12 PUBLIC GAMING INTERNATIONAL • JULY/AUGUST 2025 Continued on page 42 When I became CEO, I knew we could do better. I looked for opportunities to replace that adversarial dynamic with something more collaborative. So now, when someone brings forward a proposal – whether it’s a new product or a sales strategy – we don’t just say “no” and explain why it can’t be done. We say, “Let’s talk about it and try to find a way to make it work.” We’ll identify the obstacles and work together to overcome them – or find smart ways around them. Of course, some ideas don’t hold up under scrutiny. But no one can say we didn’t push every angle, explore every possibility, and stretch our thinking to create options, spark innovation and uncover new solutions. I believe the VPs from all functional areas — Legal, Finance, Marketing, Sales, Products, Security, , Communications – should operate as one team. Managing the business should be a collaborative effort. That’s why we’ve hardwired in a weekly all-hands leadership meeting. One purpose is basic project management and accountability – to make sure we’re aligned. But the other purpose is to foster the kind of regular interaction that builds the deeper relationships necessary for real collaboration. When I was general counsel, VP meetings were more ad hoc – small groups pulled together to address specific issues. Maybe the CEO, CFO, and Marketing VP would meet to review a proposal from a vendor. Or Legal, Security, and Sales might huddle over a compliance concern. But we never had what we have now: regular, consistent and productive meetings with the entire leadership team in one room. And then after those meetings, I trust the VPs to drill down further in smaller groups as needed. But it starts with that shared foundation. Now, when the Products Department shares a new game concept in our all-hands weekly, other VPs can informally raise any concerns or issues. This can all take place even before the concept is taken to the Project Steering Committee for formal approval to move forward. Work may be organized around our need to specialize in order to acquire expertise. Then we create departments with experts in a particular discipline. But we shouldn’t forget that the real world is not actually organized into distinct silos. Whether it’s a new game, a sales strategy, a cost-cutting idea, or an operational change — it always overlaps multiple departments. We need to process ideas through an enterprise-wide lens. That’s how we make sure they’re truly viable. We need to stay vigilant in breaking down silos and turning ideas into actionable, cross-functional plans. It takes discipline and constant attention. I’m sure we’re not doing everything perfectly. But I do think we’re all clear on the importance of communication, teamwork, and taking a multidisciplinary approach to planning and execution. I thought this background might be a useful framework for Maggie to talk about the CFO’s role. Because de-siloing isn’t a one-and-done exercise. It starts with mutual respect for what each V.P. and department contributes. But, as Maggie will probably say, it’s something that has to be reinforced every single day. I have asked Maggie to join us because truly, Maggie has been the tip of the spear in making that happen — building bridges, earning trust, and championing real collaboration. Some have called lotteries risk-averse. I say — of course they are. Their in-state stakeholders wouldn’t have it any other way. How has your strategy to engage your team, especially your CFO worked in this respect? M. Harville: We’re state agencies, or quasistate agencies, and we answer to governors and legislators who expect us to prudently manage this multi-billion-dollar enterprise. Our mandate is to grow its value and generate funds for good causes, not just this year but for decades to come. I honestly encourage and welcome our vendor partners and others who bring new ideas, fresh perspectives, and a passion for innovation. And I understand their frustration when we can’t move as fast as they'd like. But we operate in a space where considerations that aren’t even on their radar may be top-of-mind for us. Maggie Garrison: I think we do push the envelope — but we do it within a well-defined, disciplined framework. Every new idea or initiative goes through a structured process: we gather data, measure outcomes, adjust, and then scale if it proves out. If it doesn’t, we recalibrate or pivot to more promising ground. Of course we aim to mitigate risk. But we do know that there is no such thing as perfect visibility into the future which means that risk can never be eliminated. What we can do is invest prudently in innovation, knowing that sustainable growth requires more than just cutting costs or increasing operational efficiencies. Those things give you a quick bottom-line boost, and there’s nothing wrong with that. But maximizing net funds to our beneficiaries over the long term? That means growing the top line. And that demands smart investment in innovation and new ideas. What happens when a proposal can’t be tied to a clear metric or quantifiable result? “Player engagement,” for instance. Just because it is hard to measure does not mean it isn’t important. M. Garrison: There are ways to measure almost anything. Certainly there are metrics for Player Engagement. But your point stands — some outcomes are trickier to quantify. Not everything maps neatly into ROI formulas. That’s why, in addition to looking at direct costs and benefits, we also have to consider opportunity costs. What potential revenue or strategic gain might we be leaving on the table if we don’t act? Sometimes, you have to lay the groundwork for future success even when the data is murky and the returns aren’t immediately visible. Like your example, player engagement. For instance, we’d pulled back from licensed property games after reviewing the data — the “What we can do is invest prudently in innovation, knowing that sustainable growth requires more than just cutting costs or increasing operational efficiencies.” – Maggie Garrison
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NTg4MTM=