Christopher Raske

Kroll

Manchester www.kroll.com

chris.raske@kroll.com Tel: +44 7551 685693

Biography

Chris Raske is a senior director at Kroll, specialising in the analysis of major IT and telecommunications projects. He has worked on some of the largest technology disputes in the world, including the landmark Bates v Post Office trial, and other numerous private and public sector projects across a range of industries. His work involves analysing the causes of delay in technology projects, the fitness for purpose of software applications, and the analysis of source code.

Describe your career to date.

I have spent the whole of my career focused on the resolution of problems related to technology. Early on, this meant looking into low-level data relating primarily to governance and project management, requirements/change analysis, and software defect tracking. Later, it meant: (a) advising clients on the root causes of issues, delays, and overspend, and how those issues could be (or should have been) dealt with; and (b) leading teams of specialists to carry out the required analysis on huge sets of structured or unstructured data.

What do clients look for in an effective data expert?

There are two things which clients consistently appreciate: (a) an ability to drive the direction of analysis using a combination of specialist skills and experience, as opposed to simply being instructed to deal with a few specific things which, when the analysis is done, may turn out to be irrelevant; and (b) an ability to communicate effectively with non-specialists.

What are the biggest data disputes your clients currently face, and how are you helping tackle them?

We often find that clients do not know what data they should be analysing or even seeking. For example, software suppliers and customers (particularly in complex disputes with many subcontractors) will often have multiple management systems for tracking software defects. A legal team may not know to ask for this, and clients may only mention the system that they use for tracking, which can result in the loss of critical information.

We are also at a point where datasets on projects are so vast that they cannot be effectively reviewed by humans without the assistance of technology. We use a number of industry standard tools, and we also use an in-house development team that can create custom software to deal with almost any type of data and provide otherwise unobtainable insights.

What are some of the most common issues in frustrated IT projects and transformation programmes that clients encounter?

The key issues in technology projects are often human issues. In particular, problems with change management, requirements gathering, and inter-party communications arise all the time. For example, customers will sometimes believe that a deliverable is in-scope and will query this with the supplier only to find out that the supplier considers it a change which will increase the overall cost of the project. The answer of course depends on the circumstances in each case.

On the more technical side of things, problems with the integration of supplier products and software are very common. Where it arises, we will usually need to focus on defect-tracking systems or review the actual source code itself to identify issues.

At present, UK data legislation is aligned with EU legislation. How could this diverge in the near future, and why?

This is not an area where I have any particular expertise, so I will leave the law to the lawyers.

What challenges has the shift to remote working presented from an IT and telecommunications standpoint?

This really depends on the business. Modern systems are quite capable of dealing with everyday remote working because they tend to be highly configurable. However, this is a double-edged sword because that configurability means that many of these systems are only as good as their implementation. If, for example, a customer cannot properly articulate its requirements, or a supplier is unable to properly implement those requirements, then there will be problems.

What advice would you give up-and-coming practitioners hoping to one day be in your position?

This is perhaps a boring answer, but I believe it to be effective: focus on building three things: (1) technical skills; (2) commercial understanding; and (3) effective communication. All of these are equally important, each will take years to achieve proficiency, and you should never “finish” developing any of them.

Looking back over your career, what has been your greatest achievement?

I think the best moments were during a project I worked on a few years ago. I, along with several colleagues, was instructed to analyse a live project that had been suffering from delays and overspend over several years. The parties were locked in numerous commercial disputes and the project was in danger of collapse. Our analysis was used to inform the decisions of both the customer and the supplier and advise them on the correct course of action. Within a matter of months, the system was live and both parties were extremely happy with the results.

This process really highlighted the benefits and cost-savings of proactive and forward-thinking dispute management in technology projects, and it is something I hope the industry as a whole will move towards in the coming years.

Peers and clients say: “Christopher has the ability to analyse and understand detailed technical issues” “He has the ability to facilitate difficult discussions and provide direction and clarity”