Real leaders. Real problems.A different perspective.

Larry Kodali (0:00): Hi everybody. Welcome to another episode of the Leadership Series. Today we have a very exciting guest, Janet. Janet comes from the healthcare commercial division. She's been a healthcare commercial executive for almost 30 years now, in medical devices and life sciences. Janet has led a global portfolio generating more than $800 million a year in revenue, and she has turned a 24% global decline into growth. So, Janet, welcome to the episode. Why don't we start with your story and tell us a little bit about yourself? Janet Geraigery (0:38): Great. Hi, Larry. So yes, I've had an amazing career being a commercial leader in medical devices. I have not only been in the medical device industry for 30 years, running the commercial side of medical device and life science businesses. I've also had many experiences traveling to multiple countries and launching new products, pricing and customers. Product and marketing leadership: I started my career at Whatman, CONMED and Smiths Medical, then Director of Sales Operations, VP of Marketing and Sales Operations and my last position was Vice President of Commercial Operations at Haemonetics. I managed two business units with $800 million in combined revenue, nine direct reports, a 99-person organization, and ownership of the P&L, with responsibility for divestitures and long-range strategic planning. Today I'm an independent consultant and board advisor. In May, I graduated from the Harvard Medical School Global Healthcare Leadership Program, and I'm a Healthcare Businesswomen's Association board member and mentor. What I'm very passionate about is introducing innovative medical devices to global markets to improve patient and healthcare safety. Larry Kodali (2:07): Wow, amazing. That's an impressive career. So, Janet, what is the biggest problem that you're seeing today in medical device and life science companies that owners and leadership teams are still not solving? Janet Geraigery (2:23): I think there's multiple challenges today. One of the biggest challenges is making sure that you have the operating structure to run your business from a regulatory, quality and legal compliance standpoint in different countries. I would say portfolios carry products that no longer earn their place. You have legacy product lines, they're unprofitable, and they don't maintain good technical files. And because customers have been purchasing them for a while, They're sometimes difficult to remove. from the portfolio while you keep providing innovation. It's expensive. So that's one of the challenges in carrying them. I have divested two underperforming product lines. One was in a whole blood legacy business, another was in a software portfolio. We turned a negative margin into a positive margin for the overall product portfolio. Larry Kodali (3:17): Wow. Wow. That's nice. From a negative to a positive. That's really great. So, Janet, tell me, what's the solution you would bring? Say you're walking into a new company, the first 90 days, what are the biggest impacts that you would look at or bring to the table? Janet Geraigery (3:39): In the first 90 days of going into a new business, I would like to understand the structure from a product portfolio, the margin by product by customer by contract, top 20 customers, top 20 countries that we're conducting business in, and where there might be some opportunity for price, or if we need to exit just to maybe streamline the business. taking simple steps along the way. We need to make sure that we fix pricing and contracts, renegotiate terms, not forgetting service. I think many times we forget service, and service should be something that is considered part of contracts. And we need to make sure that we have the proper commercial operations footprint to match the strategy of growth and moving forward. We need to make sure that we're setting up key KPIs that everyone can speak the same language across multiple functions, and ensure that we have proper launches with secured investments that can go the distance. I think many times when you're creating product innovation, you underestimate the cost to do that and to bring it to full commercial strategy. So I think it's quite important that we assess that. And one thing is, when you have a negative business, you want to make sure that you're making some difficult decisions, but you want to make sure that you're a profitable business that can grow, go the distance and reinvest in product innovation. Larry Kodali (5:15): Janet, what kind of companies get the most value from someone like you, and what would they hire you to own? Janet Geraigery (5:24): I believe that I'm a really good fit because I have both operations in marketing and strategy across a medical device business. I can make some really key portfolio decisions. I own the commercial engine: portfolio, pricing, launches and customers, so revenue grows and margins improve over time. And I believe that's how I can assist in coming to a new company. Larry Kodali (5:50): Okay, that's amazing. Janet, I just want to know: before, how were you looking for jobs before working with OptimHire? And what did you like about OptimHire's Executive Concierge program? Janet Geraigery (6:05): I would say that over the course of my career, I've never seen looking for a new career opportunity this challenging before. I've been having a lot of good conversations. It seems like many people like my resume and all my experience and accomplishments. But I will say that researching and applying and just the massive engine, the machine I call it out there, cultivating what that new career opportunity might be, has been challenging and very time-consuming. I have enjoyed working with OptimHire in the last couple of months. They have an entire Executive Concierge team. We highlight the positions that I believe are very exciting and I have lots of great qualifications that I can bring to the table. And so I've really liked having OptimHire as an extension, part of my new career opportunity, and working with them, and I would recommend them to a friend or a colleague who's in the same position. Larry Kodali (7:10): Very nice. In one word, what's the one word that comes to mind? Janet Geraigery (7:15): Convenient.

Larry Kodali (0:01): Hi, welcome to another episode of the Leadership Series. Today I have Scott Bishop. He's a manufacturing operations leader who runs three-shift production at a 130-employee automotive plant. Scott spent almost 13 years with Navistar, where he led a 70-plus-person paint production operation. He has raised overall equipment effectiveness from 60% to 80% and cut scrap and downtime by about 30%. Today we'd like to learn more about his industry and go deeper into it. Scott, welcome, and we'd love to hear your story first. Scott Bishop (0:52): I'm currently a production manager for a company called Angstrom Fiber. We're a tier-one automotive supplier making parts for Ford, Stellantis, Toyota and Mazda, and I've been in this position for about two and a half years. I've been an operations and manufacturing manager for over ten years. I actually spent more than twenty years at Navistar, which at one time was called International Truck and Engine, so same company, different name. Larry Kodali (1:27): Perfect. Scott Bishop (1:28): I started out on the production line years ago at Navistar, was laid off for a while when NAFTA hit, and was then rehired. I held several different roles there, everything from quality to modification to pilot builds, and helped streamline manufacturing for some specialized models for Caterpillar. In my current role, one of our biggest problems started about a year and a half ago, when the largest fiberglass manufacturer for automotive decided to stop supplying the automotive industry and went back to home insulation. A lot of our products are fiberglass-based, so we had to source several new manufacturers. One we sourced in Germany told us they could meet our productivity and volume expectations, but we really struggled: the quality went downhill, and the width of material they can make hasn't met our expectations either. So we sourced another manufacturer in Mexico, Owens Corning. We've since improved the quality rate quite a bit, but with the temperature differences between Mexico and Ohio, humidity and heat affect the material on its way here. So I'm working with one of our outside suppliers on a new foam-based product that will reduce the scrap rate with much more consistent material, and we're working with some of the OEMs right now to get it approved. Larry Kodali (3:23): Very nice. Probably the most impressive part for me was that they laid you off and then rehired you. They must have realized their mistake. Scott Bishop (3:34): Well, it was sheer volume. That plant had fifty-three hundred people at one time, and it went down to fewer than eight hundred. As long as you were in good standing, and I was, you came back. I worked my way up through the company over the years, held a lot of different manufacturing operations positions, and gained experience in many different departments. Larry Kodali (4:01): Very nice. Scott, I'd like to learn more about the industry. What are the problems the industry is facing, and what should leadership solve? Scott Bishop (4:13): Fiberglass is a very good example. A lot of suppliers have gotten out of the business, which has made many OEMs compete for the same suppliers. Some are signing exclusive contracts, which limits availability quite a bit, and even the capacity of material we need to produce for the OEMs is restricted. Many suppliers have consolidated or gone out of business, which has reduced competition and makes it harder and harder to meet our customers' requirements with the material that's available. Larry Kodali (4:52): Thanks. What solutions have you brought in, and what are the main challenges you've overcome? Scott Bishop (4:58): Where I am now, we have three compression lines, two vacuum-form lines and three fiberglass lines, so a wide variety of products. When I started, our fiberglass tooling was cleaned with dry-ice blasting, and I looked for a more efficient and more cost-effective way to clean those tools. We were spending close to a million dollars a year on dry ice and labor. So I looked at using a laser cleaner instead. It cost about $25,000 up front, but in the long run it saves about three-quarters of a million dollars a year, and it cleans the tools in less than half the time. It also cleans the material off the molds more thoroughly, almost back to a brand-new surface. That has made a huge difference, and it helps with the scrap rate and OEE because we start with a much cleaner tool. Larry Kodali (6:15): Wonderful. So it cost just $25,000 and saved almost three-quarters of a million? Scott Bishop (6:22): Yes. Larry Kodali (6:23): Three-quarters of a million, in half the time, and the output is much better. That looks like an amazing solution. Any other examples? Scott Bishop (6:36): With the fiberglass manufacturers that are left, we now have to overlap material to get the widths we need for our tools. A roll used to last 45 minutes to an hour. Because of the reduced capacity, we overlap the rolls and they only last 15 to 20 minutes. So I created a magazine loading mechanism that lets us load multiple rolls at one time, four rolls on each side. That cuts the downtime from changing rolls when we run out, makes the process much simpler, and makes the line much more efficient. Larry Kodali (7:22): Very nice. That's a good, innovative solution. Scott Bishop (7:28): Another struggle, to answer your question, is manpower. Everybody is struggling with the availability of skilled people. We have backup operators who help run our lines. Before I started, they were chosen by seniority, so we weren't getting the most qualified people. I worked with one of our process engineers to put together a test to qualify for those roles. As a result, we've seen much more efficiency and better teamwork in getting throughput online, and we have a backup when the lead operator is on vacation. Larry Kodali (8:15): So you've shown your expertise in recruiting and hiring, and on the floor: increasing production and reducing downtime. A lot of amazing work. Anything else that comes to mind? Scott Bishop (8:31): Where I am now, we work together as a good team, solving quality and production issues. Sometimes the issue is in the machines, and we come up with process improvements to streamline them. It can be as simple as a daily meeting to go over the issues we had the night before, whether a material issue or a machine issue, and working through them together as a team to come up with efficient solutions. Larry Kodali (9:03): It's great to see good leaders always share the credit. Anything else you'd like to tell our audience about the industry and the solutions you've been thinking about? Scott Bishop (9:14): Not at this time. I'm just looking for some new opportunities and new challenges. Larry Kodali (9:19): Before we close, is there anything you'd like to tell us about the OptimHire Concierge service so far? How has it been, and would you recommend it to anyone else? Scott Bishop (9:32): Quite honestly, I think it could be helpful. And I think as we work together, we'll see some good results. Larry Kodali (9:41): Anything else you'd like to add about the service? Scott Bishop (9:47): Mustafa has been working with me to resolve any issues and work together. So hopefully we'll get some positive results. I kind of love working the process here.

Larry Kodali (0:01): Hi everybody, welcome to the Leadership Series. I am Larry, CEO and founder of OptimHire. Today we have Richard with us. Richard is a security engineer and architect, and his main responsibility is protecting hospitals. He has worked with U.S. federal courts and enterprise environments. Richard served as a lead incident commander for IT security for the U.S. courts in the Northern District of Illinois, and he has built vulnerability management systems and DevSecOps for NorthShore University HealthSystem and Rush University Medical Center. So let's start with our wonderful guest and hear his story. Richard, why don't you start by telling us a little bit about yourself? Richard Mahmud-Okhai (0:50): Thank you, Larry, for the introduction. Richard here. I have worked in multiple industries, from healthcare to government. I've also worked for one corporate organization since coming to the United States, an automotive retailer in Texas. And I've worked extensively in education, not heavily in security, but mostly in web development and programming. That's actually how I started. My path into security was unusual. I started in manufacturing, where I gravitated toward work that involved computers. Then I moved into education, where I helped with web development and web content management. From there, I furthered my education in security. While I was doing that, I was also working on side projects, including one for the Department of Defense and homeland security, and then I went right into security. Since then I've been in healthcare and the federal government. I've worked extensively in incident response. As Larry said, I was formerly an incident commander for the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. I've also worked extensively in DevSecOps, helping application developers, web developers and programmers manage their binaries properly and making sure we have enough defense in depth across everything we put out in the public space. That's pretty much what I've done in security, along with vulnerability management, of course. Larry Kodali (2:22): Very nice. Richard, I see you have a very impressive background. You have an MBA in business strategy and decision making from DePaul, a master's degree in computer science from Loyola, and CASP+ and CEH certifications. You also have a postgraduate certificate in AI and data science from Northwestern University. Would you like to tell us a little about that? Richard Mahmud-Okhai (2:58): Each credential has a reason behind it. It started with my degree in information security and intelligence, which is how I started in security. That bachelor's degree gave me a clear idea of what I wanted to do, because I chose a custom concentration that covered penetration testing, incident response and more, even governance, risk and compliance, which is a heavily needed area in security. From there, I realized I needed much more hands-on experience in incident response. A business degree helped me understand how users think. As a computer science major or someone in security, speaking to people who aren't technical can be difficult. The business degree helped me communicate properly with business teams in areas I don't know as well, and it taught me to think outside the box. That's why I got the business degree. From there, I went into cloud security, another area that is very popular and in demand. That's how I built up all those areas of security and earned those certifications and degrees. Larry Kodali (4:08): Very nice. Richard, can you tell me about the current industry problems that leadership is not solving, and what your solutions are for those problems? Richard Mahmud-Okhai (4:23): A lot of the issues I've seen in technology and security leadership come down to investment in security solutions. A solution that doesn't actually solve the problem we're dealing with isn't something we should invest in. Some problems can be solved with automation scripts, using SOAR orchestration and workflows that cut down investigation time. Those areas haven't been looked at closely. Another area that most organizations overlook, not just in healthcare but in most critical organizations, is buying one solution to deal with multiple problems. You should have one solution for one problem and another solution for another problem. So investment in security solutions is very important, and some of those investments aren't needed at all, because the problem could be solved with simple automation and orchestration. Larry Kodali (5:17): Very nice. Where do you think you could give organizations the biggest help from your expertise and background? What are the core areas where you really add value? Richard Mahmud-Okhai (5:33): I've had a lot of intensive experience in incident response, vulnerability management and application security. I believe I could address multiple problems in an organization because I have multiple specialties in security. I've worked in incident response, application security and DevSecOps. I've even worked as a program manager for vulnerability management, which let me see it from a different perspective, and I've also worked as a technical engineer for vulnerability management, so I can really wear both hats. My core idea is that when I join an organization with multiple specialties, I can help tackle a problem without spending more money. For example, if we have one solution for vulnerability management, I could consider using it to also support application security, if we can add that for much less than buying a brand-new tool. That comes from experience and knowledge: understanding how to tackle a problem without pouring a lot of money into it. And that comes from having multiple specialties in security. Larry Kodali (6:38): Very nice. Amazing. Your work is very important. Lastly, I would love to hear how your experience has been with the OptimHire Concierge service. Any words you would like to share about how the process has been going, how you were doing it before, and how you're doing it now? Richard Mahmud-Okhai (6:55): I think it's the reassurance and the confidence. When I spoke to Mr. Hussain and Syed the other day, just understanding how the process goes and having an idea of what was going to be done, it was very clear and very straightforward. The picture was clear. There wasn't any hidden agenda behind the help with finding a new job. The confidence that was instilled in me made me want to work even better and more professionally with the organization. So the confidence and the reassurance have been extremely valuable in looking for a job, along with the confidence of trusting somebody to help me get a job. Larry Kodali (7:35): Nice. And would you recommend this to a colleague, a friend or anybody you know? Richard Mahmud-Okhai (7:41): Yes, because the reassurance is definitely something I feel confident in. I don't recommend things to people that I'm not confident in. So being confident with OptimHire is definitely going to push me to recommend the good job done by OptimHire to a lot of people. Larry Kodali (7:58): Thank you.

Larry Kodali (0:01): Andrew comes to us as a Citrix and end-user computing architect with 29 years in enterprise virtualization, including seven years inside Citrix Systems itself. Andrew has run 10,000-plus virtual desktops at the CDC, 3,000-plus concurrent Citrix sessions at Cigna Evernorth, and the Epic client systems estate for 2,500 users. That's impressive work. Andrew Davy (0:37): My name is Andrew Davy. I worked for the CDC for many years, for the government, and then moved on to Cigna. At Cigna, I spent most of my years working on Citrix and as an Epic ECSA. They introduced me to Epic because they needed an ECSA. I was a senior administrator there for Citrix, and we did all of the Epic-related migrations and upgrades, so I got very involved with Epic. At that time, they basically said, "Since we're doing Citrix, why not involve Epic as well?" So they brought me on and decided they wanted me to do the ECSA certification. I was successful with a couple of the exams. Larry Kodali (1:32): What did your seven years inside Citrix teach you? What is the mistake most Citrix customers make? Andrew Davy (1:40): They're now going to Azure, Azure with Microsoft Office 365, which I've had a lot of experience in as well. I also did VMware Horizon, another virtualization product that's getting a lot of ramp-up now. Even though VMware is expensive, Citrix licensing and infrastructure have gotten really expensive, along with the maintenance, so a lot of customers are dropping them. Most people are now moving toward Azure and Office 365 for virtualization. Larry Kodali (2:20): Understood. A hypothetical scenario: what actually happens at a hospital when Epic access is down for an hour? What's the major problem, and how do you solve it? Andrew Davy (2:36): This has happened quite a few times. When Epic goes down, they do have business continuity: business applications are kept up even though there is an outage. They use backup servers, and users are rerouted. We use DNS round robin to reroute users to a different server that has the latest read-and-write copy, and as a result they're able to stay up. The outage for us only lasted a moment, because we just reroute the users and have them log off and log back on. The last issue was caused by an upgrade that wasn't tested and vetted properly, and users were caught off guard by some of the different screens they were seeing. We called it an outage and fixed it within about twenty minutes, and the users were back up again. Larry Kodali (3:45): Any other major industry problems you see, or ideas? Andrew Davy (3:50): With Citrix, for example, we have business continuity programs. If the data collector goes down, there's a backup of the database, and as long as you don't reboot the servers, the backup is there. We've had Citrix outages for hours and users were still able to keep working. Users trying to come into the environment can have some problems here and there, but for the most part things work flawlessly. As far as management is concerned, my main input is to make sure things are tested and vetted properly, and not only by one engineer but by many engineers. And when we do rollouts, follow the 80/20 approach: 20% of the users get the application first, and then the other 80% follow. That way, if there's an outage, only 20% of the users are affected while the other 80% keep working. We fix what we need to fix, bring it back in, and repeat the process. The main thing is this: we've seen issues in the environment before, and a lot of people make this mistake. Whenever you're doing any kind of rollout or upgrade, make sure the network can handle it. We had one where the pipe wasn't big enough, so users had a lot of intermittent issues and degradation around things we knew we had implemented correctly, but because of the network throughput they weren't able to work properly. So planning and architecture are very important, and there's less experience around that than I would expect. A lot of architects make very costly mistakes that cost the company. You want to make sure things are planned properly and documented, so you can go back, troubleshoot, and see what was done and what wasn't. Those are some of my lessons about deployments. When it comes to deployment, we have to prepare and test, run a pilot phase, make sure the pilot is good, and make sure all intended users are completely aligned. Once they sign off, then we implement, and at that point we still use the 80/20 rule. Larry Kodali (6:56): Anything else you would like to add, Andrew? Andrew Davy (6:59): I worked with Citrix for twelve years before I left Citrix and moved on, so my Citrix experience is very broad. As far as ECSA, I have five years of experience, and the bulk of it came within two years at Cigna, when I was promoted into that position. Larry Kodali (7:25): Last but not least, how has your experience been with OptimHire and being part of the Executive Concierge program? Andrew Davy (7:32): It's been great. I've been getting a lot of input. You've sent out quite a lot of my resumes, across many companies that I wouldn't have touched had I not used you. Larry Kodali (7:50): Thank you so much, Andrew, and thanks for taking the time. Take care.

Ram Mantha (0:00): I own the technology portfolio. What gets funded, how it gets delivered, and whether it pays back or not. Larry Kodali (0:05): Welcome to another episode of the Leadership Series. Today we have an exciting guest, Ram. Ram is a technology and transformation executive with more than 20 years leading enterprise PMOs, ERP modernization and AI programs. At Venture Global, Ram built a PMO from scratch that ran more than 100 programs and a portfolio of $110 million dollars, raised on-time delivery from 60% to almost 99%, and he has cut technical debt by almost 30%. So let's welcome Ram and hear his story. Ram, why don't you tell us a little bit about yourself and how you built this amazing career? Ram Mantha (0:59): Yes, thank you for that introduction. My name is Ram Mantha. For more than 20 years, I have turned large, messy technology portfolios into programs that deliver on time, on budget, and in line with the business strategy. I started off in SAP program delivery at Deloitte. I led a SuccessFactors and benefits rollout across 45 countries in the same project. Then I led PMO and transformation work at Ernst & Young, including a $12 million divestiture and spin-off for a company called Trinseo. Then independent consulting for Amtrak, with an $85 million IT portfolio across 200-plus sites. Then I had a stint at Bridgestone Americas, where I did an SAP HANA transformation. and a technology upgrade for ECC. And then, of course, I did major work at United Illuminating, where I was working as a director of IT and enterprise PMO, and also worked on their CapEx and infrastructure optimization and the use of most of their CapEx across many different ERPs and solutions. And my last project, my last company, at Venture Global, I built a PMO from scratch, ground up, with a 10-member leadership team, managing 100-plus programs across North America and Europe, and also grew the technology portfolio from $30 million to $110 million. I have a Ph.D. in engineering and a master's from IIT Kanpur. I'm PMP certified, a Certified Scrum Master, and a Professional Engineer in Ontario. And I recently got my Harvard AI certification as well. My Kellogg Executive MBA is in progress. Larry Kodali (2:46): Very nice. That's an amazing career, Ram. Ram, I would like to know: what is the biggest problem that you're seeing in companies, especially in large technology programs, that owners and leadership teams still aren't solving? Ram Mantha (3:01): The biggest problem isn't that companies lack compliance controls. It is that they separate delivery accountability from risk accountability. Technology leaders are measured on delivering projects on time and within budget. Compliance, cybersecurity, and audit teams are often brought in later to determine whether what was delivered is secure, controlled, and supportable. So that disconnect creates a fundamental flaw in how companies operate and execute large technology programs. And the reason this problem persists is that in many organizations, the CIO, the PMO, cybersecurity, compliance, internal audit, operate under different priorities and different portfolios. Everybody has their own priority going in from top to bottom. Whether they're CIO or PMO or CFO, they have their own agenda that they want to push. If you look at PMO program delivery, the primary focus is on scope, schedule, and budget. And what can go wrong is controls become secondary to deadlines, because they want to push everything to meet a deadline. So controls they don't really worry about that much. If you look at the engineering and architecture team, the technical functionality for them is a primary focus. Again, security and access requirements surface later because they haven't thought about that while building their engineering and architecture. Now, for cybersecurity: threats, vulnerabilities, access. that becomes a priority for them. They want to make sure they take care of that piece of the puzzle. So what can go wrong is security reviews that delay deployments. So now you already have tension between the PMO and cybersecurity as to what should be done before and what should be done afterwards. Compliance: SOX, ITGCs. That's the main focus for these folks, where control effectiveness and audit evidence are supposed to be the focus for them. Missing controls discovered after implementation can become a real pain later on. For the business owners, functionality, the ROI, the adoption, that's the main focus. And obviously, when they are focusing on something like that, the business accepts functionality without understanding the residual risk of what could go wrong in the compliance. So the root cause of all of that is fragmented accountability. Each function may be looking at its own job, in a silo, but nobody is consistently accountable for delivering a solution that is simultaneously functional, secure, compliant and operationally sustainable. This is particularly problematic when you look at ERP transformations, where changes to financial processes, access rights, interfaces, and data can affect multiple control environments. Now, obviously, the business consequences are much bigger than audit findings. Larry Kodali (5:53): Very nice. Can you give us an idea, for the problem you just described, what do you do in the first 90 days? What do you own, and what do you deliver? Ram Mantha (6:02): Yeah, so from day one to day 30, my idea would be to look at the leadership, how they are delivering products and projects. And I want to establish some relationships. I want to build a rapport with the working team, with the project team, I want to understand what these guys are focused on. So I get a full inventory of programs, number one. And secondly I would spend time with the vendors understanding what they're delivering, how much value are we getting out of them. You know, IT takes up jobs that are not tied to a business goal. So we need to put a stop to that. Understand that IT is here to deliver on the needs of the business, to the stakeholders who are actually benefiting from IT transformation and changes. So that's one thing I would like to do. And then obviously establish connections with the business stakeholders. Understand what their priorities are, what they want to achieve, what they want to do from a transformation point of view. So that's something that I want to establish, build relationships, prioritize that part. And then from days 31 to 60, I'll set up intake, put in stage gates and portfolio governance, renegotiate the larger vendor contracts. That's how you deliver savings. From day 61 to day 90, it's time to go to battle: go to the applications, retire and consolidate things that are not working, and launch things that could be useful to the enterprise. One of the key things I would do is look at how AI has been used or not used at all, then start to build AI capability with clear guardrails and measurable results. That's one thing that we want to build right away. We want to ensure that we take advantage of the AI products that are currently in the marketplace. And then looking at the program itself, I want to start building the portfolio and PMO guardrails, start to look at SOX, the ITGC controls, and security controls, and then deliver those from the first design review onwards, and then manage the change so people actually adopt the new system. Larry Kodali (8:05): Amazing. Ram, what kind of companies get the most value from someone like you, and what value do you deliver to them? Ram Mantha (8:16): Where I fit best is at companies in high-growth mode: private equity-backed companies in energy, infrastructure, transportation, manufacturing and even healthcare. These are companies facing an ERP modernization, or looking at an acquisition, growing organically, or sometimes with divestitures in progress. Companies like this, with portfolios that have outgrown their governance. I'd be the best person to come in, look at the entirety of these portfolios, see how they actually work or change on a day-to-day basis, understand them, drive the transformation, and put the governance in place for them. I own the technology portfolio. What gets funded, how it gets delivered, and whether it pays back or not, is how I would manage the company. Larry Kodali (9:07): Amazing. Amazing. Okay. Last but not least, I wanted to know a little bit about how you were searching for jobs before working with OptimHire's Concierge Service, and what did you like about the Concierge program? Just a few words. Ram Mantha (9:23): I used to look at LinkedIn, Indeed and all those different places. I would just go and apply to jobs that are open, right? But with OptimHire, everything comes into one place, so you don't really have to go to multiple places to look for jobs. Because you're searching about twenty different places and putting the jobs together based on the various filters that you use, like job category versus job roles, or the things that actually impact your tasks on a daily basis, what kind of skill set that you have. So OptimHire is actually filtering all of this from multiple places, to the point where you look at the jobs and you can either do it yourself, or, with the Concierge Service, I believe it's going to be hands-off for me completely, and the team is taking over and they are doing all the applications and all of that on my behalf, which is what's exciting for me. Larry Kodali (10:17): In one word, if you want to summarize the OptimHire Concierge program, what's the word? What would you say? Ram Mantha (10:24): I think it's optimum. It's the optimum use of my time and money.

Larry Kodali (0:02): Hi everybody, welcome to the Leadership Series. This week we're talking to Ravi Kiran. He's a technology executive who has been in the industry for the last seventeen years, modernizing core systems for banks, card issuers and insurers. Ravi has led mainframe-to-microservices projects and managed content management programs for Fortune 500 financial institutions, and he is now completing the Wharton Chief Technology Officer Program. Let's welcome Ravi Kiran. Ravi, the floor is yours. Please tell us about yourself. Ravikiran Kandepu (0:45): Thank you, Larry, for the introduction. Hello everyone, my name is Ravi Kiran. As Larry said, I have been working for the past 17 years with mainframe systems, content management systems and process management systems. I've worked across banking, life insurance and fintech, and recently on banking and cards projects. I started as a mainframe developer, moved to module lead at TCS, and worked for many Fortune 500 companies during my time there. Then I moved to my current employer, where I've performed various roles, from standalone and independent roles to team lead roles, with many Fortune 500 companies, delivering solutions in mainframes, process management and content management using FileNet. In those roles I was the single point of accountability to VPs and sometimes to C-suite stakeholders, and I was involved in cost modeling and regulatory compliance for many multi-million-dollar programs. The solutions I delivered comply with GDPR, SOX, NIST and FISMA requirements. I'm also completing Wharton's CTO program, because my direction is technology leadership in CTO or CIO roles. Larry Kodali (2:10): Very good, thank you, Ravi. Could you tell us about the biggest problems you currently see in the banking and fintech industry? Ravikiran Kandepu (2:21): The biggest trend in banking, and in any company using legacy mainframes, is modernization: moving the existing mainframe environment into cloud-based architecture on AWS or Azure, and sometimes using AI and machine learning. This is the biggest challenge many companies face, because they want to serve customers better. Moving from legacy systems to AI and cloud-based systems gives them an upper hand over competitors, so they want to modernize quickly onto AWS or Azure. The challenge is that the solution has to be compliant, the system has to stay very stable, and it has to be delivered on time. Larry Kodali (3:25): What solutions do you propose? Say you go into a company: in the first ninety days, what is your plan, what would you implement, and what would you change? Ravikiran Kandepu (3:35): With my experience working with many Fortune 500 companies on modernization, I have a roadmap for a 90-day solution. Days 1 to 30: map before you move. I would reverse-engineer and document the estate: DB2, IMS, VSAM, MQ and every interface, the data sources every legacy mainframe system uses. I've done this on a card posting and billing estate, producing real artifacts. I would also interview the people who know the systems while they are still available, because that knowledge is the scarcest asset. Days 30 to 60: define the target state and the business case. I would define a hybrid target state, with FileNet, ECM and BPM working together with storage such as S3 and Azure Blob. The business case would have honest effort estimates and cost models. I would set up steering committee reviews that weigh business urgency against long-term sustainability, with real numbers. A solution that isn't quantified is a vague solution, so every solution has to be quantified. Days 60 to 90: deliver the first slice. I would expose a piece of mainframe logic as a web service API, validate its production behavior, and move one capability to microservices while the mainframe keeps running. A working first slice builds more confidence than any presentation. Throughout, governance goes in from the first design review: data governance and security governance are designed in, not added at the end. That is very important. We follow Agile and Scrum, so we make sure the compliance, governance and audit requirements are well understood by all the developers, testers and business analysts. That way there are no surprises at the end, and the result meets both leadership and client expectations. That is my 90-day roadmap for the modernization problem the industry is facing. Larry Kodali (6:06): Understood. Very nice. Generally, what kind of companies get the most value from someone like you? Ravikiran Kandepu (6:13): The value is in day-to-day operations. When we modernize and implement the solution in Azure or the cloud, the work stays the same, but it becomes much faster. On a legacy mainframe, a transaction can take a day: the user sends the data, downstream systems capture it, it goes through a nightly batch, and the changes are updated the next day. So there is a 24-hour delay on whatever task the user performs. After mainframe modernization, it can happen in minutes. Take a real-time payment allocation system. Say I schedule a mortgage payment. Today, if I pay now, it may be reflected after 48 hours: the bank deduction has to happen, a statement has to be posted, and only then is it reflected in the app. With a modernized solution, you make a payment, a web service API on Azure or an AWS Lambda function immediately calls the bank, and within minutes the payment is deducted from your bank and posted to your mortgage account. That is the value of modernizing: the time drops from a day to minutes. Larry Kodali (8:12): That's amazing. It looks like you'd be a great fit for banks, card issuers, life insurance companies and annuity providers, especially those using a mainframe who want to modernize without disrupting their processes. Did I summarize that right? Ravikiran Kandepu (8:32): Yes, exactly. I have more than seven years of experience in life insurance and about six years in banking, and I hold the ALMI designation in life insurance. So I think my experience would be a distinct asset to the companies that hire me. Larry Kodali (8:50): Very nice. Anything else, Ravi, that you would like to talk about? Ravikiran Kandepu (8:58): Yes. I have a unique mix of experience on the technical side, the business domain side and the process side, and that mix is very valuable. I'm not only focused on technology; I focus on process, compliance and the business. I know how to work with C-suite executives, project managers, developers and testers. I've worked with many kinds of audiences, and that is a big asset I bring to the organization that hires me. Larry Kodali (9:44): Very nice. Lastly, Ravi, can you summarize your experience with OptimHire? How were you finding roles before, how has the team been, and how has the Executive Concierge service been? Ravikiran Kandepu (9:58): I'd like to take this opportunity to talk about OptimHire, because it has saved me a lot of time. Before, I used some AI-based platforms for job notifications and applications. But after eight hours of work at the office, I would come home and have to spend time building resumes and submitting applications. It consumed a lot of my personal time. OptimHire has taken over that job, and now I can concentrate on my personal life and balance my work. I'm happy to have this time for myself, with OptimHire taking away the job application time. I hope one of the interviews or opportunities turns fruitful soon; that is the result I'm expecting with OptimHire. Larry Kodali (10:52): Thank you, Ravi, for taking the time, and thanks for educating us on the problems the banking industry is facing and how they can be solved. It's great to have people like you who can solve these problems. Ravikiran Kandepu (11:07): Thank you.

Zeeshan Farooqui (0:00): The biggest problem I see in industrial software is that critical desktop applications become too fragile to change. Larry Kodali (0:08): Hi everybody. Welcome to another episode of the Leadership Series. Today we have Zeeshan. He's a senior .NET and WPF engineer with more than 12 years of building software that runs industrial plants, engineering platforms and sensor systems for companies like GE, Amphenol Advanced Sensors, TMEIC, Schneider Electric. And Zeeshan builds the desktop applications engineers use every day, connects them to the PLCs and devices on the plant floor, and brings them to the cloud on Azure. So let's learn a little bit about the industry and the problems. So, Zeeshan, first I would like to know more about you and your story. Zeeshan Farooqui (0:57): Hi, Larry. I am Zeeshan Farooqui. I am a software developer with WPF and .NET, and I have 12 years of experience building industrial and engineering software. I worked for GE, Amphenol, TMEIC and Schneider Electric over the last decade through various consulting organizations. My experience includes industrial interfaces, sensor data analysis, engineering desktop applications, and backend services using Azure and AWS. My main strength is translating complex engineering requirements into applications that are easy to use and maintain. One project I am particularly proud of is my work at Schneider Electric, where I led the design and development of WPF HMI screens for industrial automation. I used C#, XAML, MVVM and Prism to establish consistent design patterns that improve modularity and testability. I enjoy taking responsibility for delivering a feature and making sure the application can continue to evolve. Larry Kodali (1:57): Okay, that's amazing. Zeeshan, can you tell us a little bit about the current problems in the industry that leadership or owners aren't solving? Zeeshan Farooqui (2:10): The biggest problem I see in industrial software is that critical desktop applications become too fragile to change. The applications generally used by GE or Schneider have a lot of functionality, and they are huge. So as the application grows, the user interface code, business rules and the database access, device communication can become tightly coupled. A small change then affects several areas, increasing testing effort and slowing the release process. And teams often face deadlines, urgent features and quick patches. This leads to higher costs and regressions. Maintenance becomes difficult, which leads to unpredictable delivery. My approach is simple: use MVVM, modularity and loosely coupled components. MVVM separates presentation from screen behavior, while modules organize functionality into manageable areas. Dependency injection allows components to work through clear interfaces. I would also use TDD where appropriate: writing a failing test before implementing behavior, and then refactoring. These practices help teams make changes with great confidence. Larry Kodali (3:33): Okay, nice. Any other problems you would like to stress, anything else that companies cannot ignore? Zeeshan Farooqui (3:43): Performance issues for desktop applications when the records are in the millions. Those things need to be addressed. That can be done with proper code refactoring, and by using cloud infrastructure with Azure and the latest Cosmos DB, or by using NoSQL. With cloud computing, we can improve the performance of the applications. Larry Kodali (4:14): Nice. Nice. Okay. Zeeshan, suppose you join a company: what is your goal or priority in the first 90 days? Zeeshan Farooqui (4:25): In my first 90 days, I would be focused on understanding the application, improving one important area and demonstrating a measurable result. During the first 30 days, I would speak with engineers, operators and developers. I would review important workflows, production issues, performance bottlenecks, and the build and release process. From day 31 to 60, I would choose one high-value workflow. I would separate responsibilities, reduce unnecessary dependencies and add tests around critical behavior. For new, testable business logic, I would consider a TDD approach. From day 61 to 90, I would release the improvement, measure its impact, and use the findings to prioritize the next change. Larry Kodali (5:05): And what kind of companies get the most value from someone like you if they hire you? Zeeshan Farooqui (5:11): The companies that benefit most from my experience are industrial automation, energy and manufacturing organizations with established .NET applications. They may need to improve performance, simplify maintenance, integrate equipment, or connect desktop application workflows to cloud services. I would take ownership of the engineering desktop platform: its architecture, its performance, and its integration with devices, backend APIs and legacy systems. I bring strong WPF and C# experience, along with backend Azure knowledge, that allows me to follow requirements from the UI through business logic, data access and service integration. I also enjoy working with engineering stakeholders and helping developers build consistent, maintainable solutions. Thank you. Larry Kodali (5:56): Okay. So last but not least, Zeeshan, I would like to know: what did you like about OptimHire's program? Can I hear a few words? Zeeshan Farooqui (6:05): Yeah. Before OptimHire, I used to apply for jobs on LinkedIn, Dice or ZipRecruiter. With OptimHire, there are one-to-one counseling sessions, and the team applies for the relevant jobs that suit the needs of a particular developer. And there is counseling on various things, like resume building. If there are errors in your CV here and there, they will help us to overcome them. Larry Kodali (6:37): Regarding the program, what did you like the most? Zeeshan Farooqui (6:41): I like the counseling part, and the approach OptimHire follows to apply to jobs. They won't apply to all jobs; they apply only to the relevant jobs, with full focus, and I believe they follow up with the recruiter again and again. I believe that is a very important aspect. Larry Kodali (7:04): In one word, if you'd like to describe our OptimHire Concierge program, what is the one word that comes to your mind? Zeeshan Farooqui (7:12): It is very agile. Larry Kodali (7:15): Agile. Okay. Nice. Thank you so much.