Skip to content

Why Digital Citizenship could change Europe

October 19, 2016

Governments are not traditionally renowned for a ‘go ahead’ attitude to delivering services, often until the time when the cost of delivery becomes prohibitive and it drives innovation out of necessity. However, in the Republic of Estonia, sitting in Europe on the edge of the Baltic Sea, a completely different approach has been taken to providing Government services, which has put the user’s wishes at the heart of making the process easier. It is now setting a new standard in the use of digital and its e-residency idea is catching the attention of many countries far removed from the Baltics. It also highlights a number of issues that will resonate for many businesses.

Until the early 1990s, Estonia was part of the Soviet Republic and there was limited use of technology in Government. However, in the last few decades it has embraced online services in a way that few others have. ‘Going paperless’ wherever possible became a mantra long before it was fashionable in other parts of Europe. There was significant investment in countrywide wifi, fibre optic cables were laid and the stated aim was to provide everything possible online. This includes each person having an ID card that enables them to interact with Government over the Internet, using digital signatures. Anyone, anywhere in the world, can become an e-resident and then they can set up a company in Estonia, register with a bank, start trading or pay taxes. The aim is to reduce bureaucracy and make everything as simple as possible. A tax return, for example, takes minutes rather than hours, although it does help that Estonia also embraced simplified processes and regulations alongside its digital path.

An e-resident has control over their data. Only they can see all the data that is held about them, with each Government service only permitted to view that which is relevant to their requirements. E-citizens have the right to have any data removed from the system. Clearly concerns have been raised about cyber-security and the fear of hacking into such a confidential database, but the latest techniques are engaged to minimise the risks with end-to-end processes and the ability to move the whole system to a back-up system if needed. As an adviser to the Government told a packed audience in Tallin recently: ‘If you have good brakes, you can go really fast’.

There is much for business to learn from the Estonian approach. As a client or customer centric approach, the Estonian principle of ‘ask only once’ is a compelling way to consider collating client data. They see their country’s Government services as just that – a service – which should not require the user to repeat information or send back multiple versions of similar forms. They are about reducing bureaucracy for the end user and a person has the right to refuse to provide information that has already been submitted elsewhere.

But of course what is really interesting is what happens when the e-resident reaches a border and has to cope with the swift Estonian approach rubbing up against a more old-fashioned mindset. It’s no surprise to see that this is still a problem area. Many neighbouring countries, such as Finland, are exploring using the same technology as Estonia. However, what about the multitude of other countries that one might want to trade with? The system is set up to be accommodating to working with other countries and a few European Governments are in discussions but seamless transactions across borders are still not a reality. So for now, Estonia remains a fascinating and singular example of taking the pain out of dealing with Government.

Written by Francesca Lagerberg, Grant Thornton.

The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily of SAMI Consulting.

If you enjoyed this blog, sign up for our monthly newsletter at and/or browse our website at

What is Scenario Planning?

October 17, 2016

Several new clients have asked recently for a quick summary of the whys and wherefores of scenario planning. We have produced a comprehensive round-up of what we see as the key issues and techniques in Scenario Planning – A Primer. But we thought that a quick blog to summarise some key points might be useful for those new to it or those, faced with Brexit issues, who are thinking of returning to it.

Brexit is a wonderful example of the difficult circumstances in which scenario planning can help organisations address the future. There is change ahead, but no one knows what will happen, few know how it might affect them, fewer have plans in hand to prepare themselves for change.

There are plenty of views about what might happen ranging from apocalypse to a nirvana of freedom from the shackles of foreign power. And it is likely that for each individual or organisation the impact will be different, ranging from not a lot to life changing.

The first stage of scenario planning is to identify the kind of possible key changes in the future that are likely to affect the organisation in the future. These of course are a matter of opinion, but in scenario planning the more diverse opinions the better. The process of scenario planning takes all these views, analyses them for probability and impact, groups them as similar or opposite in possible impact, and develops a number of plausible scenarios covering most of the biggest issues. These scenarios are mental models, they are qualitatively different, they present a range of possible futures. They give a framework and language that permits rational discussion about the different directions in which things may change, and what the organisation should do to prepare for whatever might be thrown at it

No narrow forecasts of what might happen, no arguments about what will happen, just consensus about the need to prepare for the future. As with other business techniques, the process itself and the participation by influential members of the organisation can be as important as the production of a plan, or plans, themselves.

If you feel the need to know more, please help yourself to an in depth read of our Scenario Planning – A Primer. Or you can see chapters of “Scenario Planning – managing for the future”, which is the standard text on MBA courses, on

Written by Nick Jackson, SAMI Principal.

The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily of SAMI Consulting.

If you enjoyed this blog, sign up for our monthly newsletter at and/or browse our website at


What if you could see the future today?

October 12, 2016

“What if you could see the future today?” was the thumbnail pitch of the New Scientist Live Show at Excel London, 22nd– 25th September, 2016. What you could actually see was an array of current research and development in science, technology and engineering, and what you could actually hear were some expert speakers explaining their disciplines in layman’s language and sometimes taking you to the frontier. You might not have been able to see the future, but it certainly made you start refining your vision of it. Here are some of things that attracted this particular visitor.

I shall begin with mathematician Marcus du Sautoy whose talk “Are there things we will never know?” was drawn from his new book on this theme. In Chapter 4 (or “Third Edge” as he presents it), he reviews experiments with electrons. If you fire an electron at a plate through a screen with two slits through which the electron may pass, you cannot anticipate the particular point on the plate at which the electron will end up (something you cannot know) until you observe it. If you try and “cheat” by introducing a detector to see which slit the electron passes through, the act of trying to find out changes the behaviour of the electron. Du Sautoy states, “There have been some experiments in the last decade that have demonstrated the real possibility of using observation to inhibit the progress of a quantum system.”1

And lo, on the exhibition floor, there was BT demonstrating the latest developments in cyber security using quantum physics. The standard security system today employs keys at either end of the security chain: if you can break one, you can get through the other. The cyber security system they were developing had just one key provided through quantum physics. If you attempted to “measure” (i.e. hack into) the link, it changed and locked you out. Given that I read recently that something like one in ten credit cards has to be replaced during its lifetime, this would seem to be a welcome response to a worrying threat.

Back to Mr du Sautoy. His talk was followed by a conversation with physicist and broadcaster , Jim Al-Khalili (The Life Scientific, Radio 4). His initial question about unknowns was set into context by the opposing view of some scientists that ultimately everything can be known. But then again Karl Popper said that it is important that what is known can be falsified, thus leading to further developments. What was interesting about the discussion was the feeling of how close you were to the existing boundaries of knowledge, and the potential that remained to be unleashed.

And this was replicated throughout the event. Here was Robin Dunbar, professor of evolutionary psychology, explaining how our different social networks (family, friends, social, community, national) form a hierarchy, and that there are limits to the numbers we can practically relate to in each category. As social network size increases, the intensity of the relationships decreases. Social science is as important as hard science. Here was Robin Lovell-Badge (Francis Crick Institute) pointing out that manipulation of genes was recorded as early as 17,000BC, but that gene editing offered a more powerful way forward. The problem was not knowing what a gene could do, but knowing everything it could do because of possible side effects. Here was Molly Crockett (Oxford University) showing how manipulating a person’s brain chemistry could change their morality. In experiments, the application of both serotonin and dopamine changed moral decisions made by subjects. But there is no brain circuitry dedicated to morality, and the use of either drug to this end in the real world would be the equivalent of taking a sledgehammer to the problem.

Back on the exhibition floor, here were BAE Systems demonstrating a tough but lightweight army jacket that could carry a battery strong enough to power a vast range of equipment and increase sensory perception. Here was the Tesla electric car, now supported by charging points all over the UK, but here also was the first mass produced dedicated hydrogen fuel cell vehicle – “the only emission is water” – from Toyota. And, of course, there was a lot more.

Perhaps the most interesting session was a panel discussion, “Science opens diplomatic doors” on the role of science and innovation on the global stage curated by Wilton Park, an Executive Agency of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

A key theme was that international co-operation was necessary for scientific development. Reference was made to SIN (the UK’s Science and Innovation Network) which was operating in thirty-one countries. The issue was not that politicians weren’t interested or couldn’t understand, although different cultures had different approaches. But biology was developing so rapidly that policy makers couldn’t keep up with it. Even intellectual property was not always of primary importance because things were changing so fast. The refrain was repeated: if you don’t have international scientists working together, it won’t be as good. As the discussion drew to a close, there was at least one bright ray of sunshine: a lot of able young people were coming in to science.

In parenthesis, there was no shortage of youth at the event which had clearly attracted more people than could be conveniently accommodated. Despite several capacious open lecture theatres, people were standing four and five deep in the exhibition aisles in order to hear the speakers, giving staff keeping the event compliant with fire regulations a lot to deal with. There were plenty of hands-on “pedagogical” challenges (not just keyboards) for children, and plenty of children too.

As a panellist following up the point about young people said, resilience was coming from the bottom. That was surely the most encouraging thing.

The event website is still up at giving full details of all speakers and exhibitors. Details of forthcoming New Scientist events may be found at


1 Du SAUTOY, Marcus, “What we cannot know”, Fourth Estate, 2016, p. 151.

Written by Tony Diggle, SAMI Associate. He is also a playwright. His most recent play, “A Kingdom for a Stage”, a celebration of the four hundredth anniversary of the death of William Shakespeare, was performed at the Chelsea Theatre in April / May, 2016. A radio version is in preparation.   


October 5, 2016

The first London Design Biennale opened at Somerset House on the 7th September with the theme of “Utopia by Design”, this year being the 500th anniversary of Thomas More’s book. As well as installations by 37 countries worldwide, there were a series of talks on design and the future by a wide range of eminent speakers – I went to three.

The first was a conversation with Ian Callum, Director of Design at Jaguar Cars. Billed as “A Life in Design”, the discussion began with Ian’s early history: sending a portfolio of drawings to Jaguar when aged 14. It then moved on to his career at Ford, Aston Martin (where he was responsible for the Vanquish – 007’s car in “Die Another Day”) and Jaguar. His philosophy of design-led, rather than modelling-led, development was very strong. Looking to the future, he was clear that Jaguar would be a leader in electric vehicles – having trialled one that did 120mph with dramatic acceleration – but called for more government investment in supporting infrastructure. He was much more sceptical about autonomous vehicles, believing that fall-back driver intervention would be needed for many years, not expecting a radical re-design of cars into an office or sitting-room on wheels. Although he did think “Uber modules” might emerge, his approach was to design cars that people would want to drive. His “design Utopia” was a collaborative team with diverse skills able to produce designs without interference from uninformed Board members!

The second event I went to was a conversation with Lord Richard Rogers, famous for the design of the Pompidou Centre, Lloyds of London, the “cheese-grater” and many other iconic buildings. He argued that we needed to sustain the radical spirit of the sixties with a naïve self-belief. His view of the city of the future was that it be largely a pedestrian city, with rapid transport systems, compact and sustainable, and mainly solar-powered. He was not a fan of the Garden City movement, arguing for denser, but not necessarily high-build cities, citing Barcelona as an excellent example. 3D-printing he saw as mainly useful for building models, rather than for buildings themselves. I asked, given it may be 15 years before a building is built from his design, and it needs to last for say 80 years, how he worked out what the future needs of the occupants would be – he replied that the only constant is change, so one needed to look to flexibility of use.

Very much on the Utopian theme, the last talk I went to was about the “Maker Movement”, where Daniel Charny, Professor of Design at Kingston University, examined whether the noise about was just hype. We usually study technological developments, but this is a cultural change with different dynamics. Prof Charny described how the movement was based on principles of openness and sharing, with examples from the physical – sharing expertise and tools of various crafts – through to online “hackathons”, via 3D-printing. Wired was discussing “Big DIY” in 2011, and The Economist described Making as “More than just digital quilting”.MakerFaires” have been set up around the world to share expertise, and have even attracted visits from the Presidents of the US, China and Germany, and there are high street presences – eg Brit Kits Bar, Drink Shop Do.

makeshop-britkits  drink-shop-doCopyright Brit + Co

Daniel suggested that the Movement was associated with hipsters and geeks, and that the Guardian had said we had “reached peak beard” in 2013 (still got mine – as does Daniel!), at the same time as the creation of knitted bicycles! He suggested that Makers had passed the peak of the Gartner Hype Curve and that MakerSpaces were facing financial difficulties, but the concepts were beginning to emerge from the sub-culture into the mainstream, with mass customisation through 3D-printing. Comments from the audience identified examples of MakerSpaces being used to overcome loneliness for old people through sewing circles, to assist immigrants in Sweden assimilate, and even to provide alternatives to violence for Farc guerilllas following the peace deal in Colombia. The concept is as much about the community activity as it is the product itself.

Looking around the installations themselves, I was struck by the Lebanon installation: a typical Beirut street (much quieter than I imagine a real one to be!), regarded as Utopia because it was peaceful, a break from the warfare and strife of the past – a reminder to us to be grateful for what we have. One of the prize-winners.


The Swiss installation won the Jaguar innovation award, but I wasn’t taken with the “Utopia of Neutrality”, even if it was still intended to represent movement, as typified by oversize watch springs. Russia was the third prize-winner, with lost archives of Soviet design, a period when the designer was not to be identified. I was struck by the Chilean example of the smart city – designed in 1970 by Stafford Beer during the Allende rule, by the VR representation of Santander and by the UAE water systems. The UK contribution, Forecast, a kinetic sculpture that moves with the wind, is intended to evoke Britain’s nautical past and its future use of renewable energy – sadly there was no wind when I was there!


The lessons for futurists? The first two talks illustrate that technological developments can take a long time to become reality, and that strategies based on adapting to change rather than trying to predict it may be more fruitful. The third shows that cultural change can be as powerful as technological change – and probably more confusing!

Written by Huw Williams, SAMI Principal.

The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily of SAMI Consulting.

If you enjoyed this blog, sign up for our monthly newsletter at and/or browse our website at

What does the 4th industrial revolution mean for strategic consultancy?

September 28, 2016

The 4th industrial revolution has many definitions – what we are using it to mean is:


What do strategic consultants do?

Strategic consultants may specialise in IT, HR, law, finance, marketing, M&A or foresight, but the essential roles in relation to their client organisations are generally thought to be fourfold:

  • Thought leadership. This was defined in the late Laurie Young’s book ( as “the deliberate creation of ideas to help businesses succeed,” This is the province of management consultancies and gurus, who provide a conceptual or organisational framework to help their clients think about their strategy. The competition for mindshare through thought leadership is extensive and deep, and there are algorithms to measure the quality of the messages and their articulation.
  • Providing an unbiased partner of sufficient seniority and experience to facilitate discussions within the organisation. This is much harder to evaluate but may have more value to the client than eternally provided thought leadership
  • Support organisations by bringing deep industry or other knowledge. Of increasing importance is the role of experts from other domains to the client organisation who can use parallels with the industry of the client, or can introduce ideas about the directions from which change – threat or opportunity – may come: providing a backdrop to the formulation of thought leadership. This type of deep knowledge is important during the data gathering/horizon scanning stage of the strategy cycle and may also contribute to Sense Making and “Setting Priorities”.
  • Implementation – when client resources constrained or inexperienced in type of project, or when there is a need for efficient, effective “horsepower” able to manage organisational politics

The strategy cycle is at

How will these roles change due to societal and economic factors?

Some of the forces at work on aspects of strategic consultancy include:

Thought leadership becomes more important with the increased influence of the virtual world and social media, leading as it does to wider coverage of ideas.

Unbiased partner becomes more important as strategy moves in many cases to division or business unit level. Here the managers are often MBA informed and have expectations of sharing sources of advice; they are used to thinking about data correlations. However these managers are often asked to think strategically as just one of their portfolio of responsibilities: and strategy loses out to more “urgent” tasks. As a counter to this the role of the unbiased partner is to provide legitimacy to time spent on strategy, and reputation to frame senior level discussions.

Bringing deep industry knowledge of the companies domain: this is reducing in importance for two reasons: first, the wide availability of services for competitive information by industry or geography; second, the volatility of industry boundaries as the 4th industrial revolution sweeps in behind the second and third. Experience across industry sectors is increasingly important.

Implementation: an increased role as central strategy units are small if at all, and time there is often seen as a training or development stage of a career.

How will this change due to 4th industrial revolution?

Thought leadership: the main new factor is the need for strategy consultants to be able to think “in the new world”. This requires judgement to mediate between hype and “it will never happen”.

Unbiased partner: the partner will increasingly use social media and analysis tools to provide support, backed up by virtual meetings. Effective communication at a distance is facilitated by shared values.

Deep industry knowledge: this is increasingly being mediated by search engines, and is the area which will be most affected by augmented and machine intelligence.

Implementation: during implementation it is often to introduce new tools into an organisation – these are increasingly IT enabled, and will become more so as machine intelligence reaches more corners of work.

Written by Gill Ringland, CEO and SAMI Fellow and David Lye SAMI Fellow.

The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily of SAMI Consulting.

If you enjoyed this blog, sign up for our monthly newsletter at and/or browse our website at

What now for governance?

September 14, 2016

Theresa May’s pronouncements on reforming the governance of big business, controversy over the failure of BHS, continuing revelations from the Panama papers and the publication of the Financial Reporting Council’s deliberations on corporate culture and the role of boards mean interesting times for corporate boards. The confluence of these events along with Brexit and the implications of a Trump presidency will challenge the best of them.

May is responding to a perceived public demand to address what some see as an unacceptable face of business. There is nothing new in the extraction of wealth from an established business by its directors nor in efforts to hide money or avoid taxes. The BHS story and the Panama papers simply remind us it is still happening. Nor is there anything new in attempts to prevent such things and unfortunately it seems unlikely that the latest ideas by our new prime minister and the FRC will be any more successful than previous efforts. Her words may remain just words, they might not become policy and if they do policy might not be implemented. She may think that talking tough is sufficient: perhaps, in political terms, it will.

May’s proposals at first sight seem like a breath of fresh air to those frustrated or angry with how big business seems, in their eyes, to benefit a few people at the expense of many so her intention to give more power to shareholders and employees will be appealing. Giving shareholders a binding vote on executive pay looks like a way to empower shareholders but would be difficult to introduce as it could require other legal changes and it could have unintended consequences in the relationships between boards and shareholders. Similarly the idea of having employees represented on boards would increase board diversity but would employees want to take on the potential legal liability that goes with board membership? And would it mean boards run companies better? Volkswagens employee representatives on its board did not stop the emissions scandal. The effectiveness of non-executive directors can be limited by a lack of detailed knowledge of the business. Employee will have a very detailed knowledge of their work area but could be equally ignorant about other parts of a company unless there is a process for other employees to inform them. It would be naive to think that employee representation would make boards better. But it could help if board Chairman use the change constructively – particularly in helping boards to be more aware what is going on with their companies.

What is needed is for reforms to change behaviour for the better. The FRC report on culture, in trying to turn culture into a process or set of tasks, fails to help people in understanding human behaviour – why people do what they do and when and in what circumstances. This is a pity as that surely is why any board should want to learn about culture. The FRC talks about the importance of values and ethics but does not seek to understand why employees might not heed values statements or ethical codes and, by extension, why attempts to establish a culture may not work or have unintended serious consequences.

For work on culture to have any value for companies it must address why people do things and when and that requires understanding what motivates and incentivises people. It is necessary to understand the business model and consider what its continuing success depends on and, within this, how people are motivated and incentivised. Most boards want to do the right thing for their companies, their shareholders and their employees. More instructions to be ethical will be less helpful than changes which remove incentives to cheat and improve incentives to do the right thing.

Some foresight would be also helpful including in making sense of the politics. Scenario planning brings rewards. It sensitises people to what might happen, and gets them thinking creatively in how to address issues. It also gets them doing systems thinking, understanding cause and effect better rather than incrementally simply reacting to one event after another. This prepares people for uncertainty so they can embrace it rather than recoil from it.

Doing these things – thinking about incentives, thinking about scenarios then acting appropriately-should make boards and their companies more resilient and better able to thrive in a post Brexit and possibly Trump environment.

Written by Paul Moxey, SAMI Fellow.

The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily of SAMI Consulting.

If you enjoyed this blog, sign up for our monthly newsletter at and/or browse our website at


The Fourth Industrial Revolution and the Future of Work – Part 3 The Challenges for Government

August 31, 2016

In my blogs of 5 & 27 July,, I previewed SAMI’s workshop on scenarios for the 4th Industrial Revolution, and reported on a workshop we held on the subject,

The Road Ahead for Government

At the July Workshop, we asked participants what aspects of the 4th Industrial Revolution would keep the Prime Minister awake at night. We have gained a new Prime Minister since the discussion, but the issues have not changed.

First the Good News

The technological changes of the Fourth Industrial Revolution are potentially helpful to Government in achieving its aims:

  • Technology will encourage globalisation and a knowledge and skills economy that may well flourish outside the confines of traditional trading blocs (and may indeed undermine them)
  • Technology has the potential to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of health and social care systems – prevention of illness, helping people to stay healthy, connecting communities better; it will benefit other public services as well – enabling better services to be delivered at lower cost
  • There will be a revolutionary change in defence and security systems, offering a “first mover advantage” to those who can make best use of emerging technologies
  • The Fourth Industrial Revolution will reward those economies that are open, flexible, and have a skilled and adaptable workforce

But there’s another side

Governments could find themselves increasingly powerless against mega-corporations – the Exponential Organisations described in Salim Ismail’s book of the same name. Regulating the activities of these global behemoths (and raising taxes from them) may be beyond the grasp of a single country.

Citizens as well, either individually or in communities of interest, will increasingly use technology to seek greater autonomy, which will challenge the norms of government and wider institutions – for example blockchain technology could foster new approaches to banking and personal finance. Renewable energy may erode the dependence people have on the national grid for energy; and skilled and knowledgeable people will seek to develop technology and communications systems independent of the global giants.

If Government agencies, whether HMRC or NHS Trusts, are too slow to adopt new technologies, they will both fail to generate the efficiency gains needed to keep public services going, and damage the reputation of government. Already, doctors report that one of the most common complaints from patients is the inability to access wi-fi in hospitals and clinics. A tech-savvy population will have no patience with analogue public services.

If the disruptive effects of technology are too great and too rapid, or if the Government fails to mitigate them, then rising employment and inequality could lead to serious social unrest – especially if the middle classes, who have a vested interest in the status quo, suddenly find that the status quo is working against them. In the most extreme event, when the middle classes turn on the Government, revolutions can happen.

So What is to be Done?

The Government needs to address four areas:

  • Understanding the future – knowing what the opportunities and the risks ahead are, and their application to the World, to the UK, and to the specific workings of government. Parliamentary Committees have for a number of years been pressing Governments to up their game on horizon scanning; the advent of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is a significant additional pressure on Government to become future aware.
    • Is the Cabinet Office’s Horizon Scanning Unit in the right place and adequately resourced to ensure this?
    • What lessons can be learned from other governments and from other sectors?
  • Ensuring that the UK has the infrastructure in place to benefit from the enormous advantages of technological change, and addressing the risks of cybersecurity – whether criminally or politically motivated: the Government needs to be an enabler of change.
    • How can Government get this focus – at national and local level, and in its service-delivery arms as well as policy?
    • As accountable officers for agencies that deliver services, what expectations should Permanent Secretaries have of the rate of change and adaptation in those agencies?
  • Understanding the potential impact of changes on the role of government, the extent of government, and the relationship between individual citizens and companies and other organisations in the future – including, critically, the scope for government to raise revenue through taxation – the UK has an analogue system of government, built largely on a template designed by Haldane in 1918.
    • What would digital government for a digital age look like?
    • Can the Government connect digital platforms to the existing structure, or is more radical reform needed?
    • What skills does Government need, and how can it get them in the most cost-effective and sustainable way?
  • Maintaining social cohesion at a time of potentially major disruption – for example instability in the labour market, and significant changes in wealth distribution – the riots of 2011 showed how quickly instability can spread (and digital communications certainly accelerated this). If the models of Osborne and Frey of the Oxford Martin School are anywhere near correct in stating that 47% of current UK jobs will be at risk, this presents a massive social challenge. Even OECD’s “more conservative” estimates of about 10% of jobs being at risk presents a major problem for national and local governments to manage.
    • What role does Government need to play in managing through the inevitable turbulence the 4th Industrial Revolution will bring?

The Government will need to address these areas within the context of its other activities and priorities – including redefining the UK’s position in the world post-Brexit, gearing up health and social care systems to meet the predictable challenges of an ageing population, defence against both terrorism and hostile states, and achieving economic growth.

Written by David Lye, SAMI Fellow

The views expressed are those of the author and not necessarily of SAMI Consulting.

If you enjoyed this blog, sign up for our monthly newsletter at and/or browse our website at

%d bloggers like this: