ebody external for whom this was presented as a 
potential solution. Well, that's an easy decision, somebody else is doing the 
hard work, and not charging us very much for it. So sign-up, but don't rely 
on anything until we see everything working.

Handling counterparties not using the system
The challenge here is that the Final Solution World with overybody using the 
Hub is wonderful, but until everybody is using the Hub, we have to keep other 
procedures and systems going, which stretches resources, Development, IT 
Support and user. This was why we decided to delay getting Bolero - the 
concept is wonderful, but the value to any user is very dependent on everyone 
else one trades with using the system. This is classic Chicken and Egg. Tom 
has a vision of CL providing the staff to handle this. This is taking us 
closer to an outsource-to-Andersen-consulting model which is certainly 
achievable, although not quite such an easy sell.

How much resource is left
The latest project always tends to attract the most imaginative people, who 
are therefore not available for keeping everything else going and moving 
onwards. How about if we accept that such resource is dedicated to CL, and 
then review what is left in the remaining environment. Does it mean we hold 
off doing anything? If we do then increasing volume means that we might end 
up incurring costs for massive numbers of people! We should go through 
costing for "What happens if we completely stop development of X project?". 
If that shows one would need 200 clerks for 3 years until something else 
comes along then it may be cheaper than developing, but I hope in most cases 
it is not!

Start small to prove concept
E.g. first application in April 2001 only covers 20 fields
This is excellent, and we needn't shout it too loud to investors in CL, but 
for our internal back office costing we need to acknowledge that it will be 
years before we can switch off many internal systems.
We might limit the payback period on projects not part of this strategy to 3 
y