VIA Rail

[Northern Light]

You are all overestimating the requirements from the c-suite. The CEO doesn't need to be a railroad guy.
The most important thing is you hire a leader who knows how to hire, motivate, and support the best people/experts to do the job.

I certainly believe the above to be key characteristics of a good CEO.

I also agree that these are transferable skills.

Further, I'm happy to agree that a CEO need not be a technical expert in every facet of the business that he/she operates, indeed, for larger organizations this is a near impossibility.

That said; a measure of familiarity with the business from both a customer-facing, and a technical level is highly desirable.

All the more so, when the key item with which one is charged is overseeing a highly technical, multi-year project, which is capital-intensive, infrastructure-building at its core.

This is not an organization that will have deep levels of in-house staff during the new CEO's tenure, unless they manage to last 10+ years in the gig, and do a variety of things in-house (which seems unlikely).

The job here is going to be selecting, then overseeing a private proponent's build and operate strategy, the latter, only to the extent of insuring that the the strategy makes some measure of sense, and that the build services it properly.

In such a case, the primary job, I would argue, will be vision (what do we want/need this to be); (will this serve the customer); and then direct oversight of building and rolling stock selection and quality control; and given an organization with no current staff who have these capabilities, it would seem wise to select a CEO with some ability to understand these things beyond a superficial level.

The CEO doesn't need to have experience literally laying railway tie, or ballast, nor operating or maintaining a train; but they should have some ability to judge how to best carry out these tasks in light of the service and budgetary objectives with with which they are charged.

***

Edit to add: I have seen first hand, in the business world, people who do not understand their brief in middle and upper management. They don't get the needs of the consumer or front-line labour, or why something is done the way it is; and I have seen that result in enormous mistakes that have cost shareholders 10s of millions or worse.

It leaves me leery of transplanting people from completely different fields into senior leadership in an organization. To be clear, it can work; but you need to have a great supporting team in place, one which allows a new leader to be that organizing, motivating figure that you describe; and one that also can help education the leader on the needs-to-know, with said leader being a good and quick study.

 

[wopchop]

All the more so, when the key item with which one is charged is overseeing a highly technical, multi-year project, which is capital-intensive, infrastructure-building at its core.

This is not an organization that will have deep levels of in-house staff during the new CEO's tenure, unless they manage to last 10+ years in the gig, and do a variety of things in-house (which seems unlikely).

VIA HFR Inc's job is basically going to be managing procurement, and then holding their contractor/operator accountable. All the technical is being done by the consortiums as I understand it.
So if this fellow has experience in managing those kind of processes - and that process at high level is similar, even if the end product is not (rail, highways, buildings, etc.), then that's good.

 

[Northern Light]

VIA HFR Inc's job is basically going to be managing procurement, and then holding their contractor/operator accountable. All the technical is being done by the consortiums as I understand it.
So if this fellow has experience in managing those kind of processes - and that process at high level is similar, even if the end product is not (rail, highways, buildings, etc.), then that's good.

I get where your coming from; I just have a preference for a CEO/President with an informed opinion on the choices being made.

 

[wopchop]

I get where your coming from; I just have a preference for a CEO/President with an informed opinion on the choices being made.

It all depends on the person.
I've worked for the CEO/President who came up in the field, and the ones who have not. Sometimes the ones with the background get "lost in the weeds", when they should be tending the acreage. Sometimes those people are amazing. Sometimes it is better to have an outsider - certain industries can get insular, and stuck in their ways, and having an outside vision can be helpful.
The leadership skills - vision, motivation, relationship building are more important IMO.
Let your staff be the experts.

 

[Rainforest]

At the end, all depends on the person. But generally, people with technical expertise in the field are more likely to succeed as leaders.

 

[wopchop]

At the end, all depends on the person. But generally, people with technical expertise in the field are more likely to succeed as leaders.

That's quite the generalization.
This isn't a tech company trying to sell a product.
Running a large infrastructure development operation requires more experience in contract management, law, procurement, negotiation, and finance than it does managing technical aspects of the construction/development. There are generally staff to do that for you, and in this case, they are also paying the consortium for that expertise.

 

[robmausser]

That's quite the generalization.
This isn't a tech company trying to sell a product.
Running a large infrastructure development operation requires more experience in contract management, law, procurement, negotiation, and finance than it does managing technical aspects of the construction/development. There are generally staff to do that for you, and in this case, they are also paying the consortium for that expertise.

I tend to agree. And even coming from the technical field, of the managers/bosses I've had, the ones who came from a technical background were generally the worst. As long as you have a general understanding of the process, its much better that you know how to effectively manage than know the itty bitty details of the technical side of a project.
Technically minded people often make terrible managers and try to micromanage every aspect of the project.

 

[KevinT]

I looked up his CV; I can't say I find it particularly on point:

He was (currently) the President and CEO of The Montreal Port Authority.

He previously worked for Hydro Quebec

He's a lawyer by training.

Personally I'd have loved to see the return of Yves Desjardins-Siciliano, for no other reason than poetic justice.

 

[lenaitch]

Let your staff be the experts.

I tend to agree with your general position, but this is the challenge. Too many people who have scrabbled their way to the top tend to develop a 'smartest person in the room' mentality. Humility isn't often a strong suit at that level.

 

[roger1818]

I tend to agree with your general position, but this is the challenge. Too many people who have scrabbled their way to the top tend to develop a 'smartest person in the room' mentality. Humility isn't often a strong suit at that level.

There are two ways to get to the top:

1. Through blood, sweat, and tears (usually of others)
2. By surrounding yourself with good people that you can trust and rely on their advice

 

[wopchop]

I tend to agree with your general position, but this is the challenge. Too many people who have scrabbled their way to the top tend to develop a 'smartest person in the room' mentality. Humility isn't often a strong suit at that level.

I can understand that and definitely that is not a good trait to have as a manager.

The challenge is that the role at the "top" in construction/development is very, very different than that of operations and technical staff. The skills and experience required are not the same. To pretend it is the same is a bit naive.

So if he was an Engineer, would we be happy? Because his role has almost nothing to do with engineering. It will require much more knowledge of law, finance, insurance, bonding, administration, negotiation, lobbying, etc.

 

[Northern Light]

I can understand that and definitely that is not a good trait to have as a manager.

The challenge is that the role at the "top" in construction/development is very, very different than that of operations and technical staff. The skills and experience required are not the same. To pretend it is the same is a bit naive.

So if he was an Engineer, would we be happy? Because his role has almost nothing to do with engineering. It will require much more knowledge of law, finance, insurance, bonding, administration, negotiation, lobbying, etc.

I would offer the Ottawa public transit P3 debacle as the case for someone who understands what's being built, what that costs, and how it works to a great degree.

The Ottawa LRT has spent almost as much time closed and open since it began operations; and it would appear that senior management both in the public sector and the private consortia simply did not know what
they were doing.

Alstom is now saying that tracks were not built to its required specifications, and others have noted that Alstom chose an untested design for its wheel assemblies.

Having someone at the top who knows about lobbying, motivating, and high level conceptual stuff is all very desirable; but so is someone who can look over the shoulder of a P3 consortia and say 'Oh no you don't, I'm not letting you do it that way, that will cause trouble'.

Having someone at the top who could be bamboozled by technical staff or their corporate overlords and has no idea what a bearing is or how tight a turning radii ought to be for a train leaves open an incredible risk.

Of course, I oppose P3s entirely for reasons I've outlined elsewhere, and I won't belabour that.

But whether you look at Ottawa, or closer to home with the Eglinton Crosstown, where rails were laid incorrectly, and where radios were installed that were not compatible with the operator's radio network (TTC), I don't think P3 staff should be
trusted with billions of the public purse without knowledgeable oversight.

That doesn't have to be the CEO; but the problem is VIA HFR (as opposed to VIA) has no technical staff of its own; without a background in the rail sector, how do you even know who to hire to assist you?

 

[Urban Sky]

That doesn't have to be the CEO; but the problem is VIA HFR (as opposed to VIA) has no technical staff of its own; without a background in the rail sector, how do you even know who to hire to assist you?

Having worked at VIA (while also collaborating with a few of its stakeholders) with quite a few of the people who are now at VIA HFR, I can assure you that they of course have the kind of technical staff they need to provide the necessary oversight over the RFP process, the following bid assessment and the implementation process…

 

[Northern Light]

Having worked at VIA (while also collaborating with a few of its stakeholders) with quite a few of the people who are now at VIA HFR, I can assure you that they of course have the kind of technical staff they need to provide the necessary oversight over the RFP process, the following bid assessment and the implementation process…

That's encouraging. I had not heard that from anyone thus far; and the fact that Bob Prichard is there, certainly did not inspire confidence.

 

[wopchop]

I would offer the Ottawa public transit P3 debacle as the case for someone who understands what's being built, what that costs, and how it works to a great degree.

The Ottawa LRT has spent almost as much time closed and open since it began operations; and it would appear that senior management both in the public sector and the private consortia simply did not know what
they were doing.

Alstom is now saying that tracks were not built to its required specifications, and others have noted that Alstom chose an untested design for its wheel assembliess.

So here is a thing - I can think of almost zero situations where a company CEO would have the time to delve into the nitty gritty of the specifications likely that. That is a waste of their time. They should be hiring experienced technical staff to review bid proposals against their own requirements. They should setup an internal team that does that, and a process to have proposals reviewed, evaluated, discussed, etc. Then they need to make sure their contract management/compliance team is just as strong, if not stronger, because contractors are mofos. We can smell blood. If it comes down to the CEO noticing that the turning radii in the spec isn't right, then that organization or project is so fucked. Him catching it won't matter because he hired all the wrong people.

It is funny that you mention Ottawa.
The first CEO of Rideau was an engineer, with a background at ACS infrastructure. His replacement was also an Engineer and when he was hired, he was already their Technical Director for the whole construction.
But clearly the CEOs never setup a good team for the consortium, which you would think should be easy given they would have had technical talent aplenty available from SNC Lavalin, ACS Infrastructure, and Ellisdon. You got to set it up right, being an engineer doesn't necessarily make that easier. You don't set it up right, you get siloing, poor coordination, and other bullshit.

On the municipal side, there would have been engineers, technologists, etc. a plenty. Take a look at job postings for any municipal public works, and those are requirements. They hire technical people. The boss at that time had 30+ years with Ottawa transportation/public works.

It also sounds like Ottawa city set a stupid budget that made no sense and did all the usual dumb stuff that municipal politicians like to do. Ottawa, to me, is the exact situation when you need leaders with these different skills. Dealing with government is not a technical problem. Setting up a construction consortium is building a business moreso than anything. As a client managing that P3 consortium is not the same as building the choo-choos and tracks.

.