One down......one to go!

A few days ago I blogged about two stories, one I hoped would turn out to be not true and one I hoped would be.

The one I hoped would not be true was the suggestion that Ben Needham, the 21 month old boy who went missing on a Greek Island 21 years ago, may have been buried under builders rubble in a field adjoining his grandparents' home. While I know that his parents would benefit from closure I just could not see how a parent could live with the kowledge that their baby was buried alive.

Well it seems that after a police excavation there is no trace of Ben so my hope for that story has come true. If I could only find a 50% success rate I would be happy that it was the Needham story that worked out right (at least in my mind).

I now wait for the outcome of the dig that believes it will unearth a number of mint condition Spitfires in Burma. The outcome here is still unknown so I am hopeful.

Two for two would be great!

Social media has value!

Yesterday evening I received a worrying email. It was from a company advising me that they were no longer selling via Wowcher and that I would get a refund. That said they had a small supply of the items that were available and cold be bought directly from their website.

It looked as if they were offering for me to buy it again and get my original £50 back from some unidentified source.

I got worried when the "reply" email I sent off was sent back as undeliverable and their phone number went straight to voicemail, but told me it could not take any more messages.

I checked the Wowcher site and found that I would need to wait until morning before I could call them. So I did.

I phoned this morning and after a frustrating "press 1 for this, press 2 for that, etc" I got through to a guy who while knowing nothing of the problem was helpful, took my details a promised to get Finance to call me right back.

A couple of hours later I had heard nothing so called again. I got a different operator who then advised me that calls were 48 hour turn around. When I asked to talk to someone "now" I was told they were just a call centre and all they could do was take my number or I could email direct. I persisted and was put onto a supervisor who just said the same thing. This all felt very unsatisfactory. I knew it was not the call centre's fault but it did not feel anything like customer service.

I went online and googled to find direct phone numbers. I found one that went back o the same call centre and good number of complaints on websites about Wowcher's poor service. My heart was sinking, but I decided to try one thing.......with little hope of success.

I ran out my Twitter account and guessed with a tweet "@wowcher #poorservice .........". I must say I was then pleasantly surprised to receiver tweet back in a few minutes. This came from Wowcher and promised to get someone to call me shortly.

Around 10 minutes later "Umar"(?) called me explained the situation and sent me a proper email, promising refund or offering a substitute.

I have to say that Wowcher redeemed themselves to me, even if I think their call centre was as much use as a chocolate teapot. I have also seen first hand how one can use these social media tools to get past communication blocks. I am glad to see Wowcher do watch twitter......and act.

Credit where credit is due.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Barefoot (Project) Management?

Like many people (I suspect) who dream, at the point of waking the images are vivid and very real, but fade within minutes, to the extent that half an hour later I struggle to recall any aspect. I hear this is why many creative people have a pad and paper at their bedside in order to immediately record their memories.

Well last night I dreamed, I know I did, yet now I can barely recall any detail. The piece that has stuck is the phrase "barefoot management". I have no idea what seeded the thought nor do I recall any specifics, but the fact that the phrase has stuck has left me thinking. As I was trying to recall matters the word project was added to the phrase. This is not surprising given my interest in the management of change.

I did a google search for "barefoot management" and there are only 1,970 hits, a pretty low number for a search these days; "barefoot project management" had only two hits! Of these two, one URL does not appear to exist and the other is one of those "make easy money by data entry at home" style sites has little or no real content but load the pages with random words to try and defeat the automatic spam detection.

So it seems that the concept of "barefoot project management" is up for grabs!!! Sounds like a challenge to me! :)

I don't intend to solve it all now, but rather I will let the idea germinate and see what grows from it. I do however have a couple of starting thoughts.

The first couple are about sensitivity and passage. What do I mean?

Well in the summer I tend to go barefoot, well at least at home, and do drive barefoot when I am out and wearing flip flops. One senses so much more about the terrain one is travelling over than when one wears shoes. One feels the temperature, moisture, texture, etc. Depending in the ground one may have more or less grip, but one feels slippage a lot more keenly. When driving I "feel" the car (and the road) much more directly and am able to apply finer adjustments to the throttle.

There are definite parallels with project management and the "feel" one needs when leading a team and solving the myriad of problems one faces.

The other thought is that if I am wearing shoes I am less concerned about the route I take. I can walk across hot or sharp/rough surfaces, through a degree of water and stay dry. I am less affected by the lasting impact of some surfaces ie those that are sticky and leave a residue.

I can and probably do do more damage along my path, consciously and unconsciously, crushing small creatures, breaking delicate structures, etc.

If I am barefoot I may well make different decisions, either choosing a different route to avoid broken glass, place my feet more carefully to avoid unnecessary damage or changing my pace (eg if I have to cross hot coals I will prepare myself mentally and move quickly across it).

I can see merit in this line of thought and expect it to percolate through my mind for a while.  Please share your toughts too.

I am sure I will blog again on the topic.

The Evolution (and Future?) of the Change Professional

Warning: I may lose some friends if this piece is read too literally as they will feel they do (much) more than my simplifications suggest. The terms in change are a common cause of confusion, ie what a project manager is in one organisation often differs from the same role in another. What I hope is that the reader can accept the simplification I have used and understand the essence of the illustration and the underlying messages.

In the beginning there was the Business and life was good. The Business did not change much and what change there was, was managed by the BUSINESS MANAGER. He may not have been an expert in change, but he knew his business and was focussed on making it successful and that was good enough.

From this world emerged an individual who found that he (or she) enjoyed managing change, was good at it and wanted to specialise in it. At the same time change was becoming more challenging and benefitted from his (or her) expertise. This was PROJECT MANAGER who was able to focus on the delivery of change and over time has been equipped with tools and techniques to help plan, organise and manage a discrete and specific endeavour that has criteria that can and will be used to judge success of failure.

Of course, once someone else is involved there are those who want to know what is going on, to ensure enough “control”. The “PMO” emerged as the person (or persons) who were happy to collect and collate information on what the PROJECT MANAGER was and should be doing. The PMO set the rules and demanded satisfaction else they invoked “Red Reporting" and “escalation”.

The initial “P” in  PMO was initially an abbreviation for project, but as the change professional evolved into PROGRAMME MANAGER and PORTFOLIO MANAGER so the P was used as an abbreviation of programme or portfolio – or indeed in some cases such as P3O, all three.

As projects became more complex and inter-dependent, and indeed the Business became more critical of whether they were getting the benefits they expected and were paying for, so PROJECT MANAGER evolved into PROGRAMME MANAGER. He (or she) focussed more on outcomes and stakeholders, deploying and directing PROJECT MANAGER to deliver components of change while keeping a broader perspective and working with the business to realise benefits. While a programme has a longer life than its component projects, it still has a finite life with ultimate judgement about its success or failure.

With the growth in the scale and complexity of change came a compounding risk that something catastrophic would be carelessly done to the Business; something that would embarrass management or cause the ultimate failure of the enterprise. To address this the CHANGE MANAGER appeared on the scene. The focus of CHANGE MANAGER was to understand what PROJECT MANAGER and PROGRAMME MANAGER planned to do to the business and ensure that it was properly planned, tested and implemented in way that reduced the risk of failure, whether that be to clients, owners, regulators, etc.

CHANGE MANAGER is more loyal to preserving business as usual and doing things in proven tested ways than to driving innovative change.

More recently PORTFOLIO MANAGER has emerged from the PMO. PORTFOLIO MANAGER is more active and looks to maximise the use of constrained resources through prioritisation, scheduling, and identifying synergies and economies of scale. He manages a diverse set of changes often without a common benefit or expected outcome other than the ultimate development of the total business.

This is largely where the evolution of the change professional has brought us today. So where next?

Well my prediction is a convergence of the evolutionary lines of PROGRAMME MANAGER and PORTFOLIO MANAGER; a being I call “THEME” MANAGER. A theme is broad area of concern or interest in the Business that may face a variety of demands and expectations, that may or may not have been already co-ordinated, but in general will emerge and change as time passes.

An example in financial service relates to the whole field of regulation. Here any substantial Business is subject to many sets of rules and regulations that seem to be changing daily and often conflict in timing, detail and even intent. The approach of PROGRAMME MANAGER would typically be to look at the whole of one set of requirements eg MiFID II  or Dodd Frank.  This gives a sense of constrained scope, yet can be costly in terms of duplication, mis-timing and missed opportunity.

In comparison one could see three of four themes. One that covers changes to product development and treating clients; another that looks at how the Business works in and interacts with its regulated markets; a third that looks at how the business is structured and governs itself and a fourth that looks at all of its reporting requirements. Of course a “theme” has to be relevant to the Business, but will then garner all the change related to that theme, no matter where it comes from and look to optimise the opportunity or opportunities (ie benefits and utilisation). A theme will not necessarily have an end date and its “success” may be measured differently.

This suits a Business where change is prevalent if not dominant and “business as usual” while important is far from the whole story. One could say that in these businesses there is no opportunity to stand still or do nothing.

Both graphically on the evolutionary tree and in terms of importance in ensuring the continuing success of the Business there is more than a passing similarity between BUSINESS MANAGER and THEME MANAGER.  They do say life is full of circles and this may be another one.

So what does this mean in terms of professional mutation? Well I think the THEME MANAGER will need more business skills and understanding than today's typical project or programme manager who is often more of a gun for hire, executing process and protecting their own interests. The THEME MANAGER will also need to deal with ambiguity and take risks better, with well-developed judgement of when to hold a line in terms of scope or requirements and when to flex. They should be someone who can be trusted with delegated authority in this respect. Lastly I think the THEME MANAGER will need more "line" style skills as his team will look more like a normal business with longevity (and rising productivity?) rather than the mosaic of assignments that is much more common today.

Do you agree with the history and the vision? Please do let me know.

Autumnal Perfection?

This morning as I left the house I spotted this web to my left. The moist autumnal air enhanced the strands and the outside light illuminated them. It is near perfect with the perpetrator sitting at is heart.

I turned right and left it intact, but I wonder which of my arachnophobic girls (wife and daughter) will walk into it?

This is a clear reminder that autumn is here. While I am sure these webs are around through the year, the numbers and clarity increase as the days shorten and the light changes.

Anyway, I just thought I would share this.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

The final step in change? I wonder!

Those that know me will know I have long been a keen supporter of benefit management in my professional world of change. By this I mean a keen focus on making sure that any change I am involved with delivers the benefit that is expected.

Sounds simple, eh? Well for often it seems not.

Historically project management techniques and tools focussed on the organisation and scheduling of activities ie doing things. Having a meeting counted in this respect, whether or not any decision was made. Similarly doing three months analysis would count, but need not have produced an actionable report or design.

Then methodologies like PRINCE and PRINCE2 started pushing the focus on "products" ie tangible outputs. Simply put reaching a decision was more important than the number of meetings you had to reach it, producing a signed off report or design was more important than having any number of workshops. Of course one needed to manage the activities, but success was judged on output.

More recently there has been a push to benefits ie just creating the products is not enough. Instead the use of the created products to generate the expected outcome is the driving measure of success. This has proved more difficult to embed in behaviour as responsibility for the use of products does not rest with the project manager, but rather with the business.

All this is by way of background as recently I was asked what are the developments in managing portfolios of change; my answer was themes. This is broadly speaking a focus on a broader set of related benefits and is increasingly important as businesses and their related change becomes more broader in impact, more complex in impact and dependencies and thus less discrete. At the same time the resources to deliver change are not keeping pace with demand so choices have to be made.

A case in point is the world of regulatory change in financial services where there is a tsunami of regulation coming from all quarters. Each could be and often is dealt with in isolation, but this brings inefficiency and inconsistency. Instead one could bundle change under four themes....no matter the source of individual components. The themes I have in mind "Product" ie what does the company create and offer to its clients, "Conduct of Business" ie how does it do business and interact with its clients, "Markets" ie how does the firm transact its business in the markets and "Infrastructure" ie how does the firm organise itself. Pretty much all change could be grouped under these largely discrete themes. Of course decisions within the theme are largely benefit driven, but the key is to keep perspective within the theme and leverage across it.

I see this appearing more and more and wonder if this is the ultimate focus for progressive change professional? If it is not, I struggle to see where it can go next.

Any thoughts in support of or challenge to the thematic approach to change?

RIP Emmanuelle

You start feeling older when.........the icons of your youth die around you.

Today I saw the announcement that Sylvia Kristel has died after a ten-year fight with throat cancer. As the star of the 1970's iconic soft porn film Emmanuelle (and others) she was part of my teenage years. I didn't realise that what I saw then was a cut version and that only in 2007 was an uncut version licensed for the UK. Is it wrong to be curious about the uncut version?

My lasting memory associated with Sylvia Kristel comes from an all-night cinema show in Oxford in 1979/80. The bill that started at around 10pm and went on 'til dawn included Deliverance, Dark Star, Blazing Saddles and Emmanuelle. I am not sure about the running order, but sadly I suspect I recall it correctly.

I went with my two flatmates, a northern chemist and a Welsh engineer and in those days, well at least for that sort of showing, one was able to take in cans of beer. You can imagine how the night progressed.

The episode I recall most vividly was sometime in the early hours when, in Emmanuelle, the "older man" was advising Emmanuelle and her lover that "for true love between two people there has to be a third party." Now I am sure this is not what "he" - the older man - had in mind, but my Welsh friend stood up at this point, beer in his hand and went "BAAAAAAAAAAA". The audience fell about laughing at his impression of a (Welsh?) sheep and its stereotyping implications.

As commented on in The Times today, Emmanuelle was the 50 Shades of Grey of of its day and for a boy born in 1959, the 70's were a formative period for me. While I am saddened by the news of her death, it has brought back some good memories today.

Two stunning stories.....

....one I hope comes true, but the other not.

Our local Spitfire

I was reading the paper late today and came across two stories. The first is the hope that, buried in Burma, is a collection (60?) mint-condition, crated Spitfires. These were shipped from the UK, unused and left after WWII.

There is a privately owned Spitfire that flies near us and is fabulous to behold. Bringing another 60 Spitfires back into flying condition would be wonderful. I hope that in comes true, at least in part.

The second was news that British Police to Greece looking for Ben Needham, 21 years after he disappeared. Ben was a 21 month old boy who disappeared while on holiday. The suggestion now is that he was accidentally buried under builder's rubble in the field next to where he was staying. A team is breaking new ground in many ways, including establishing a British crime scene in a foreign country, looking for human remains.

While finding evidence would bring closure, I am not sure how one could live with the knowledge that your baby boy died having been accidentally buried. I hope this one does not come true.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

In the PMO crosshairs

I was talking earlier today about the shape of modern (Change) portfolio management and the path to success.

In "project world" there is a well documented model of a triangle of time, cost and quality, being the three dimensions that need to be assessed and balanced by any project manager seeking to deliver a successful project. We all know it is never quite as simple as that, but to have an easily understood model is very useful.

In establishing a Programme Management Office I have previously used a two-by-two Boston Consulting Group style matrix to facilitate discussion. This put control along one axis and influence along the other giving four zones; Administrator (low control & low influence), Controller (high control, low influence), Partner (low control, high influence) and Director (high control, high influence). This proved useful in establishing a perception of where a PMO is and where it wants (or is wanted) to be. It can be a powerful filter for building the list of functions required in a PMO and those that are outside the brief.

This morning I did not use that model, but instead drew a verbal picture of the crosshairs recreated above as illustration of the balance a successful Programme Director/Manager/Office needs to negotiate.

Across the horizontal are the stakeholders with the business owners and interested parties to the left and the change community (project and programme managers, planners and analysts, etc) to the right. Unless you deal with and appeal to both, you will struggle. At different times you will challenge each and at others you will defend them. Choosing the right time and the right battles is critical and not always easy as others try and use you as a tool for their own ends. Having courage, strength, understanding and judgement are not optional.

Down the vertical (and by the way we could change the asxes, there is not reason why one is vertical and the other not) is the spectrum of insight required. It is essential that a Programme function keeps a weather eye on and understand the strategic intent and challenges of the the organisation it serves, but at the same time it has to know enough of the detail plans and issues to assess, inform and support. The last thing it needs or wants to do is micromanage the delivery teams. Instead it should be an enabler.

Finding the balance of enough detail and not too much takes time, trust, experience and an instinct for what is important. As portfolio manager, what I need today may well be different from what I needed last week, and tomorrow may be different again. The trust relationships and understanding I build with the delivery teams is critical is they are not to see me as whimsical and a burden.

I think I will leave this post right here, but may well return in future. I would certainly be interested to hear anyone else's thoughts?

EMA RIP - Feeling a little guilty

Yesterday I saw the announcement declaring the end of the Enterprise Management Association. The founders are no longer able to fund its operations and the volunteer model has struggled in this period of economic downturn.

The concept was ambitious and it is a shame that it has demised. I think there are some lessons that can be drawn, both personal and more generally.

I do have some pride in being involved from pretty early on, having been invited onto their Advisory Board and from contributing some materials, but at the same time I wonder if the outcome might have been different had I done more? Of course my time alone is unlikely to have been the deciding factor, but had everyone given a bit more.......well, who knows?

As I understand it this was the brainchild of Jim Carras and Terry Doerschler, two experienced change professionals who saw a need to join up the increasingly fragmented functions/disciplines used to run modern enterprises. They conceived a global group of interested individuals driving this and supporting a growing community, largely on a voluntary basis. They looked for sponsorship to help fund core services such as the website and I know Jim put a lot of effort into developing webinars, guest blogging etc.

As I have said I think the idea was a good one, but I would be lying if I did not say I had concerns which I shared with Jim. My concerns fell into two main areas. The first was the sheer breadth of its intended appeal, both globally and professionally. My experience suggests that you need more than a good idea to glue people together naturally, it requires a common and closely linked interest. In trying to appeal to strategists, planners, change agents, etc there was a rather diverse kirk that would require strong and rather directive approach at the start.

Indeed as I write this I am reminded about situational management models which generally require a rather directive style in the formative period of a team. The team also has to allow itself to be led. In hindsight I can see Jim endeavouring to be directive, but that is hard in a widely distributed, volumtary team.

My second concern was the difficulty in pulling together that globally distributed, virtual group. While technology makes many aspects much easier and accessible these days, it does not change the impact of cultural differences and global time zones. Trying to pull people together in their discretionary time and across a spread of  hours, some at home, some in ther working day and others in their sleep period makes for a very mixed contribution, at least in my experience.

It is also dangerous to underestimate the cultural issues. These affect individual contributions and corporate-style priorities. Establishing and supporting a single behavioural norm is also difficult.

I am not sure how many of those involved actually met face to face, but relatively few I think. This is one of my key tenets in leading distributed teams ie I need to meet them face to face as early as I can. This moves subsequent interactions to a higher level.

Before I look at the lessons we could draw I should say I am not trying to be a smartass in doing this. Instead this is more a recording of some self reflection.

On a personal level, I would admit that I could have put more time into EMA. The reason I didn't was that the timing of meetings conflicted with more personal needs, in part eating into family time, in part looking for commitment when my primary concerns were to secure work and at a time when I felt a need to remain flexible.

What I did do was write some blogs for EMA and deliver two webinars. I also contributed thoughts to some of the strategic planning.

I guess there was not enough in it for me to give more.

I can also see that should I find myself trying to lead a similar endeavour I need to consider a more directive style. I can see the fear that volunteers will not respopnd to the directive style, but this may well be a mis-direction. Better a small group of committed and directable people, than a diffuse, disconnected and only partly committed group. If you cannot find that initial small group then maybe there is a lesson in that.

On a more business level, I think that the key lessons are the difficulty in trying to appeal to a very wide audience. I think that a more focussed (less ambitious) start up phase might have worked better. That focus could have been functional ie look at just planners or just change agents. Alternatively the focus could have been geographical, building on existing bonds.

A geographical restriction would have helped with second aspect being that of linking and leading virtual global teams. There is nothing as powerful as proximity. Had EMA started as priamrily US, then maybe people could have met in-person more easily and would probably have shared more common experiences and interests. Once a base was established it could have looked at expansion.

I think that even for a voluntary network one needs enough funding and personal time to seed the group dynamics, probably more than one would like to think.

I could go on, but I won't. My key takeaways are two fold. The first is to be selective in where I decide to invest my discretionary effort, looking to maximise both my contribution and indeed my return (what is in it for me?). The second is a caution against over ambition. It is good to have dreams and aspire to greater things, but a degree of pragmatism is often needed if one is to establish the initial undertaking so that it can expand.

As I said at the start I do feel a little sad and a little guilty and that is something I will have to live with. Well done Jim and Terry for trying, I hope in time you will feel good that you gave it a real go and maybe something will rise from the ashes.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Hopes raised.........and then dashed!!!!

Readers of previous postings may recall my search for good project software; software that is easy enough to use, makes some key project management activities easier and then supports effective communication into the wider stakeholder community.

In the past I have promoted the use of Swiftlight as an effective high-level planning and communication tool, bemoaned the loss of good "network" planning as used to exist in SuperProject Expert, questioned the true value of MSProject, and searched for benefit management tools.

So it was with no small hope that I launched in MS Project 2010. Why, well the organisation I am working at is just upgrading its desktop to Windows 7 and the 2010 Office Suite inculding Project. I had previously introduced other members of the change team to Swiftlight and now I heard a couple wondering if the improved "Timeline" functionality could deliver as good a result. I am always happy to embrace new tools and techniques IF they prove out so I launched MSProject and started experimenting.

In doing so I noticed the "network" views and got quite excited as at least at first glance they seemed to answer my network planning hopes.

Having used both aspects for half a day I have to say this is something of a curate's egg ie a mix of good and bad. Undoubtedly the Microsoft product managers have listened to some of the previous feedback. The timeline view is more powerful and it is much easier to copy a view for easy pasting into a presentation or email - the old challenge of setting ranges and resizing graphics has been largely eradicated. That said the creation and layout of the timeline is clunky and the creation of anything good looking takes considerable effort, from initially selecting what needs to be on the timeline to adjusting the colouring and layout. Interestingly it appears to be no way of adding a colour key to explain the formatting other than adding it manually once posted into Powerpoint or similar.

Similarly there is a "today" line in orange that seems to be irremovable. I have looked online for help and in other views the advice is to set "type" to blank or colours to white, but notes that there will still be a faint broken grey line. In the Timeline I have not yet found how to do even that!

So regarding the timeline, "Yes", an improvement, but "No" not nearly good enough!

I then looked at the Network veiw and was greatly encouraged at the ease of "painting" tasks and linking them as one outlined a project. The problem came in the layout of that diagram. The default layout appears to use a virtual grid filling from left to right. "Yes", it will highlight the critical path, but does nothing other than colouring it to bring it emphasis. SuperProject in contrast would broadly set the critical path horizonally across the middle of the screen/page and arrange the rest around it. This was very effective in explaining matters to non-project people.

Even in this automatic mode some of the layout creates unnecessary complexity with crossing lines that could be avoided.

There is a "manual" option that allows the user to "drag and place" tasks/activities, but this is hard work and I am doubtful the end result will be worth it.

All in all, MS Project still looks to me like bloatware that may be a necessary and required evil in many organisations, but still fails to make a project manager's life any easier. As I say my hopes are dashed and my seraches continue.

A great Ryder Cup.....or the GREATEST?

On Friday I blogged about my hopes for another great Ryder Cup, but nothing prepared me for the eventual outcome. Inspiration came from different places and the result went down to thelast putts on the last hole of the last match!

There are four set if four pairs games (two different formats) on the opening days with one point available from each, ie 16 in total. The final day is then 12 head-to-head singles matches. Traditional wisdom says that the Europeans are better at the pairs matches and the Americans better at the singles. With this in mind the strategy for a European Captain is to build a lead in the pairs and hope to hold on in the singles.

With this in mind it is easy to see why many considered this a hopeless cause when after half the points had been decided the US led by 10-4; the Europeans were playing well but being consistently beaten. There were two remaining pairs matches and the "weaker" singles to come. Additionally, Davis Love III, as the host/home captain, had the course set up in such a way as he thought favoured his players, wider fairways, harder greens and other subtle aspects. What hope for a European victory?

The Europeans, led by Ian Poulter in the field, then won the next seven points; the last two pairs matches (that include Poulter's run of five birdies) and the first five singles. The momentum had certainly swung and glued spectators,commentators and viewers alike. In the end Martin Kaymer's final putt on the final hole of the penultimate match secured Europe's 14th point and ensured retention of the cup, and then Tiger Wood's missed putt on the same green and subsequent concession secured victory.

The shock and emotion broke through. The Europeans had been playing in "Seve (Ballasteros) blue" on this last day with reminders on bags on sleeves. Olzaobal broke, looking to ths sky and dedicating the win to his late friend before hiding his face and emotions inside his cap.

I admit I stayed to the end of the closing ceremony after this amazing day. I thought Tiger, who has had difficult times and lost some admirers carried himself well. His concession at the last showed the true spirit as did his demeanour towards the European players, as caught on TV, afterwards did.

If there was a slight disappointment it was the rather wooden and stilted behaviour of the US players on the podium at the closing ceremony. In the speeches they were repeatedly thanked for being gracious losers, but as far as silence can be hostile, I failed to spot much good grace other than from Tiger. (see postscript below)

Maybe they were in shock after losing what most had thought to be an unassailable lead or maybe the we're coach/stage-managed to be passively neutral. Either way I thought they could have smiled, supported each other.......just played a better part at the end.

Olzaobal teetered on the edge of losing out to his emotions, but just stayed in control. He had been able supported by his vice captains and I wonder who will take on the mantle for Gleneagles in 2014.

Scotland has a lot to live up to, but I for one will be happy if it is just half as exciting, half as good, but just as sporting!

Postscript: I will take back what I said about the demeanour of the US players at the end. Having seen the write up and texts send by those same players I will accept that it was shock that was affecting them at the closing ceremony. The comments of Bibba Watson et al were generous and much more in keeping with the spirit of the Ryder Cup.