Gabriel’s scarcity rent - it’s management stupid!

I’ve just arrived from Delhi. In fact it has been 24 hours but, in the meantime, my mind kept wandering inbetween all kinds of different landscapes, smells and tastes until it settled back again. So many different faces, so many different paces: our hectic effort of preparing a presentation on the club lounge of a five-star hotel, the five-year-old child making his frenzied small monkey shout and dance to attract our attention and a few coins, the slow-moving cow trying to take a nap in the middle of the street and the agitated drivers trying to pass as close as possible. Definitely distances are measured differently in this huge place.

The billion cattle estimated to be alive today are more less one sixth of the estimated human population on Earth. The lucky ones live here, where they are revered and spoiled, where they can live tranquil and blissful lives, where they can thrive and be loved. It’s a wonder that there is no cow immigration process to this beautifully colored lands. If the other cows knew!

Humanity. This word takes new meaning here. So many people. We Europeans have tended to grow aseptic, almost inhumans. We hide within huge buildings of concrete, glass and steel, like the new terminal I’ve nurtured along with my peers, and we become insignificant below our not-so-functional monuments. We want them to serve as a rule to measure our cities and civilisation, instead of ourselves, our little selves.

In India you see so many people, so many happy -and not so happy- faces. The wonder is that it’s not easy to infer which faces will be happy and which won’t. Usually you won’t see that in the colours -or cost- of the robes. Humans… sometimes so happy owning nothing but conceiving nice thoughts… you never know.

This column, blog, page -whatever this is- wouldn’t be complete without the management reflection. And today it comes from Professor Geert Hofstede, of Maastricht University: “Culture is more often a source of conflict than of synergy. Cultural differences are a nuisance at best and often a disaster.”

Are they? I’m personally a cock-eyed optimist and I tend to see the positive side to it. If we kept narrow mindedly to our own culture and background, the learning process would surely be impaired. Nonetheless cultural divergences must be managed.

As a reference, it is very interesting to examine Hofstede’s cultural dimensions, built from a handful of parameters:

• Power distance or the degree of acceptance of the less favoured members of one society of the inequalities they are subjected to.
• Individualism versus collectivism, or the degree to which the members of a society are integrated into groups.
• Masculinity versus femininity, or the degree of distribution of roles between genders.
• Uncertainty avoidance or degree of tolerance to uncertainty or ambiguity.
• Long-term orientation versus short-termism.

As an example, the former dimensions applied to the Indian, Spanish and British cultural dimensions, according to the available data by Hofstede. Of course generalisations are unfair, and the Spanish profile was never actually completed, but the exercise is still interesting.

Some weeks are so hectic that you simply don’t have time to write. And if you do, it’s not because you’ve had the chance to sit back and reflect about something, but because you have some free time in-between things to be done. That’s the case for today: a few free minutes.

The day began in Madrid, in the Indian embassy, queuing for such a simple and stupid thing as a visa. It’s incredible how certain processes are still done as the last century, or even the previous one. The fact is that if you want to travel to India from Barcelona, first you must go to Madrid to get your visa. The alternative is waiting around three or four weeks to have it.

And if you went there without a warning, you’d be astonished to know that they only issue a limited number of visas, clearly outnumbered by the people that need them. So the queue starts around two hours before they open. By the time they unlock the doors, there’s enough people waiting to fill the entire waiting room. If you arrive at ten, just forget the visa. Come back tomorrow (in Spanish “vuelva usted mañana” although the Indians speak more English than Spanish). And that’s the only way for the 46 million inhabitants of Spain to visit the 1,100-million-people country.

Well. I finally made it. I was sixth on the line. Then, to the airport to take a plane back to Barcelona. And from the airport to one of Barcelona’s marinas: the Olympic port, built for Barcelona’s Olympics 15 years ago.

From air planes to boats: time to sail. That’s why I am here for. I am to renew my sailing licenses and, following legal requirements, I need several navigation hours with a captain instructor. A good way to ensure that people actually know about boats before granting them the right to sail them. That’s what I am here for.

Time for the final comment. Where is management in all this? Well. Ask it to Captain Marcos Rivera. In a ship, there’s only one captain. Such affirmation is something that we tend to forget. Authority is not a very popular value these days. It is still necessary nonetheless. Someone has to decide. There must be someone in charge, asessing the risks, analysing and drawing conclusions, and then, finally, deciding.

That doesn’t mean that he (or she) is the only one to think. That would be a great loss of value, rationality, thinking capacity, a loss of options. Empowerment is still essential (and compatible), as it is dissent. But there’s a limit to it. And when the captain decides, the others must follow.

Have you ever felt that, in a project or a workgroup, the problem was that the decisions were not actually being made? Or being enforced? Have you ever felt that authority was missing? That indecision and ambiguity was undermining the whole execution? That’s when a good methodology for making decisions is needed.

There’s a time when every task becomes critical: just give it enough wandering time and you’ll see. IT comes a time when further procrastination is no longer possible. That’s when a chieftain is needed.

The average project manager is affected by all sorts of diseases. One of the worst, that could be labelled as project manager’s myopia, in line with other sectoral diseases like manager’s myopia (that is related to perfectly managing something that should not be done at all) or marketeers’ myopia (when we further seek perfection to our product, to an extent that our customers do not demand neither understand or value).

Project manager’s myopia is something similar to paranoia, albeit in a much lesser way. There are some symptoms to be aware of:

• Reality denial, we still are working as if things were like they used to be,
• Reality avoidance, skipping focus on the symptoms of change,
• Deflection, blaming change on others or seeking scapegoats that temporally justify mismatches,
• Projection, attributing one’s feelings to other people, we have this disconnection because of someone else,
• Splitting and radicalism, there are final groupings into good and bad things, good and bad people, good and bad customers… greys tend to converge into black and white only
• Somatisation, in late stages people can even become ill to avoid facing reality

Ok, those are extremes, but what is it that usually happens?

Sometimes we simply focus so much on a project’s completion and success that we tend to forget that projects are not isolated realities but that they are inserted into organisations. With time our big project is able to evolve and change. This is something that we can naturally accept and live with. In fact we need a big dose of flexibility when driving our project through execution, when risks are being faced and decisions being made.

But the project is not the only thing that is about to change through its lifetime. The organisational reality in which it must fit is going to change also. A change that can even be induced or catalysed by means of the project that we are taking care of.

And what do we do in the face of change? First we still keep the serious intention of managing the match, usually following a stakeholder model like this one:

This stakeholder matrix represents the main groups of stakeholders, or people that have a say, that we have to manage. They are divided in four groups related to the power and influence they have and their importance (or stake):

Those are reasonable and wise words but, in the end, when the project has overcome the frustration and hysteria phases, we are so focused on the final deliveries that we tend to forget about stakeholders at all. And then the mismatch occurs and blows up on our faces. That’s when the aforementioned symptoms start to occur.

There’s another model that I especially like. Made by Holland and Skarke, projects the need for change with an additional dimension: time.

The model is taken from an article focused on IT and organisational alignment, but it’s also applicable in many other contexts. It says clearly that we must be manage two projects at the same time:

• Getting the system ready for the users, our main goal or the project that we are struggling to manage to completion
• Getting the users ready for the system, the often overlooked part.

Getting the users ready for the system will entail much more than the simple stakeholder engagement described with the classical approach. In information systems will be related to the user acceptance processes that we know should be analysed and managed, but in many other contexts, user acceptance must not be taken for granted. The users must be ready for the new infrastructure, and that means that they must not only know about it, but about the benefits it entails for their work processes, the alignment with their own personal and organisational objectives and the motivation to learn to use, and effectively use them.

Only this way we will be able to quickly climb the productivity drop in the adaptation curve, and only this way we will be able to adapt the deliverables to what the organisation expect: actively managing both ends of the final acceptance bargain.

Vista has not accomplished its expectations. Albeit more than 140 million copies sold, that only represents around 13% of the installed base. And if you take into account that Vista has been around since november 2006 and an average lifespan of five years for any computer, only because of natural growth that figure should be around 20%. What’s happening?

When a company has such a great market share as Microsoft, and a killer and omnipresent product like Windows, it wouldn’t be fair to say that those figures mean trouble. Not really, only unfulfiled expectations, that’s all.

But users are not massively upgrading to Vista. Many prefer their new computers with XP (and still get counted as new Vista licensees) because it’s simpler, faster, and you already know your way around. I myself like the aqua, sorry aero, look in Vista, but still struggle to find my way to simple things. I’d rather use a simpler system: I get tired of so many questions and confirmations and having to navigate tortuous paths.

Simplicity gets its reward in speed. Ask any Linux geek and he will tell you how he manages without lots of small utilities incorporated in your software that you use daily. The good thing is that he also manages without hundreds of utilities that you seldom or never use, and without hundreds more that you never knew they existed and, if you ever had needed them, you wouldn’t have even sought. (Do you really know how to insert an horisontal line in Microsoft Word or how to query an ODBC source in Windows?)

Then, there’s us, people that use MacOS. A sometimes despised and bashed minority (around 3%) that happens to be growing above average with a dangerous tendency to be self-conscious. In a mass consumption society, isn’t it great to be special in something? More stable than Windows, more usable, a better user experience (yes, that is completely subjective, but believe me in this one) but still not bomb-proof in its latest version: Leopard. And more visible than ever because of iPods, iPhones and, of course, the incumbent’s spoofs.

But, following the initial reasoning, which are the strategies behind the operating systems? Which should be next move? Apple has recently uncovered a few words about their new version of MacOS: from Leopard to Snow Leopard. Doesn’t sound very different, does it? What’s behind it and why is it important? It’s not easy to deny that Apple knows a lot about emerging trends that tend to be imitated by the rest of the market.

I’ve drawn the following model thinking about operating systems in two axis:

• on the horizontal axis the sophistication of the operating system, measured in terms of “eye candy”, as it is easy to observe and doesn’t focus on the utility of that eye candy (that would increase the analysis’ complexity and introduce a lot of interpretation), but it’s obviously correlated with the utilities offered to the user.
• on the vertical axis is the complexity and size of the code what counts: the system weight.

First of all, the dangerous zone is on the top level: heavy systems. Heavy systems tend to be unstable, usually because they build on foundations laid out many years ago by legacy systems that don’t exist anymore but that they need to preserve. This is the case increasingly both by Windows and MacOS: the first because it has compatibility with a sheer list of devices and still with good old MSDOS, the second because, albeit being much more selective with hardware, still hasn’t recovered from the trauma of having two very distinct CPU platforms: the PowerPC and the Intel platform. Vista still is far higher in this classifications making a very heavy system, to the point that requires the latest hardware to fully function while still being compatible with everything else. That’s why many prefer XP.

The massive side for an operating system is not that good either. XP was clearly short of functionality, while with Vista the effort has been made to try to compensate, but jumping too far away, adding cumbersomeness to the menu. Vista is only a street away of being annoying, and that’s another reason to still prefer XP. In any case it’s also a proof that with XP you’re going to miss things too.

MacOS stays in a comfortable middle position. Still, Leopard increased functionality and usability, as well as eye-candy, but paying a price for it: increased system sophistication and weight. That means, of course, instability issues.

Linux users sit in a comfortable corner table: a simpler system that is lighter than anything else, with good and bad consequences.

Where is the future going to be?

This is the part that is supposed to be explained in Nostradamus’ prophecies, but I think I have a clue to offer. Many Vista users are still downgrading to XP, and there must be a reason for that: the seeking of simplicity. We need more stable operating systems, not nicer ones. Don’t get me wrong, we like eye candy, but we are ready to trade some off in exchange for better performance. Windows should aim back, somewhere in between Vista and XP, going down in the stability road… and down the chart back to the safe green zone, still losing some screens and complexity in its way.

That’s what Snow Leopard is all about. The same animal, only changed by a couple of colours, but ready to live in a much hostile environment. Trimming the OS, making it more hardware selective, only optimised for the newest hardware platforms. No human-machine interface overhaul but a lot of kernel and essential applications rewriting. That’s, in my humble opinion, the way to go. And the way Microsoft should follow too.

Because, when with a laptop, energy consumption depends on CPU consumption, and thus in the cleanliness of the code, and the megabytes taken by programs to run. After all, those bytes need to be read from the hard disk, paged in and out of the memory, and can potentially make your computer run out of fuel faster.

Taken from Roughly Drafted, a web you cannot miss if you want to know more about Apple, this is what the apple folks have been doing to the Snow Leopard basic programs:

Interesting backoffice work, don’t you think?

Star Trek is not the encyclopedia of life. Even though it contains so many interesting ideas about leadership and management, with different styles depending on the series, that is worth knowing about.

One of the scenarios that is a reference in the Star Trek world is the Kobayashi Maru scenario, which is a “lose-lose” or “no-win” scenario. Regardless of what you do, you’re doomed. We can see this kind of scenarios in everyday life: from organisations that have a couple of conflicting objectives to pursue at all costs, pyrrhic victories or military victories that are so costly to win that are not worth-it (ring a bell?), or the kinked curve of demand for oligopolies, that can only begin competing between itselves bearing huge losses. Even the Spanish Inquisition’s confessions were like that: torture until pleaded guilty and then executed: every move made it worse.

The original Kobayashi Maru scenario was a test for Star Trek commanders. In the simulator they received a distress call: a ship had been stranded on the other side of the border. They were subsequently faced with the decision of whether or not entering into enemy zone, underpowered, to try to rescue the crew of the Kobayashi Maru.

There was no escape, the only option was not to try the rescue.

One briskly student devised a  solution: cheating. Cadet Kirk did in his third attempt. Strangely enough, tweaking the simulator was considered original thinking. Probably that was only because it had not been attempted before. In time Cadet Kirk became the infamous Captain Kirk.

Sometimes, regardless of what you do, defeat is unavoidable.

Yes, I’m exagerating a little, but this has been a hell of a Kobashi Maru week. And to you all there that have Kobayashi Maru weeks once in a while, there’s still a message of hope. The Kobayashi Maru scenario had a meaning and purpose.

Because it wasn’t an intelligence or ability test. It was a character test. How do we face odds and specifically unsurmuntable odds? After all managing death is a way to learn to manage life.

Paraphrasing another Star Trek classic, Mr. Spock, “fear is the mind killer”. Sometimes the worst might simply happen, and what’s important then is how to handle the situation, how to keep your own control and integrity under adverse or inauspicious circumstances.

Making the most out of it. That’s how you learn to be better, and how to bounce back and subdue the next possibly conquerable odd. Don’t let circumstances drag you down, because you need to keep fit for the next, possibly unforseeable, challenge. And it may well be one you can cope with.

One of the things that happen to often in program management is that contractors, specifically their project managers, want to be too nice. Yes, of course they must be nice, but not that nice.

I’m not talking of nice presents or sumptuous dinners. I’m talking of making too much promises. Well, it’s understandable when you don’t have the contract but, once you have it, it’s a most annoying practice.

Reality is stubborn, bull-headed, disobedient, especially to the wishes of a project manager. It’s not her but her team who is really doing the hard work and, as they try to please her, they will tell her whatever she wants to hear… until the milestones get closer and the completion gets -or should get- nearer.

Then, nervousness gives way to hysteria and the hidden truth arises and comes out of the closet. The project is not going well. Guess what? Now hard decisions must be made, there’s almost no time and they (we) all go crazy.

Follow my advice: it’s all about managing expectations correctly. Too eager to please, sometimes we are too optimistic and make our projections forgetting risk management, inefficiencies, overheads, limited budgets, mistakes or that people are simply people.

If you are realistic in your predictions, and still take out a small bite allowing for some slack, you’ll be able to actually achieve what you have promised. Even, on the eyes of your benevolent customer, the under-promise might become an overachievement. You won’t lose your face but keep your credibility and increase your perceived efficiency.

Even in the worst case, it’s better to know the truth. Maybe the customer decides not to go ahead with the contract, but that will be better for you because there is no glory in projects that are doomed beforehand. Or maybe you and your customer can discover a better way of doing things, put some safeguards in place or simply make some drastic measures that might increase the probability of success. In any case, honesty is always a good advice.

I’ve tried to describe all this in the following expectations model:

It’s all about aligning expectations and results. The credibility zone is along that line but also tending to the overachievement. In short, people might expect you to do things better as they thought you would, but they won’t forgive if you do worse.

When you go down the credibility zone, there’s only danger: dissatisfied customers are your worst enemy: they may spread the word of a poor job.

Still there’s another danger zone in the upper left hand: giving too high achievements when you’ve managed poor expectations. In this case the problem is the bottom-line: probably you’ve spent more resources than were necessary and your customer would have been satisfied with less. It seems to me you should make a better use of your resources, or handle a few of them back to your organisation: after all they have a cost, although you might not perceive it. But with less capital employed, the profitability grows higher.

Remember: don’t be the one to put the rope around your own neck but do your best to keep it healthy instead. You might have much more leverage than the one you think you have.

The exam was really stressful. More than three hours writing like crazy. At the end I was rather confused, not really sure of what to expect. Fortunately, it was over.

I sat the exam at Barcelona’s British Council. I thought it would be a better experience than taking a plane and driving to Henley. It was a good idea. The place is just ten minutes from home.

On the other hand it was rather weird to be the only one taking the exam. The invigilator was there only for me. At least he was nice and had a thick book to read so he didn’t spend three hours glancing at me in suspicion. That would have been awkward.

Half full or half empty, who knows. I hope I pass. In the meantime I just need some time to relax. And that’s what I did on the weekend. The garden needed my attention so I just focused on trimming the bushes and getting tired. Oh my, my arms got so bruised!

The view from home is rather relaxing. The weather wasn’t perfect. It was the fourth rainy weekend after the most severe draught that I can recall. From scarcity to the most rainy May in 25 years. Our water reserves have tripled and reservoirs have reached 60% capacity. It looks like we’ll have enough water for the time being.

I like it when the beach is almost empty, and the showers scare the tourists. The calm seems to envelope everything, the air is fresher, the plants greener. This spring the plants are blooming like never before. Let’s forget about the price of oil, the high interest rates, the lack of liquidity and the forthcoming stagflation. It’s time to enjoy… at least for a while…

The garden this year is full of Mediterranean roses. The plants grow by the hour. A good omen? I hope so.

Yes, I admit it: I am nervous. Been there before, but I still feel the anxiety to sit an exam. Maybe I shouldn’t. I am supposed to be wiser, older (that’s for sure), more mature and self assured than before. But still I insist into getting myself into the verge of anxiousness again, clouded by emotions, cluttered by several contradicting feelings.

Because the whole spectrum of learning comes down to this, the whole personal development rhetoric melts and, what is left, is hard bone again, the same measurable and accountable bottom-line: exams.

Sadly, the whole learning experience converges and funnels to an exam. It all revolves around being tested, thoroughly or not, with a closed set of rules that deprecate initiative and enforce strict followership of rules.

After all that disquisition around soft and hard people management models, after all that rambling around the balanced scorecard, after acknowledging uncertainty and complexity, all the roads end here again, in a cold, specific and simple figure, the mark.

I wouldn’t want to practice the cynic or sceptic here. It’s simply that I am nervous. There must be a better way to assess people than the one I have experienced this year. I simply don’t feel it’s fair. A friend of mine just advised me not too read too much about the case: it could be counterproductive. Excuse me? Counterproductive trying to learn more? Since when? Yet I fear he’s right.

If I had to change one thing about the MBA it would be its assessments. I can’t agree with certain doctor at Henley that decided to judge me by her obscure set of rules instead of listening to me and being fair. But not being British has this things, and you learn to live with a cultural gap. Where would be the international experience if everything was just like at home?

Yet another day less in this countdown to Wednesday…

When you think of building a terminal you always think of huge construction works. And yes, that’s the bulk of the budget, and sometimes the most spectacular part. But in a 80/20 rule fashion, that 20% ends up entailing 80% of the work. As I like to say, the devil is in the details.

For example, in Barcelona’s airport, we started 2006 doing something like this:

The horizontal axis is roughly equivalent to one mile. The South Terminal was beginning to take shape. It was still divided into several parts instead of being a single building. That’s the way it was decided in the tendering process: there should be a few smaller cakes instead of a big one. A dilemma between having to co-ordinate or letting more companies participate. It was decided towards the latter… no wonder co-ordinating has been one of the main issues here.

But three years later, with the building almost done, we are focusing on a lot of different and much smaller things. Things like the following:

The white structure you see is inserted to the glass block. The purpose of the structure is to hold a couple of flat screens to be able to inform the passengers for the boarding process. It is thus provided by a different company than the one that is building the green glass block, the one that is providing the energy, the one that is providing the communications (that the screen will surely need in order to work), and the one that is providing things such as the air bridge or the cooling systems.

Yes, it’s all about interference again. In this case, as we get closer to the endgame, the different paths start to converge into one set of critical paths, all interrelated with each other. There’s no more unique critical path, but every single path becomes dependent on the others’ every delay: a web of interdependencies, a critical network instead of a path. 

My impression is that this part is much trickier than the other one. Finishing something is much more difficult than just going along with it. Slack has been consumed: the endpoint is not far anymore, pressure is increasing, hysteria is hovering, and we have to go down to every detail.

And studying for the final exam doesn’t help. In fact I sometimes arrive so tired that I don’t have the will to do anything. Still I have to. I strive to find some free time whenever, sometimes eating a quick sandwich and hurrying to imitate the waiting passengers in any available coach. The only difference is that they are waiting for something, just passing the time. I, on the other hand, I’m trying to use it. My macbook comes with me wherever I go, preview -for PDFs- and powerpoint to take notes always ready.

It’s funny how the process here is the other way around. When I studied the people, processes and financial modules, it was a matter of going into detail, of submerging into a wealth of information and trying to find the details, the reflections, the hidden wisdom, sometimes simply the stories behind, the assumptions, the reasoning. In fact that was a mistake because my teachers didn’t want me to prove that in the assignments: they just wanted to test that I knew the basic models. And I paid a price for going too far.

Now I’m going back to the basics. An exam is a place where you have to prove that you understand the basic reasoning, its assumptions, and apply it to some cases. It’s something like the terminal, but backwards, from detail to widely accepted models. That’s what they expect from me, and that’s what I should be giving them… I’ll try to refrain myself from doing otherwise.

I was interviewed by Widget Finn for the Times, and she wrote the following article:

The disastrous debut of Heathrow’s Terminal 5 was a nightmare experience for all involved, but for Gabriel Mesquida it has proved a valuable live case study for his MBA dissertation.

Mesquida is a programme manager for Aena, the Spanish equivalent of British Airports Authority, that is in charge of the expansion of Barcelona’s airport. He is responsible for the coordination of projects in the information systems, communications and security programmes. His dissertation for the distance-learning MBA that he is doing at Henley Management College is on managing airports for the future, so he is watching carefully how the Terminal 5 saga unfolds.

He says: “Our terminal is similar in size to Heathrow, which is considered the plane capital of Europe, and I visited T5 several times when it was under construction. I was impressed, at the time, by how much detail they were going into over safety and they were scrupulous about everything.”

But when the terminal opened it became apparent that there would be other useful lessons to be learnt – including how to manage a meltdown. “An MBA has a foundation of theory but it should be practical, so having a live case study means you can watch events as they unfold and draw conclusions from them.”

The conclusions may be different when the case study is current rather than from a textbook comments Dr Richard Barker, director of MBA programmes at Judge Business School. He says: “One of the benefits is that you don’t know the outcome, which simulates the management situation more effectively. With a five-year-old case study there’s a result to the story which is difficult to escape. You can look at different options that management had at the time but knowing what happened influences your ability to assess the case.”

Mesquida is already putting into practice some principles of leadership from his MBA that were highlighted in the Terminal 5 episode. He says: “Resources are important, but people are far more so and leadership is everything when you have a flock of people wandering around a huge new infrastructure. However carefully you prepare, the unexpected can happen, and that is when your staff should have the flexibility to use their initiative. If the company has a blame culture people will be reluctant to take risks or do anything except cover their own backs.”

Durham University Business School uses live case studies in boardroom simulation exercises where students focus on a real company. Dr Julie Hodges, director of MBA programmes, explains: “They look at the strategic data, where the company is now, what challenges and issues it’s facing, then students come up with recommendations based on the information.” But textbook cases also have their value. “These give an historical perspective so that the issues can be put into context. More data is available and we can identify the medium and long-term lessons.”

Textbooks’ case studies are polished, tried and tested so they are easier from a teaching viewpoint. Barker points out that they are also pigeonholed into subject areas. “They may be labelled a strategy or marketing case, which isn’t always obvious when you’ re trying to deal with something in the boardroom.”

He can predict some of the labels that will be put on Terminal 5. “I see it as an operations management case – make sure your operation works before you start overloading it, or a people management case – train your people properly and handle recovery situations effectively.”

Mesquida agrees that more lessons will emerge from Terminal 5 as time goes by, but together with his MBA learning, it is already shaping his decisions for Barcelona airport. He says: “We need performance indicators and a more systemic approach. Stakeholders and users shouldn’t have the impression that you’re out of control or they’ll feel abandoned. They must be kept fully informed of what’s happening and how you plan to remedy the situation.”

Terminal 5’s launch onto the world stage may have been a fiasco but, clearly as a learning resource for business students, it will run and run.

Thank-you Widget