert. And all of that. With what support?

So I think the right HR function is giving the right skills and competencies and role focus so that everyone's successful and therefore you have great organisations.

David Green: Well Rupert, before we wrap up. I couldn't not mention your book, data-driven organisation design, which is a great read and covers a lot of the themes that we've discussed today.

So what's your 30 second pitch to our listeners on why they should read the book. I'm a big believer in the how. 

Rupert Morrison: There's a lot of theory. I like to think of myself as a pragmatist. Maybe it's growing up on the sheep farm and doing some of the manual jobs growing up.

And so the book is my best effort to help people break down, not just from the macro design, the operating model into the micro, which is the detailed design. Into elements, like right sizing. So how do you work out how many positions you need? And down into execution, making it real, and sustaining that competitive edge.

So the book is really war stories as to mistakes I've made, which are numerate.

David Green: Everyone makes mistakes.

Rupert Morrison: Particularly on org design. And yes, it talks through those mistakes and it's really apart from the how, it's really a call out to be brave, to do it right for the right reasons rather than designing around the politics and around people, and then that meant you have to be brave to do that and it's not easy. So.

David Green: Read the book, read the book. Thanks for being a guest on the show Rupert. How can people stay in touch with you and learn a bit more about OrgVue?

Rupert Morrison: So I'm on LinkedIn, and also we have our website, OrgVue and I should spell that. It's org, which I think everyone can get. And then V U E.com. So orgvue.com and Vue stands for visual user experience cause we are nerds. There's another TLA for you.

David Green: Fantastic, well Rupert, thanks for that. And actually one thing I should say, and we'll put some of the links accompanying the podcast is you guys have produced a number of reports, I think this year you did one called Making People Count, which people can download from the OrgVue site.

Definitely recommend it. It's a good read. So, Rupert thank you very much.