Nov 19, 2025 | Events, Roundtables
As the demands on leaders in major projects and programmes continue to grow, so too does the pressure on their personal capacity. How can leaders sustain performance, maintain resilience, and create the conditions for their teams to succeed in increasingly complex environments?
At our recent November roundtable, Annastiina Hintsa, CEO of Hintsa Performance, joined us for a thought-provoking conversation about what high performance looks like, both on and off the track. Drawing on lessons from Formula 1, working with large organisations, and years of research into human wellbeing, she explored how the world’s best sustain excellence under intense pressure and what leaders can take from it.
Building on the themes from the MPA’s No More Heroes report, which highlights the leadership gap linked to burnout and low productivity, our roundtable explored practical ways to help leaders thrive. The evening was full of energy, discussion, and plenty of moments of “this really can apply to me”.
Sustaining High Performance
In Formula 1, milliseconds decide championships, yet performance is not only about engineering or pushing harder. As Annastiina explained, success at the pinnacle of motorsport is about managing paradoxes: profit and purpose, efficiency and innovation, stability and change, wellbeing and performance. The ability to hold these tensions is a hallmark of senior leaders too.
Hintsa Performance works from a simple belief: when people live better, they perform better. It is a philosophy that has shaped the routines of more than 3,000 executives and over 90 percent of Formula 1 race winners in the past decade. Lewis Hamilton reflected, “We’ll always be in each other’s lives”, a reminder that true performance coaching goes far beyond results.
The methodology behind Hintsa’s work focuses on your Core (inner motivation) and creating a Sustainable Performance Cycle that is personal to each individual, whether an F1 driver, Olympic athlete or business leader.
Their session opened with three fundamental questions:
- Do you know who you are?
- Do you know what you want?
- Are you in control of your life?
It echoed a question often put to young drivers by Dr Aki Hintsa: Do you want to be in the drivers seat of your life or the passenger seat?
Annastiina shared several practical frameworks that leaders and teams can use to maintain performance over the long term:
- Periodisation: Understanding your daily, weekly, and annual performance rhythm. Knowing when to push, when to make time to recover, and when to renew.
- Optimal Pressure: Identifying your stretch zone and recognising when healthy challenge begins to tip into strain.
- Recovery: Planning small recovery moments across your day, week, and year to protect wellbeing and fuel growth.
- Preparation: Creating capacity before peak periods so you can perform when it matters most.
- Team: Remembering that even the best driver cannot win without a world-class pit crew and support team.
One of the key messages was that resilience is a skill that can be learned. Balancing the comfort zone with the stretch zone underpins the optimal area for performance.
There was also a helpful distinction between healthy and unhealthy stress. Stress itself is not the enemy – we need it to perform, but problems arise when stress becomes chronic. Knowing your early warning signs and planning moments of recovery is vital.
Annastiina explored the four elements of mental recovery: Control, Relaxation, Mastery, and Detachment. Building these into everyday routines can make a significant difference. While embedding recovery within projects and programmes may need a cultural shift, it often begins with the small things – what you do, and what you enable others to do.
One Change That Cascades
Each of us was encouraged to consider one meaningful change that could have the biggest ripple effect. Sustainable change starts with awareness and grows through small, consistent actions. The WOOP framework (Wish, Objective, Obstacle, Plan) offers a simple and practical way to turn good intentions into tangible progress.
Resilience is not a fixed trait. It is a rhythm, a balance between pressure and recovery, competition and cooperation, performance and wellbeing. The conversation left us with a shared realisation: resilience is not about enduring difficult environments, but about designing conditions where people and teams can thrive.
For further insight into how the world’s best balance wellbeing and performance, explore the latest Hintsa F1 Insights Report.
Nov 7, 2025 | 25 in 25, Events, News and insight
ResoLex worked with the Crossrail East leadership team to embed a structured approach to behavioural risk management, collaboration, and leadership alignment. Using our RADAR methodology, we helped leaders recognise the direct connection between behaviours and project outcomes, creating a new reporting process that surfaced risks early and informed decision-making.
Crossrail East involved complex works along the eastern section of the route, including track upgrades, station improvements, and new facilities to increase train capacity and reliability. While technical challenges were well managed, the leadership team faced a less visible risk: how behaviours, culture, and team dynamics could influence delivery. Recognising this, the Project Director asked us to help strengthen alignment, build collaboration, and develop a reporting framework that could highlight issues before they escalated.
We began by gathering data across the project to establish a baseline of behavioural and project risks. Through confidential interviews, leaders were able to share perceptions openly, surfacing the issues that mattered most to them. These insights shaped a facilitated workshop where the leadership team collectively analysed root causes and prioritised 20 key risk areas. Importantly, they also identified positive and negative behavioural indicators, giving them tangible signs to track and address.
The outputs were built into a monthly monitoring cycle, with RADAR reports providing leading indicators of risk. These reports highlighted where perceptions varied significantly across the team, enabling the Programme Director to focus attention on alignment and shared understanding. Over time, RADAR became central to monthly strategy meetings, shaping agendas and guiding discussions, and giving the leadership team consistent visibility of behaviours and their impact on risk.
The approach quickly expanded beyond the leadership team to include the wider programme, supporting collaboration across Network Rail, Costain, and Signalling Solutions. The result was a stronger culture of accountability and transparency across the programme and supply chain.
As Project Director Ben Wheeldon reflected:
“To successfully deliver [one of] Europe’s largest infrastructure projects required us to clearly and succinctly identify, rationalise and manage a very unique and complex set of challenges, risks and opportunities. ResoLex not only helped us identify those which potentially had the biggest impacts but also prioritise them and develop, implement and monitor our mitigation plans.”
By embedding behavioural insights into governance and reporting, the Crossrail East leadership team gained a clear, structured way of surfacing risks and turning them into actionable insights. This gave leaders the tools to manage complexity with greater confidence, reduce misalignment, and strengthen collaborative decision-making.
Ultimately, the work helped the team move beyond individual perspectives to build a shared understanding of risks, creating the cultural conditions for resilient delivery on one of Europe’s most complex infrastructure programmes.
Oct 22, 2025 | Events, Roundtables
On the 9th of October, we were joined by Michele Dix (MPA, NISTA and former TfL), Julia Pyke (Sizewell C) and Richard Holm (ICW) for our latest ResoLex Roundtable, ‘Are We Selecting and Developing the Right Type of Leaders?’ Almost two years on from the MPA’s No More Heroes report, senior voices from across the major projects community came together to reflect on progress. The verdict was mixed: while the sector is showing signs of change, particularly around collaboration and diversity, there is still a long way to go to see more examples of good leadership cultures that are inclusive, adaptive and emotionally intelligent.
Despite the broad acceptance that the “hero” leader model is outdated, our speakers brought perspectives through different lenses – combining client leadership, industry body viewpoints and consulting experience. Michele reaffirmed the relevance of the “incomplete leader” concept, reminding the group that no one person embodies every quality. She pointed to “green shoots” of change, such as improving gender and ethnicity diversity, but more is needed to reflect the wider diversity of thought. She also emphasised that leaders should be assessed not only on what they deliver, but how they lead. Building on this, Richard introduced the idea of “character skills”, a concept originally explored by Alex Grant, arguing that so-called “soft skills” should be reframed and revalued as essential competencies for leadership. From a client perspective, Julia stressed the importance of leaders communicating vision clearly, hiring wisely, and empowering their teams to perform at their best – connecting the work of major projects with wider social value.
‘It was great to represent the Institute for Collaborative Working and see the alignment between the ‘MPA No More Heroes’ publication and the ICW Collaborative Leadership Insights paper. Whilst independently undertaken, the conclusions were aligned, placing an equivalent emphasis on management experience, as there is to emotional intelligence, and collaborative leadership skills.’
Richard Holm
‘It was very encouraging to hear consensus on the need to move away from hero leaders and the recognition of leaders needing to be “learn it all’s” as opposed to the “know it all’s” going forward – especially in an increasingly complex system-based environment.’
Michele Dix
Designed as an open, interactive discussion, participants shared their own experiences of where progress is being made and where barriers remain. The conversation unfolded across three key themes, each exploring how the industry can evolve from individual heroism to collective, sustainable leadership.
- Leadership in Major Programmes – Beyond the “Hero” Leader
Leadership in major programmes demands more than technical excellence. It requires ‘learn it all’s’, not just ‘know it all’s’ – emotional intelligence, systems thinking and the ability to orchestrate collaboration across complex environments. Participants called for leadership to be treated as a specialised discipline, supported by deliberate development and structured learning.
There was a strong call to grow talent from within through mentoring, coaching and safe spaces for stretch roles. Human qualities such as courage, empathy and vision were highlighted as essential, with agreement that great leaders not only deliver outcomes but also connect people to purpose. The takeaway: leadership should be seen as a craft, shifting the focus from short-term delivery to long-term capability building and ensuring there are good leaders across the project or programme, not just at the top.
- Capacity and Succession – Expanding and Diversifying the Leadership Pool
The discussion turned to why the leadership pool for major programmes remains so narrow. Consensus pointed to both quantity and readiness, but also to confidence in the industry of there being a committed pipeline of major projects to be involved in. Too few people are being developed, and those who are, often lack the support or experience to succeed. Over-reliance on familiar names, rigid professional silos and limited cross-sector mobility continue to stifle diversity and renewal.
Participants also recognised a disconnect between training and practice. Leadership programmes exist, but the learning rarely embeds once people return to delivery-driven roles. Burnout, lack of progression and a “too busy to develop” mindset were identified as major risks to capability and retention.
To break the cycle, the group urged a move away from “hero” models towards shared leadership teams, recognising and rewarding leadership behaviours at all levels, not just at the top. Building a connected system that values leadership as a collective, long-term capability was seen as essential for resilience.
- Future Skills and Behaviours – Leading with EQ in an AI World
Looking ahead, participants explored what the next generation of leadership should look like. The message was clear: leadership development must start early, not at university but in schools and early career experiences. Education still teaches outdated command-and-control models, leaving future leaders technically skilled but emotionally underprepared. Closer collaboration between industry and education was seen as vital to redefining what effective leadership looks like, combining real-world experience with academic learning.
Bridging the gap between academia and industry was seen as critical. Participants called for more collaboration, with practitioners teaching in universities and academics engaging with live projects. Diversity of thought, empathy and adaptability were identified as future core competencies, especially as AI automates technical work.
The conversation also touched on the future of work. Younger professionals want autonomy, flexibility and meaning rather than hierarchy. Organisations that fail to offer purpose-led environments risk losing talent to more progressive sectors. As one delegate put it, “we can’t keep measuring people by outdated frameworks and expect modern leadership to thrive.”
Shifting from Heroic to Systemic Leadership
Across all three themes, the message was consistent: sustainable leadership in major programmes requires cultural and systemic reform. This will mean creating safe spaces for growth, structures for mentoring and mobility, and metrics that reward empathy, collaboration and trust.
Without these shifts, the Hero leader challenge will persist, with a small group of exhausted leaders carrying the weight of complex programmes while a generation of potential successors look elsewhere.
This roundtable marked just the beginning. In an upcoming playbook, we will explore the data gathered during the session alongside wider industry research and insights from related events. Together, these will examine how major projects can move beyond the hero leader model and build a more sustainable leadership ecosystem.
Stay tuned as we share more on what it takes to select, grow and sustain the right type of leaders for the future of major programmes.
Oct 10, 2025 | 25 in 25, Events, News and insight
ResoLex partnered with the University of East Anglia (UEA) on the delivery of the Enterprise Centre, one of the UK’s most sustainable buildings. The project set out to achieve exceptional environmental performance, using innovative materials and construction methods to push the boundaries of what was possible.
From the outset, the ambition to deliver a Passivhaus-certified, BREEAM Outstanding building presented unique challenges. Success required close collaboration across a wide network of stakeholders, including UEA, its architects, contractors, local suppliers, and funding partners. Traditional risk registers were insufficient here: they capture technical and commercial risks but overlook those arising from human behaviour, organisational practices, and cultural dynamics. These “invisible risks” around alignment, trust, and collaboration had the potential to derail progress if not actively managed.
That’s where ResoLex came in. We supported the project team with regular workshops and facilitated engagement sessions that created a safe environment for open discussion and problem-solving. Central to this was our RADAR tool, which provided a confidential way for individuals to share perceptions of risk, collaboration, and communication. This data was analysed by an independent panel and fed back to the team through monthly reports, highlighting both emerging risks and positive behaviours.
During our involvement, RADAR provided leading indicators of risk, often giving the team 6-9 months’ early warning of potential issues. This allowed leaders to adjust quickly, prevent conflicts from escalating, and maintain alignment around shared objectives. Crucially, the anonymity of the process gave stakeholders confidence to be candid, surfacing issues that might otherwise have been buried.
The findings showed that risks linked to expectations, commercial negotiations, and the use of pioneering materials were identified and managed early. For example, RADAR flagged concerns around affordability, supply chain capability, and programme clarity months in advance, giving the leadership team time to resolve them collaboratively. As Professor John French, UEA Project Sponsor, later reflected:
“ResoLex’s RADAR platform provided us with real insight into our scheme, allowing us to capture the views of all involved on the project. This ensured we were able to tackle issues early, reduce conflicts, and ultimately save time and money.”
The impact went beyond traditional project measures of cost, time, and quality. By embedding continuous feedback and collaboration into governance, the team developed stronger relationships and created a culture of trust and accountability. This cultural alignment was a critical factor in the successful delivery of a world-class facility that continues to be celebrated for its sustainability.
The project demonstrated that sustainable construction is built on sustainable relationships, and that behavioural risk management can be as important as technical expertise in achieving ambitious outcomes.
Oct 31, 2024 | Events
Last month, a few of the ResoLex team attended the ICE’s Reimagining Delivery Models: a Panel Discussion on the Future of Project 13 and Beyond lecture. After a welcome from Julio Lacorzana, Manager in Infrastructure & Capital Projects Advisory at Deloitte, the evening presented an opportunity to hear thoughts from the panel of speakers:
- Florence Julius, Director in the Infrastructure and Capital Projects Advisory Team at Deloitte;
- Richard Lennard, Executive Commercial Director at New Hospital Programme;
- Liz Baldwin, Director of the Southern Integrated Delivery Alliance at Southern Renewals Enterprise;
- Andrew Page, Head of Commercial Services at Anglian Water Services.
Andrew and Richard were invited to give some reflections from their experiences of implementing Project 13 approaches at Anglian Water and on the New Hospital Programme, respectively, ahead of a panel discussion and Q&A with all four speakers. We have taken some time to capture a summary of our team’s key takeaways from the evening.
Andrew Page explained that Anglian Water is using an integrated framework approach and is part of an alliance that has heavily relied on Project 13 principles to deliver success. Andrew also stressed that the key focus for an integrated team is on outcomes, not outputs along the way. Andrew explained that after many years of learning through alliancing, Anglian Water understood that the commercial approach is key. Setting up the right commercial approach to incentivise the desired collaborative behaviours underpins the achievement of successful outcomes. Andrew’s statement that “what delivers outcomes is relationships” resonated deeply with our experience of working with project and programme delivery teams.
Richard Lennard began his talk by introducing the New Hospital Programme and its aims and objectives, and he recognised the tension between local and national challenges and requirements that needs to be managed through the programme. Richard explained how the programme is developing a new approach to delivering hospital infrastructure, bringing greater value by developing an ‘Enterprise of Enterprises’ mindset with a supplier and contract ecosystem. The mindset will focus on the following principles:
- Longevity – building long-term relationships
- Parity – no one has all the answers, everyone comes to this as an equal
- Trust – hear everyone’s voices and solutions
- Alignment of outcomes – patient first
The panel discussion and Q&A time posed many insightful thoughts into the future of delivery models, here are some of our key takeaways:
- It is important to assign risk to the right owner whilst also insuring parties work together to develop risk solutions.
- Project teams have a better chance of success when the mindset is ‘if one fails, we all fail’.
- Having a purpose and aligned goals and objectives is crucial, particularly across multiple organisations. This shouldn’t be assumed, and time and effort need to be spent on getting it right.
- Not everyone can work in a more ‘collaborative’ environment. Be mindful of who is asked to do so and whether they can fulfil what might be required of them.
- We need to create a safe space for people to challenge behaviours.
- The client has to own the outcome, acknowledging that you are the most invested party as a client, but also recognising that you can’t do it on your own. Partnering rather than contracting in a traditional manner can help build the right environment for this, where each partner wants to help the other to be successful.
- Consistent, visible commitment is needed from the top of organisations to make any ethos work. Senior engagement cannot happen on a solely one-off basis – behaviour breeds behaviour.
- It’s a symbiotic relationship. You rely on each other to get things done.
- Test the relationships regularly, especially over a long period.
- Be prepared and adaptable to change the way things work. As an example, a Capable Owner should be able to say, ‘I’ve got this wrong, we need to make a change’.
- It is very important to map the governance. Collaborative models are successful when they get the balance right between governance and freedom.
Oct 29, 2024 | Events, Roundtables
On Tuesday 8th October, we hosted a roundtable discussion based on the Team of Teams (ToT) ethos, more commonly known from General Stanley McChrystal’s book Team of Teams: New Rules of Engagement for a Complex World. Published in 2015, the book refers to the concept ‘Team of Teams’, which aims to embed collaborative working across organisations through a web of interconnected teams, based on McChrystal’s experience as commander of the U.S. Joint Special Operations Command.
The purpose of the workshop was to explore the benefits of a Team of Teams approach within a commercial setting and some of the real lived experiences and challenges in managing its roll-out.
We were delighted to welcome two guest speakers:
- Simon Higgens MBE, Business Development Director at STORY Contracting and former Royal Engineer with the British Army
- Scott Murray, Performance and Integration Director at SCS Railways, delivering HS2 London Tunnels
Edward Moore, our Chief Executive, opened the session, providing background into our work and then into the book and its goals: principally around embedding an ethos of collaboration in organisations.
In addition, we shared a Slido poll to gauge the room’s experiences of cultural change in their projects and organisations before delving into the main content, this was later used as a comparison.
Simon opened with an example of his time in the military where he was given command and the goal of achieving a specific objective: Building a positive relationship with an ally.
He had freedom in the nature of the solution but a limited timeframe to design and implement his plan. Simon discussed how in his role he utilised a Team of Teams approach as a natural course of action to achieve results, despite at that point being unaware of the philosophy. He related the six key themes that underpinned his approach:
- Complex over complicated
When Simon first joined the military, it was focused on a hierarchical mindset: telling people what to do and how to do it. This meant that although tasks were complicated, there were clear plans. Over the years, growing complexity and asymmetrical warfare necessitated a shift to an output-based mindset: Focusing on embracing the complexity of a problem and how to achieve results with an adaptable approach over a fixed structure. This required a cultural change to collaboration being the norm – as it is the only way to achieve common aims.
- Unifying purpose
Every person involved in a project should be aware of what the ultimate goal is, understand why they are involved, and how their part relates to that purpose.
This enables teams and individuals to be empowered to make decisions that relate to their area, as they have a common and clear understanding of the ultimate goal.
- Effective delegation
Leaders need to step back and let teams ‘get on with it’. Teams should be built based on expertise, and therefore the team members are the ones who will know their work area and how best to approach tasks to deliver them successfully. Leaders need to be capable of driving strategy and longer-term thinking, managing high-level risks and scanning for upcoming issues.
Trust and communication are imperative for project success, and this must be modelled from the top.
- Adaptable over efficient
Every organisation needs to plan for change – it will happen regardless. Contingencies, mitigations and courses of action need to be thought through carefully as plans will inevitably change as a project progresses.
In addition, this adaptable approach should, again, be embedded as an active mindset in teams: people should be empowered to adapt and change things in the areas they have responsibility over, to serve the project goal.
- Leadership
Teams need to be allowed to grow, make mistakes and learn from them. A focus on ‘superhero leaders’ results in nobody else being taught how to lead, make decisions or develop to take on a responsibility. A spectrum of leadership skills is required, with a focus on understanding your team, their capabilities and skillsets.
Simon talked through how the military focuses on developing individuals’ skills for the next rank they’re aiming for, rather than putting underdeveloped people into roles they’re not yet ready for and hoping they succeed.
Throughout his talk, Simon stressed that the military, while sharing a lot of overlaps with commercial delivery, has a separate focus so not everything applicable in one area will be relevant to the other.
The project that he talked through in the session was ultimately successful, through a focus on the above themes enabling three key outcomes:
- Teams and individuals were allowed to lead in their areas: if they needed assistance, it was there, but he, as the overall leader, didn’t interfere in their specific areas.
- Building the environment for specialists to operate, taking away political interference and enabling them to focus on delivering.
- Leaders could focus on the long-term, strategic view over and above the minutiae of each task, trusting the team to deliver while they ensured objectives would be met.
Following on from Simon, Scott then talked through embedding Team of Teams in a contractual environment. Scott’s focus was on Team of Teams as a set of leadership behaviours that underpin how things are done. Scott imparted that moving to a Team of Teams approach is not a traditional organisational transformation, where boxes are moved around on an organisational chart, but instead represents a cultural change in how people within the organisation are expected to operate.
It also requires a shift in how people think: in implementing Team of Teams in a project organisation, Scott found that many discussions would turn to peoples’ concerns with their specific areas: If one of their SMEs was needed to support a different or more critical area of the business, how would that be budgeted? Would they get reimbursed for the time lost in their area of the project? There was a significant challenge in trying to embed a holistic, ‘best for project’ view over ‘best for me’.
Scott identified a number of key takeaways in implementing Team of Teams:
- Leadership needs to be bought in
Building a Team of Teams environment relies upon trusting people to deliver. This means that leaders need to get used to specifying outcomes over a list of tasks, which can be uncomfortable to those that like to maintain control.
Leaders need to support the embedding of new ways of working and not interfere. Importantly, they need to be focused on long-term thinking. Effective behavioural change across an organisation will not be done within 3 months, but more in the order of 2 years or more.
However, those two years will pass regardless: it is up to leaders whether at the end of it they have an effective, functioning environment or are still facing the same challenges.
- Bad behaviour needs to be dealt with immediately
This must happen from top to bottom. Leaders role model the behaviours that others will follow, so they must visibly demonstrate calling out and challenging behaviours that do not match the agreed or intended ways of working.
The environment you create to deliver your project is an important foundation for delivery. It underpins and supports every other part of the project. It should therefore be high on the agenda and consistently reinforced.
- Test and reinforce communications
To truly build understanding, individuals and teams need to be engaged and reengaged regularly and consistently. It is dangerous to assume understanding from one or two presentations or workshops, you must work with people and test that they understand why the new way of working is the right approach.
The floor was then opened up for discussion. In the following conversations, some themes shone through:
How do we break the cycle of making the same kinds of mistakes that we see so commonly across projects and programmes?
- As humans, we have many biases that inform recruitment, including affinity bias, where we recruit in our image. This is an area where we need to break the cycle to be able to diversify our approaches to delivering the best outcome.
- The right behaviours are just as important as technical competence and should be strongly considered in the hiring process, particularly for leadership roles – but following on from above, this needs to be properly designed so that “the right behaviours” are not simply “someone who thinks the same way as I do”!
- We need to have a system in the industry of training, educating and developing people to lead effectively. Graduate/apprentice schemes with 6-month placements are a good start, but after those initial 2-3 years nobody is ever again provided with this cross-industry experience.
- Change needs to be accepted and embedded as a constant over ‘business as usual’. We intrinsically know this to be true and many of us can resonate from experience: what was new 20 years ago is old and stale now. We need to set ourselves up to deliver in a changing environment rather than plan for change as an additional activity.
Is there a ‘critical mass’ of people required in a project organisation to embed the Team of Teams approach?
Team of Teams is more about a way of working, culture and behaviours, so should be applicable in any environment, from a small team to a whole army. However, the bigger the organisation, the more difficult it will be to embed. Leaders must be engaged: if they aren’t, it will fail. Scott suggested that if a proposal to utilise a Team of Teams approach doesn’t have active support from at least two-thirds of the leadership team, it may be better to scale back, focus on a smaller part of the organisation or project and make it work before attempting to go bigger.
The roundtable also highlighted some things that major projects and programmes in infrastructure can learn from other industries and areas, and the importance of considering behaviours and ways of working in project delivery.
A key theme that came out was the concept of “who is in your phone book?” – i.e., who do you contact when you need a problem resolved – and who do they contact? These are the people you want in your ‘team of teams’: the subject matter experts and problem solvers.
This needs to be tempered, however, by not just defaulting to the same people – this technique promotes using an existing network over either training new people or embracing diversity of thought.
The Slido poll also gave some positive results in that almost 75% of those present stated that their teams were enabled to make decisions and implement them, and the vast majority stating that they believed in long-term culture over short-term goals.
These are not new issues, extending back to the Latham Report in 1994 (and earlier!), however, the industry has historically struggled to come to terms with them. The collected experiences of the leaders and experienced professionals in the room show that perhaps there is a cultural change already underway that may support the long-term thinking and trusted, delegated decision-making that the industry needs to harness.
The roundtable posed some great insights into Team of Teams from the perspective of our speakers and guests, with great discussion had. We’d like to thank everyone who attended and encourage you to keep an eye out for next year’s programme of events. View our event calendar here.
