Skip to content

Does Foresight work? Case studies

September 13, 2017

future-2372183_1920

We know that there is evidence that long term thinking is linked to superior performance .

How does foresight contribute to long term thinking? Can the effect be measured? As I was taught at Stanford Business School, it is impossible to directly measure the effect of strategy because strategy only has effect through implementation – and good strategy, bad implementation may be worse than bad strategy, good implementation. But it seems obvious nevertheless that long term thinking underpinned by effective foresight must be better than long term thinking underpinned by un-examined assumptions that the future will be very like the past.

So it is worth looking at case studies of foresight used to underpin decisions.

There are a range of studies of the effect of foresight in the form of scenario thinking at Shell, since the early 1970’s. For instance:

Another perspective can be found in “Scenario projects in Japanese government: Twenty years of experience, five tales from the front line” which can be found at http://unlocking-foresight.tizrapublisher.com/ka4o8s/

Directly tackling the evidence through evaluation in different environments, we know of a classic book on the use of Foresight in Research – which for instance evaluated how to get better results from Delphi following 25 years of experience in Japan – Research Foresight, Ben R Martin and John Irvine, Pinter, 1989. A more recent article is Martin, Ben (2010) The origins of the concept of `foresight’ in science and technology: an insider’s perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77 (9). pp. 1438-47. ISSN 0040-1625

In SAMI we have seen many organisations use foresight to improve their long term thinking. For instance:

  • In the insurance industry, Legal and General used scenarios to explore changes through regulation, demographics and technology – concluding that the only two scenarios were Evolution or Revolution
  • In asset management, the Man Group used Scenarios for the City of London to gain insights into their different businesses, leading to divestment and re-alignment: and the European Bank of Reconstruction and Development wanted to take stock after 25 years of operation.
  • Angel Trains developed scenarios for the rail industry and realised that they were in the risk business rather than the rail industry
  • Global lawyer Allen & Overy bought a number of firms in North Africa after using scenario thinking to surface their exposure to Sharia Law.
  • Accountants Grant Thornton UK developed scenarios the business environment in the UK as part of their Future Perspectives project and found that this led naturally to their Vibrant England strategy to work with innovative, and small and mid-size, businesses.
  • Scenarios for Europe were developed to advise on research agendas and policy options related to converging technologies. These are often defined as nanotechnology, biotechnology, information technology, and cognitive sciences (NBIC). The recommendations were used widely to inform research programmes in national laboratories across Europe.
  • In Higher Education, scenarios for Scotland were used to frame the development of Napier University: and scenarios for Higher Education in Romania led to Government White Papers and the secondment of three of the team to the World Bank to plan implementation.

What can be learnt from these case studies?

Perhaps, unsurprisingly, that

  • foresight is often undertaken for a reason, such as a new Principal (Napier University) or new CEO (Legal and General), unacceptable losses in a division (Man Group), perceived need to restructure (Romanian Higher Education), the need to seek new investors (Angel Trains), the need to make assumptions explicit across cultures (Scenarios for Europe) or because of perceived challenges in the business environment (Allen & Overy, Grant Thornton)
  • Decisions can be made and actions can be taken with more confidence after foresight work has explored alternative futures – Shell have estimated that they can take decisions 3 to 6 months earlier than their competition through scenario thinking.

Written by Gill Ringland, SAMI Fellow and CEO.

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

If you enjoyed this blog from SAMI Consulting, the home of scenario planning, please sign up for our monthly newsletter at eSAMIsignup@samiconsulting.co.uk and/or browse our website at http://www.samiconsulting.co.uk

Advertisements

Tools for long term thinking

September 6, 2017

As practitioners of strategy in the context of the future, we at SAMI have always instinctively believed that this approach is better than strategy with a good view in the rear view mirror. Views of the future allow you to think long term and make informed decisions for the long term.

What tools are there to improve thinking about the future?

A tool that is useful for thinking about factors that could cause the organisation’s assumptions to change (drivers of change) is Three Horizons. It is quickly adopted by groups of people and is often combined with a “looking back” exercise in which the group relates to their organisation, industry or country twice as many years in the past as the group is going to think forward – ethnographers suggest that change in the future will be twice as fast as in the past. Three Horizons is the subject of a book by Bill Sharpe.

Horizon 1 takes into account the current working assumptions and systems that we take for granted when we make decisions.

3 Horizons

  • Example – the ongoing trend for decreasing family size, for migration, and for people to live longer, causes us to re-examine our assumptions on demographics.

Horizon 3 is about changes emerging that are completely new paradigms and ways of understanding and undertaking various human activities. What are visionary leaders saying?

  • Example – The World Business Council for Sustainable Development believes that nine billion people can live well on the planet.

Horizon 2 is about drivers which represent a transition or accommodation for evolving tensions as current assumptions and work patterns obsolesce, and transformative changes affect industries and markets.

  • Example – the CEO of GM, Mary Barra “I believe we will see more change in our industry in the next five to ten years than we have in the last 50. We are at the start of a technological revolution that is going to change the way we drive and interact with our cars, trucks, and crossovers”

Once you have used Three Horizons to identify drivers of change to build into strategy now (Horizon One), a tool for thinking about the effect this could have on your organisation, through customers, stakeholders, regulation, etc, is an Impact (aka Futures) Wheel. Starting from the driver at the centre, effects are mapped outwards. This is a structured brainstorming method used to organise thinking about potential impacts.

Futures Wheels are described in “Strategic Foresight” by Patricia Lustig .

Strat foresight tool

A tool that is explicitly designed to explore a range of possible futures is scenario planning. The strength of this is to create mental models and a shared language for potential futures. These can then get wider traction and help organisational self knowledge. For instance at a computer firm, two scenarios were developed for the industry:

  • Coral Reef, in which an exciting and innovative industry was represented by smiling clown fish, visible to customers and working with them
  • Deep Sea, in which an industry largely invisible to customers was treated with suspicion by customers,

These terms were used to discuss the changing nature of the industry – from Coral Reef to Deep Sea – to reshape the marketing and sales approach, and by account managers to discuss customers. The names were intuitive enough for those not involved in scenario development to find them useful, even without the full description, timeline, etc.

The process of scenario development has been described in a number of books nd articles, and one of the most succinct is on www.samiconsulting.co.uk/4scenario planning a primer.pdf .

Written by Gill Ringland, SAMI Fellow and CEO.

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

If you enjoyed this blog from SAMI Consulting, the home of scenario planning, please sign up for our monthly newsletter at eSAMIsignup@samiconsulting.co.uk and/or browse our website at http://www.samiconsulting.co.uk

 

Thinking about the future.

August 31, 2017

As practitioners of strategy in the context of the future, we at SAMI have always instinctively believed that this approach is better than strategy with a good view in the rear view mirror. Views of the future allow you to think long term and make informed decisions for the long term.

How to improve thinking about the future?

One way of approaching this question uses Hedgehogs and Foxes to describe styles of thinking. Originally from Greek mythology, Isaiah Berlin introduced the analogy for discussing management styles in 1953:

“The Fox knows many things but the Hedgehog knows one big thing”

As Berlin uses it, Hedgehogs relate everything to single concrete narrative, through which everything in life is reduced to a single set of certainties. Foxes, on the other hand, distrust grand designs and absolute truths, and instead pursue many ends, often unrelated and even contradictory. They use a flexible array of insights that guide them as they experiment, play with ideas and experience, explore and, on occasion, pounce.

Recent psychological testing has shown that this is a valid and powerful way of classifying people. As psychologists have defined the type, Hedgehogs are people who are happiest operating within a closed problem domain, in which standard tools and focused effort allow them to compete with their peers. They are happy with the existing system or implementing a formula to change it.

Foxes are at their best exploring new terrain and re-thinking certainties. Their goals are largely self-actualisation and they are seldom concerned to rank themselves against their peers. Foxes are suspicious of commitment to any one way of seeing an issue; they prefer a loose insight that is calibrated from many perspectives. They are tolerant of dissonance within a model – for example, accepting that an enemy regime might have redeeming qualities – and are relatively ready to recalibrate their view when unexpected events cast doubt on what they had previously believed to be true.

Then a Professor at the University of California at Berkeley, Phillip Tetlock started to explore how to get better at predicting the future in 1987. It was then that he started to collect forecasts from about 300 experts – initially about preventing a nuclear war but then extending to encompass about 27,500 much wider political and geo-political events. The results were published in his book “Expert Political Judgement” in 2005.

Tetlock first discusses arguments about whether the world is too complex for people to find the tools to understand political phenomena, let alone predict the future. He evaluates predictions from experts in different fields, comparing them to predictions by well-informed laity or those based on simple extrapolation from current trends. He goes on to analyze which styles of thinking are more successful in forecasting. Classifying thinking styles using Isaiah Berlin’s prototypes of the fox and the hedgehog, Tetlock contends that the fox–the thinker who knows many little things, draws from an eclectic array of traditions, and is better able to improvise in response to changing events–is more successful in predicting the future than the hedgehog, who knows one big thing, toils devotedly within one tradition, and imposes formulaic soTetlocklutions on ill-defined problems. A famous diagram from this is on the lines below:

Here, calibration is the number of right predictions, and discrimination is the range of the predictions. So it is possible to have stellar discrimination and terrible calibration scores if you make bold and wrong predictions. As well as the lack of success of all forecasters compared with models, he also noted a perversely inverse relationship between the best scientific indicators of good judgement and the qualities that the media most prizes in pundits–the single-minded determination required to prevail in ideological combat.

Rather than decide that forecasting was too difficult for mere mortals, Tetlock started the Good Judgement Project in 2011. He has 20,000 volunteers who participate in an annual tournament, giving judgement on geopolitical issues and updating as and when appropriate. The early years of the tournament are already yielding exciting results.

For instance, – even brief training works – a 20 minute course on how to put a probability on a forecast, correcting for well-known biases, provides lasting improvements to performance.

A second insight is that teamwork helps – teams of forecasters who discussed and argued – produced better predictions.

He has produced advice for forecasters summarised as CHAMP

  • Comparisons are important
  • Historical trends can help
  • Average opinions over diverse groups
  • Mathematical models should be taken into account
  • Predictable biases exist and should be allowed for.

We are fans because this is the only systematic approach we have found to getting better at forecasting.

An HBR article summarising it is https://hbr.org/2015/02/what-research-tells-us-about-making-accurate-predictions .

To find out more, SAMI is running a number of training courses on aspects of foresight throughout the year – details can be found on www.samiconsulting.co.uk/training

Written by Gill Ringland, SAMI Fellow and CEO.

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

If you enjoyed this blog from SAMI Consulting, the home of scenario planning, please sign up for our monthly newsletter at eSAMIsignup@samiconsulting.co.uk and/or browse our website at http://www.samiconsulting.co.uk

The evidence that long term thinking gives better results

August 23, 2017

As practitioners of strategy in the context of the future, we at SAMI have always instinctively believed that this approach is better than strategy with a good view in the rear view mirror. Views of the future allow you to think long term and make informed decisions for the long term.

And there is increasing evidence that long term thinking pays results. Also this implies exploring how the long term might be different from the here and now. So in this blog we will review the evidence that long term thinking gives better results in the corporate sector, where visible indices can be derived from publicly available annual reports. In later blogs we will talk about the sources of disruption now, the characteristics of people successful at seeing potential futures, some tools to help this thinking, and some case studies of situations that provoke organisations to focus on acquiring views of possible futures. Further – we would argue that monitoring possible futures should be ongoing in disrupted times such as these – and in Beyond Crisis described how this could be achieved.

But returning to the immediate question – what is the evidence that long term thinking leads to better results – a recent McKinsey report on Long Term Thinking looked at evidence over 10 years – see https://bymckinsey.com/global-themes/long-term-capitalism/where-companies-with-a-long-term-view-outperform-their-peers. The report has led to the launch of an index of long time horizon companies, as evidenced by their public reports relating to investment, earning growth, margin growth, quarterly management and earning per shares growth. “Finally, Evidence That Managing for the Long Term Pays Off” can be found at https://hbr.org/2017/02/finally-proof-that-managing-for-the-long-term-pays-off The implications for Finance Directors are drawn out in an article in the Harvard Business Review, https://hbr.org/2016/03/how-cfos-can-take-the-long-term-view-in-a-short-term-economy, and in May 2017 they published a series of articles under the Managing for the Long Term umbrella, with the overall theme: “In this package we examine how a focus on maximizing shareholder value can threaten companies’ health and financial performance”: https://hbr.org/2017/05/managing-for-the-long-term .

The topics covered are:

  • The Error at the Heart of Corporate Leadership
  • The CEO View: Defending a Good Company from Bad Investors
  • The Board View: Directors Must Balance All Interests
  • The Data: Where Long-Termism Pays Off

A paper evaluating corporate performance linked with foresight by Professor Renee Rohrbeck is https://www.researchgate.net/publication/236897761_The_Value_Contribution_of_Strategic_Foresight_Insights_From_an_Empirical_Study_of_Large_European_Companies.

Directly tackling the evidence through evaluation in different environments, we know of a classic book on the use of Foresight in Research – which for instance evaluated how to get better results from Delphi following 25 years of experience in Japan – Research Foresight, Ben R Martin and John Irvine, Pinter, 1989. A more recent article is Martin, Ben (2010) The origins of the concept of `foresight’ in science and technology: an insider’s perspective. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 77 (9). pp. 1438-47. ISSN 0040-1625

So why do organisations make decisions for the short term, based on current and past conditions, despite the evidence that long term thinking gives better results?

The focus of much of the discussion on this is on whether metrics such as shareholder value, or regulatory environments, drive short termism. This debate is important, and it is also important to think about the other factors that underpin a shot term approach that disregards the fact that the world is changing.

We understand the reasons why many organisations find a strategy based on views of the future to be uncomfortable: the future may be different from the past. And experience – the rear view mirror – to be comfortable. After all, the senior people in the company have good experience of the business environment which has pertained as they made their way in the organisation or industry. So many organisations see no need for views of the future, until too late.

Our focus is on strategy in the context of the future, so we explore possible futures – one of which may be Business As Usual – before developing strategic options. Options which are good under all futures are called “robust” – other options may deliver only under some possible futures – and then a management view needs to be taken on the next steps, eg more investigation, research with customers and suppliers? Or set up early indicators, events that would happen under if a particular scenario was unfolding? One classic example of an early indicator is from Peter Schwartz’s “Art of the Long View”:

“In 1983, we presented the Royal Dutch/Shell managing directors with two scenarios; one called Incrementalism, and the other called the Greening of Russia. By that time, we knew enough about the Soviet Government to say that if a virtually unknown man named Gorbachev came to power, you’d see massive economic and political restructuring; an opening to the West; arms control; declining tensions in the West; and major shifts in international relationships. It was not that Gorbachev, as an individual, would cause the changes. Rather, his arrival in power would be a symptom of the same underlying causes.”

Organisations need signposts like these in our disrupted times in order to take a long term view.

Written by Gill Ringland, SAMI Fellow and CEO.

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

If you enjoyed this blog from SAMI Consulting, the home of scenario planning, please sign up for our monthly newsletter at eSAMIsignup@samiconsulting.co.uk and/or browse our website at http://www.samiconsulting.co.uk

The role of cities in industrial strategy

August 16, 2017

The Centre for Cities organizes a series of lectures on how cities can move themselves forward. The latest, on July 20th, featured Professor Diane Coyle, visiting professor at the University of Manchester and Director of Enlightenment Economics, on the role of cities as part of a modern industrial strategy. The podcast of her talk is here.

The Warwick Business School played host to the talk – with spectacular views of the City from its 18th floor position in the Shard.

Cities photo

Prof Coyle began by addressing the central economic challenges the UK faces today. Innovation is behind the rest of the G7, labour productivity is poor, the number of people over-qualified for their jobs is at an all-time high (implying low investment in advanced systems), the trade deficit is unsustainable and the UK is the most regionally unequal in the G20, due to its over-reliance on London. (All these assertions backed up with commendable statistics and graphs).

There are bright spots – pharmaceuticals, media/creative industries, the City, and some localised, specialist manufacture (eg F1).

She argued that government should look beyond the traditional sectors and aim to develop a multi-sector supply chain and encourage new entrants.

Interventionist industrial strategy has a bad reputation, from the days when “picking the winners” led to failure. But Prof Coyle suggested that good industrial strategy could act as a co-ordinating force (encouraging skills development), pooling risk and creating new markets, and support public goods, managing externalities. The US industrial strategy is the Department of Defense!

The talk then turned to the role of cities. Typically, regional policy is seen as “jam-spreading”, with the assumption of it being a zero-sum game. Prof Coyle argued that “agglomeration” effects, where a critical mass of related skills and supply chains came together, could lead to higher growth and development. As an example, she suggested that if C4 is to be moved out of London, it should go to Salford where it would build upon the BBC initiative. (Typically, in a zero-sum view, one questioner wanted it moved to Birmingham instead).

Summing up, the priorities for government intervention were seen as:

  • de-carbonisation
  • infrastructure renewal – how did the Victorians build infrastructure for 150 years capacity?
  • Health and social care
  • Incentives for long-term investment.

The talk was very well-attended – well over 100 I should think – with a wide range of age groups from early twenties to the retired. The event rounded off with drinks and canapes – a very pleasant venue indeed!

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 from SAMI Consulting, the home of scenario planning, please sign up for our monthly newsletter at eSAMIsignup@samiconsulting.co.uk and/or browse our website at http://www.samiconsulting.co.uk

Business and Brexit – what now?

August 9, 2017

It seems that every time one stops to examine the process of Britain leaving the EU, the matter gets more imponderable. Every statement by ministers is minutely analysed; minute changes in phrasing are dismantled for hidden meanings; every hour seems to bring more analysis, which itself brings further confusion.

Business does not have time to wait. The departure from Europe will happen in March 2019; EU states will need six months for ratification (October 2018). Companies will soon be starting their 2018 budget process with no certainty whatsoever on the results of the negotiations. Business planning is about stability and opportunity; and there is no stability, and no proof of opportunity in the post-Brexit UK.

In the absence of security in the future, businesses are making their own plans: EasyJet is setting up in Vienna, Bank of America and others in Dublin; and Frankfurt is to become an expanded home for Morgan Stanley, Citigroup and Deutsche Bank. The list will keep growing.

Recent lessons from central Europe

In mid-June, I was in Vienna as co-speaker at a series of round table events on Brexit with government, corporate and regulatory bodies; trying both to explain the British decision and chart ways forwards.

A number of conclusions:

  • The referendum result remains incomprehensible to Europeans, and to European business;
  • Europe has moved on. Britain is no longer considered to be part of the “EU28”, which is temporarily the EU27+1; the real concern is with Europe’s future;
  • The British negotiating positions as set out are almost entirely unacceptable to the EU. Not “unacceptable” in a British sense – changeable with reasoned argument – but “unacceptable” in a very Germanic sense – they are simply not acceptable, full stop. The UK has little to offer in return of concessions it is requesting.
  • European business is sanguine about losing access to the UK market post-Brexit, since it is confident of developing other markets both internally and worldwide.
  • The UK has lost its reputation for pragmatic, considered thought; it seems from outside to be a divided nation going through a form of national nervous breakdown, responding to the same distinctive Anglo-Saxon version of nationalist populism which gave rise to Donald Trump.

Brexit modelling

At SAMI, we have posited a range of post-Brexit scenarios for the UK and Europe:

  • Canada model: very relaxed and open relationship, many open border attributes
  • Mexico model: generally friendly, immigration constraints, stricter regulatory requirements
  • Cuba model: formal embargoes and mutual distrust

Joe Ravetz’s blog posts on this site proposed a “28 Months After” range from, essentially, societal collapse to a flourishing EEA relationship in a harmony of nations.

Which of these scenarios, if any, look more likely in the light of our findings from Europe? The local variables are quite daunting enough, but one must also bear in mind the more macro ones – an unpredictable USA setting its face against international institutions, a Russia which is more openly adventurous after its invasion of Ukraine and its involvement in Syria, climate change and its effect on migration patterns, and a rise in cyberwarfare. These larger elements are outside the control of the negotiating parties, but their effect may echo into their respective priorities.

Coupled with a weak UK government surviving on a supply and confidence agreement with a minor party that itself has mutually conflicting aims from the Brexit process, it can seem as if the future is entirely unpredictable. But let us try.

Options for the future

The Labour party has explicitly said that “Labour must evince a positive vision for the future of our country outside the EU. One that is consistent with the leave voters’ objectives…”. Since that is now the position of the government and opposition parties, we can say that remaining in the EU is not going to be possible. We are then faced with a range: from no deal (the Prime Minister has consistently said that “no deal would be better than a bad deal”) to a “soft Brexit” Norway option, with EEA membership and essentially an associate membership of the EU – our Canada model.

It seems to me that the Norway/Canada option is optimistic. It retains too many of the leavers’ red lines. However, (a) the pattern of the negotiations to date has been that the EU has had the upper hand (David Davis’ failure to produce “the row of the summer” over the process of the talks), and (b) the Repeal Bill implies the acceptance of EU law into UK law, so it must be marginally possible that this option carries through. With the time pressure, it may be the only soft Brexit solution that is achievable.

What seems more likely is that the EU remains constant on its requirements. These requirements are unacceptable to the British side. No real negotiation is possible, and it becomes clear that the British will either have to agree to what Europe wants, or not. Britain would need a different government, and a different opposition, to agree to departure on these terms.

Without that change of government, and without an extension of the negotiation period, one option seems more possible: what, using our previous models, we may call Cuba plus – a Britain outside Europe, running under WTO rules, with hard borders. Membership of NATO remains the most significant link to Europe, coupled with some security-sharing protocols. A long and complex free-trade negotiation process begins with Europe, at the same time as UK attempts the same process with other nations.

It is no surprise that business is already making its move.

Written by Jonathan Blanchard Smith, SAMI Associate.

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

If you enjoyed this blog from SAMI Consulting, the home of scenario planning, please sign up for our monthly newsletter at eSAMIsignup@samiconsulting.co.uk and/or browse our website at http://www.samiconsulting.co.uk

Key trends and drivers of change in information and communication technologies and work location

August 2, 2017

As part of our work with the European Agency for Safety and Health at work (EU-OSHA), on their project ‘Foresight on new and emerging occupational safety and health risks associated with information and communication technologies and work location by 2025’. we produced a report on the key trends and drivers in ICT and work location. This report is now available via our website here.

Trends and key drivers of change were identified in a three-stage process: horizon scanning, consultation with experts through phone interviews and a Delphi-like survey and then a mini-workshop. The report lists and describes these important trends and drivers, which are organised by STEEP (Societal, Technological, Economic, Environmental and Political) category.

From demographic changes to technological innovations, these are the factors that will decide what occupational safety and health (OSH) challenges, associated with the digitalisation of work faces Europe in 2025.

Naturally, we found both potential benefits and risks for OSH. The main benefits included:

  • Removing people from hazardous environments through the use of robotics
  • Providing new means of promoting good OSH practice.

Risks were primarily psycho-social, relating to issues arising from work-related stress, 24/7 working practices and the loss of hierarchy and interaction at work, and ergonomic, through the use of mobile devices and novel human-machine interfaces.

Some 17 key drivers and trends were identified.

  1. Virtual and flexible working, including zero-hours contracts and platform working
  2. Changes in supply chains, with more sub-contracting and an increase in e-commerce
  3. The rise of small/micro- businesses, with opportunities for entrepreneurs but also pseudo self-employment
  4. The European Single Market, and the effectiveness of regulation
  5. Challenges of the economic environment – rates of growth, globalisation or its converse, and levels of investment
  6. Gaps in ICT skills and the need for frequent re-training
  7. Attitudes to online privacy, online bullying and ethics
  8. The scope for collective action, perhaps through social media
  9. The economic value of data and the rise of the knowledge economy
  10. Population demographics: the ageing population, migration, generational differences and the proportion of women in the workforce
  11. Built-in OSH, through user-centred design
  12. Robotics, AI and autonomous vehicles
  13. Internet of Things and big data
  14. Cybersecurity
  15. Virtual reality and augmented reality
  16. Growth of communications networks
  17. Man-machine interfaces, including direct computer/brain interfaces.

Later parts of the project convert these drivers into scenarios and then policies are tested against each. Further reports will also become publicly available in due course.

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 from SAMI Consulting, the home of scenario planning, please sign up for our monthly newsletter at eSAMIsignup@samiconsulting.co.uk and/or browse our website at http://www.samiconsulting.co.uk

 

 

%d bloggers like this: