Do You Approach Strategy Formulation as an Event or a Continuous Process?


I find that most strategy efforts aren’t very strategic.  Nor do they have much real impact, or lead to significant change.

The Problems with Traditional Strategy Formulation Approaches

I think the supporting evidence for my findings lies in the fact that most companies either:

  1. Don’t undertake strategy formulation initiatives unless they feel they have to (e.g., 5 or more years have passed since they last conducted a strategy session, or the current strategy is clearly not working!)
  2. Do undertake strategy formulation regularly and rigorously (typically annual), with a detailed process spanning many weeks and taking lots of time.  When they are through the effort, everyone breaths a big sigh of relief, and gets back to work – and to executing against the original strategy!

Those in camp 1 above often engage strategy consulting firms.  Nothing inherently wrong in that, except that it can be a high cost route that ends in a good strategy that either:

  • Does not fit the firm’s capabilities particularly well, or…
  • Does not get sufficient engagement with those in the firm who must understand, buy into and execute against the new strategy.

Those in camp 2 above usually have a full time strategy organization – a small, but expensive group of bright folk who need to justify their existence.  Nothing inherently wrong in that, either, except that:

  • The results are often less than inspiring.  They do a good job going through the motions, but the thinking isn’t really very strategic, nor the goals very ambitious.
  • The results typically do not get sufficient engagement with those in the firm who must understand, buy into and execute against the new strategy.

Strategy Formulation as a Continuous Process

I believe much better results can be achieved if strategy formulation becomes:

  1. A continuous process.
  2. A firmwide capability – a strength, even!
  3. A collaborative process.

We are living in unprecedented times.  Uncertainty and change are everywhere.  Market conditions can change overnight.  The globally interconnectedness of everything creates a complex environment that behaves in unpredictable ways.

New Possibilities Enable Continuous Strategy

At the same time complexity has increased and predictability decreased, information technologies create new possibilities for a very different approach to strategy formulation:

  • From an event to a continuous process enabled by the Internet
  • From a “canned” exercise for the select few to a “social” exercise for the many – employees, customers, suppliers, partners
  • From lengthy “big bets” with high uncertainty to rapid “business experiments” with low risk
  • From a dearth of data to help evaluate strategic options to a plethora of powerful business analytics, predictive modeling and simulation tools to help bring strategy formulation and execution together into a rapid learning model

Some of today’s fastest growing companies have figured this out and are quietly, but aggressively honing their continuous strategic capabilities.  Meanwhile, the large majority of companies are stuck in the old paradigm – afraid to open up the strategy process – just when the need for a shot of innovation and fresh thinking are matters of survival!

What do you think?  Are you in a company that is successfully moving to a more continuous approach to strategy?  Should your company be doing more to make strategy continuous?  How can you help achieve this?

Enhanced by Zemanta
About these ads

Business-IT Alignment – The Relationship Dimension


Much has been written about “Business-IT Alignment” over the years.  Alignment can refer to Strategy – the degree to which IT strategy and business strategy are aligned.  (This, of course, is both ‘old news’ and yet often not the case in practice.  And there’s one school of thought that says there’s no such thing as IT strategy – it’s only business strategy with IT implications.)

Alignment can also refer to Structure – IT capabilities are structured to align with business structures and needs.  But there’s a crucial ‘third leg’ to the business-IT alignment stool, and that is the alignment of relationships that sit between business units and IT capabilities.

The Crucial Relationship Manager Role

Many IT organizations have created a role that bridges the business and IT.  Rarely actually called “Relationship Managers”, this role represents IT to the business and the business to IT. I’ve posted on this role before – see, for example The IT Relationship Manager’s Role in Expanding Business-IT Capability,  and From Supply-Constrained to Value-Constrained IT Business Model, and IT Maturity and the Role of the Relationship Management.  Sometimes called an IT Account Manager, or Business-IT Director, or some-such, the role is primarily responsible for ‘demand shaping‘ – stimulating an appetite for high value demand, and suppressing appetites for low value demand.  Sometimes, people in this Relationship Manager Role are effectively mini-CIO’s or Business Unit CIO’s – leveraging shared IT infrastructure (and often leveraging common applications and enterprise systems) but taking care of business unit-specific IT needs.

Relationship Alignment

There are at least three dimensions along which Relationship Managers can align with their business partners.  The first two dimensions are pretty obvious and generally handled well, but the third dimension is trickier and often not well addressed.  The dimensions are:

  1. Domain Expertise – the Relationship Manager (or whatever title this role operates under) needs to really understand the business domain for which they are responsible.  Be it marketing, supply chain, human resources, and so on, they need to have deep domain knowledge in order to bring real value to their business partners and have the credibility to have impact.
  2. Geography – as the real estate cliché goes, ‘location, location, location!’ so goes Relationship Management.  At its best, the Relationship Manager should be co-located with the senior managers of the business unit with which they are aligned.  At the very least, they need easy access.  The occasional ‘fly in’ to meet with their business partners typically doesn’t do it in terms of creating a productive business-IT partnership.
  3. Maturity – this is the tricky dimension, and one that is typically not well addressed.  Skilled Relationship Managers are a rare resource.  You want your most effective and creative Relationship Managers aligned with those business units and executives with the highest demand maturity – i.e., with the best  capacity to recognize and leverage high value IT-enabled opportunities.  Innovative, ‘change agent’ types of Relationship Managers will quickly become frustrated facing off against executives who are technologically in the dark ages, or who cherish the status quo.  Similarly, progressive, innovative business leaders will become quickly frustrated working with a Relationship Manager who lacks drive, a sense of urgency, the creativity to generate valuable ideas about IT possibilities, and the wherewithal to bring them to fruition.

How Healthy Are Your Business-IT Relationships?

Clearly, the CIO is in many ways the ‘über-Relationship Manager’, setting the tone for demand shaping and the strategic context for IT, and typically ‘owning’ the business-IT relationships with the most senior executive team.  But no CIO has the bandwidth or domain expertise to handle all the relationships at all the management levels needed to surface and steer the best opportunities to create business value from IT.  So, how healthy and productive are your key relationships between business and IT? Do you even know what would be considered ‘key relationships’?  How would you know the degree to which they are fully delivering value against their potential?

Let me know your thoughts and experiences around Relationship Management effectiveness.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Innovation and Web 2.0 – A Compelling Relationship?



I had a very interesting and exciting week!  I was a speaker at an nGenera Senior Executive Summit, which drew about 60 top executives from mostly large companies – CEO’s, CIO’s, CFO’s, HR and shared service heads, and even a couple of Lawyers and Platform/Brand managers.  It was an auspicious group – both in terms of participants and presenters/session leaders, which included Jim Collins, Michael Treacy, Don Tapscott, Tammy Erickson and Dartmouth’s Tuck School Professor, Chris Trimble.

I introduced my ideas about leveraging Web 2.0 (broadly defined) to significantly drive up the value of business innovation – specifically by following the principles and processes of Design Thinking.  I’ve been getting to this point in my last series of posts (Part 1, Part 2 and Part 3.)  In fact, those posts were largely written as I was developing my session materials.

Does ‘Design Thinking’ Have Legs?

Part of my thesis built upon the success of the Design Thinking movement that has gelled over the last 5 years.  I have found the success stories compelling, and the underlying principles resonate with my own experiences and values over the last 30 years in trying to leverage IT for increased innovation.  However, I was troubled by the recognition and acceptability of the term ‘Design Thinking’ – especially in the US.  The text of a 2007 speech by BusinessWeek‘s Bruce Nussbaum given in London tipped me off that there might be a problem here.

Nussbaum’s Banana…

In his 2007 speech to the Royal College of Art, Nussbaum noted:

In the US, CEOs and top managers hate the word “design.” Just believe me. No matter what they tell you, they believe that “design” only has something to do with curtains, wallpaper and maybe their suits. These guys, and they’re still mostly guys, prefer the term “innovation” because it has a masculine, military, engineering, tone to it. Think Six Sigma and you want to salute, right? I’ve tried and tried to explain that design goes way beyond aesthetics. It can have process, metrics all the good hard stuff managers love. But no, I can’t budge this bunch. So I have given up. Innovation, design, technology—I just call it all a banana. Peel that banana back and you find great design. Yummy design. . The kind of design that can change business culture and all of our civil society as well.”

One of the first to make the Web 2.0 connection, Nussbaum went on to say:

Innovation is no longer just about new technology per se. It is about new models of organization. Design is no longer just about form anymore but is a method of thinking that can let you to see around corners. And the high tech breakthroughs that do count today are not about speed and performance but about collaboration, conversation and co-creation. That’s what Web 2.0 is all about.”

I tested the waters of my Summit attendees, first by asking how many in the room had some familiarity with the term ‘Design Thinking’?   Three hands shot up, and a couple sort of hovered around shoulder level (presumably meaning, “I’ve heard of it, but please don’t call on me to talk about it!”).  Of the three hands, two were from companies for whom I had Design Thinking case studies about and who were listed in my very first slide (I had not at this point turned on the projector.)  The third hand was from a senior executive at a major Industrial Supply company that I had not expected to be particularly Design Thinking literate.  So, test 1 indicated that the term is not widely known.  Of course, this does not necessarily mean that Design Thinking is not widely practiced – perhaps all 60 companies in the room do in fact excel at Design Thinking, but refer to what they do as some variation of Nussbaum’s ‘banana’?  However, I truly doubt this.  In fact, the many one-on-one conversations that I had with the executives at this summit during the reception and dinner following my presentation supported my sense that explicit efforts to drive up the value of business innovation are relatively few and far between.

Are Design Thinkers Web 2.0 Enabled?

To the larger part of my thesis, there was little evidence at this Summit that any form of Web 2.0 was being explicitly leverage to support Design Thinking (or innovation, or the banana!)  There were a few ‘accidental experiments’ and emergent social networks – both internal and external – but nothing claimed as part of a deliberate, holistic effort to increase innovation through Web 2.0 technologies.  This for me was the big surprise.  The Senior Vice President of Strategy from one of the Design Thinking literate companies told me at the reception, “When you first connected Design Thinking and Web 2.0 in your presentation, I thought you’d completely lost it!  But as you gave examples, the light bulbs began to turn on – I think you are onto something!”  This was gratifying indeed – well worth the price of admission!

Graphic courtesy of RI Nexus

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Design Thinking 2.0: Enabling Innovation with Web 2.0 – Part 3


In the first part of this series I examined the case for, and some of the key aspects of Design Thinking.   In Part 2 of this series, I distinguished between “Core” and “Edge” Capabilities and made the point that Design Thinking typically is heavy on Edge capabilities, whereas most businesses, and certainly, most corporate IT organizations are highly biased towards Core capabilities.  Now let’s drill into the Web 2.0 implications of Design Thinking.

The easiest way to do this for IT people is to think in terms of a process, the steps in that process, and how information technology might enable those steps.

Tim Brown‘s “Three Spaces of Innovation”

A good place to explore the Design Thinking process is in IDEO CEO, Tim Brown’s excellent HBR article from June 2008.  In that paper, Tim presents a model of how Design Thinking happens.  Tim’s model describes “Three Spaces of Innovation” – Inspiration, Ideation and Implementation.  What I like about this picture is that it’s not a simple linear process – it is somewhat chaotic, full of little feedback loops and more concerned with how things connect and flow that with a rigid process.

How Web 2.0 Might Enable Innovation Activities

In the figure below I have added simplistic examples of how different types of Web 2.0 capabilities might play into the major activities contained in Tim Brown’s model.  Consider this a simple illustration – there are a zillion possible variations on this theme!

Move Edge Activities to the Cloud

I believe that Cloud Computing in its various forms presents a relatively attractive way to quickly develop Edge capabilities.  Given that Design Thinking requires that we become more comfortable with experimentation, at the very least we should be experimenting with the Cloud, and Edge capabilities present an ideal case for cloud experiments.  We can keep them relatively isolated, implement them very quickly with little to no capital outlay, and everything we do in the cloud is inherently collaborative (e.g., think Google Docs, Google Wave, Mindmeister, etc.) just as just about everything we need to be doing around Design Thinking is inherently collaborative.

A More Traditional Process View

For those that prefer to take a more traditional process view, Wikipedia suggests a simple 7-Step Design Thinking process, rendered as a loop below.  Note, please don’t take this process too literally.  Design Thinking is more about ‘iterate and converge’ than the more typical IT process.  These steps are rarely going to be linear and sequential.

Collaborative Intents for Each Step

A couple of years ago, working on a multi-company research project with my colleague Tammy Erickson at nGenera, we identified 10 distinct types of ‘Collaborative Intents’ to be considered when planning any type of collaboration initiative.  For each collaborative intent, we can be quite explicit about the business outcomes to be achieved.  So, for example, in the Design Thinking step “Define” we are interested in ‘connecting ideas’ that might not typically be connected in order to amplify knowledge and identify innovation opportunities.

Web 2.0 Technologies for Each Step


We can map the types of Collaborative Intent to each step in the Design Thinking process.  In the table above, as an illustration, for each type of Collaborative Intent, I have identified the types of technology that might be useful to enable that intent, and provided some examples of actual technologies in each space.  Please note, mention or lack thereof for any specific technology does not imply any endorsement (or lack thereof!)

Does this make sense to you?  Do you have experience in applying Web 2.0 to Design Thinking?  Please weigh in – let’s generate some dialog on these ideas and their reality in practice.

Image courtesy of Red Jotter

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Design Thinking 2.0: How Web 2.0 Might Foster and Enable an Innovation Revolution


About 3 years ago I first become aware of what can best be called a ‘movement’ dedicated to “Design Thinking,” when the term started showing up in some of my favorite blogs (e.g., Idris Mootee’s Innovation Playground).  The concepts became clearer and more compelling to me in June, 2008 when the Harvard Business Review published a wonderful piece on Design Thinking by Tim Brown, CEO and President of IDEO, the world-renowned innovation and design firm).  Since then, several books as well as some remarkable shifts in company fortunes have reinforced my interest, including Tim Brown’s ‘Change by Design: How Design Thinking Transforms Organizations and Inspired Innovation‘ and ‘The Design of Business: Why Design Thinking is the Next Competitive Advantage‘ by Roger L. Martin.

Most recently I’ve been giving a lot of thought to how Web 2.0 might help foster and enable Design Thinking.  I’ve been doing this as part of a new multi-company research project I am leading.  And I’m very excited!

The Case for Design Thinking in the U.S.

The insightful Thomas L. Friedman, in a New York Times Op-Ed column on March 2, 2010 titled, “A Word From the Wise” noted comments in a speech by Paul Otellini, CEO of Intel, who was in Washington to talk about competitiveness:

that a 2009 study done by the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation and cited recently in Democracy Journal “ranked the U.S. sixth among the top 40 industrialized nations in innovative competitiveness — not great, but not bad. Yet that same study also measured what they call ‘the rate of change in innovation capacity’ over the last decade — in effect, how much countries were doing to make themselves more innovative for the future. The study relied on 16 different metrics of human capital — I.T. infrastructure, economic performance and so on. On this scale, the U.S. ranked dead last out of the same 40 nations.”

Too many companies (and the governments that shape corporate behavior through taxes and regulations) have become too comfortable with exploitation, and not sufficiently adept at exploration.  They have come to rely too much on analytical thinking, and not enough on intuition.  They have become so bogged down in their business core, they have all but ignored the edge where customer problems meet the creative process to create new products and services.

In the next few posts, I want to share what I have discovered and learned so far, and hopefully stimulate some constructive discussion and engage you, my readers, in shaping the upcoming research.

Does Your Executive Management Know What They Are Doing?

In a 1998 HBR article entitled, “Interpretive Management: What General Managers Can Learn from Design,” Richard K. Lester, Michael J. Piore, Kamal M. Malek, observed:

Today’s markets are increasingly unstable and unpredictable. Managers can never know precisely what they’re trying to achieve or how best to achieve it. They can’t even define the problem, much less engineer a solution. For guidance, they can look to the managers of product design, a function that has always been fraught with uncertainty.”

“We shape our tools, and thereafter our tools shape us.”  Marshall McLuhan

So, the big question for me is how can the tools we have shaped into Web 2.0 enable ‘Design Thinking’ to help us realize dramatically higher business performance?  It seems that we have a whole new and powerful set of capabilities – social networking, crowdsourcing, innovation jams, social and semantic search, collaborative project, program and portfolio management, polling, listening feeds and activity streams, tags, 2D and 3D modeling, prototyping, virtual worlds, workflow modeling and automation, and on and on. And yet, aside from knowing that a distant friend is having a bad hair day, most of these tools and technologies are still looking for a meaningful business purpose.

So, What Is “Design Thinking”?

There are many definitions and descriptions, but the ones I’ve found most illuminating are:

The methodology commonly referred to as design thinking is a proven and repeatable problem-solving protocol that any business or profession can employ to achieve extraordinary results.” – Mark Dziersk, Fast Compan

A discipline that uses the designer’s sensibility and methods to match people’s needs with what is technologically feasible and what a viable business strategy can convert into customer value and market opportunity.” – Tim Brown, Ideo

Design thinking is always linked to an improved future.  It is a creative process based around the ‘building up’ of ideas, rather than critical thinking which is more concerned with analysis and the ‘breaking down’ of ideas.   Design Thinking moves design from a downstream (tactical) step to upstream (strategic) – vests everyone involved with the role of ‘designer.”  At its best, Design Thinking balances art and science, intuition and analytics, validity (doing the right things) and reliability (doing things right), exploration and exploitation

Design Thinking Has Profound Organizational Implications

Design Thinking has profound implications for:

  • Organization structures
  • Rewards, recognition, compensation
  • Portfolio management and strategic alignment
  • Governance and leadership style
  • Talent management and global sourcing

I believe that it also presents a significant opportunity …

  • For IT, HR, Finance, Facilities, Legal, etc. to step forward and make a real contribution to business success
  • To re-think ‘staff /line’ roles and responsibilities
  • To learn to love matrix management!

How is Design Thinking playing out in your organization?  How have Web 2.0 capabilities helped (or hurt) these efforts?  How do you see this playing out over the next couple of years?

To be clear, Design Thinking is essentially human centered, and there is something potentially incongruous in discussing the use of Web 2.0 to enable it.  However, I still firmly believe that these collective and collaborative technologies have a role in “greasing the skids” to make Design Thinking more accessible.  I will pick this up and drill down a bit further into this realm and discuss  ideas on how Web 2.0 can play a positive role in Design Thinking.

Graphic courtesy of IDEO

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Exploring an IT Operating Model for Enterprise 2.0 – Part 4: IT Governance


In Part 1 of this series, I suggested that the implications of Enterprise 2.0 for the IT organization are dramatic.  I also suggested that the ways of designing and executing an IT Operating Model in a Web 2.0 context are quite different from traditional approaches.  In Part 2, I outlined the major elements of an IT Operating Model as being:

  • Processes – how we perform activities that deliver predictable and repeatable business results through competent people using the right tools.
  • Governance – how we make and sustain important decisions about IT.
  • Sourcing – how we select and manage the sourcing of our IT products and services.
  • Services – our portfolio of IT products and services.
  • Measurement – how we measure and monitor our performance.
  • Organization – how we structure and organize our IT capabilities.

In Part 3 we looked at how Web 2.0 approaches could transform the way IT processes are defined and managed.  I now want to look at IT governance, and the implications of Web 2.0 for this ever important aspect of IT operating models.  Due to the depth of this topic, I will discuss the facets and domains of IT governance in this post, then deal with the Web 2.0 implications in a subsequent post.

Facets of IT Governance

There are many definitions and descriptions of IT Governance, and frameworks such as COBIT that attempt to bring ‘best practices and processes’ to the domain.   The two definitions I have landed on in my years of research and consulting in this space, are:

  1. A framework of decision rights and accountabilities to encourage desired behavior to realize maximum value from information technology.
  2. Aligning IT decision-making with enterprise governance and business unit objectives through an interrelated set of processes, policies and decision-making structures with clear goals, roles and functions, sponsored by the CEO, with clear consequences for compliance or lack thereof.

I like the first definition for its simplicity, getting to the heart of both ‘decision rights’ and ‘accountabilities’ through the lens of ‘behaviors’ all focused on maximizing the value realized through IT.  This is pragmatic – you can define the types of behaviors you would like to see (e.g., business takes ownership for the business outcomes to be enabled by IT initiatives), or behaviors you are seeing but would like to eliminate (e.g., people see IT as a ‘free’ resource, and therefore use it with little or no regard as to its cost or value.)

I like the second definition in contrast for its recognition that IT governance is an extension of enterprise governance, and for its reference to ‘processes’, ‘policies’, and ‘decision-making structures.’  I also like the emphasis on CEO sponsorship and consequence management – i.e., governance with ‘teeth’.

I’ve come to view IT governance as a means to achieve balance between the competing forces of innovation versus standardization and business unit autonomy versus collaboration.  I also see IT governance as a way to manage IT investments and assets as a  resource that is shared by the enterprise.  Finally, good IT governance provides a “transmission chain” for the highest level enterprise strategy, from senior executives on down through the organization. As such, IT governance is a critical alignment mechanism.

IT Governance Domains

Peter Weill and Jeanne W. Ross, in their excellent book, IT Governance: How Top Performers Manage IT Decision Rights for Superior Results, call out five decision domains of IT governance:

  • IT Principles (strategic choices between competing perspectives.  For example, ‘We will optimize IT investments for the enterprise rather than for individual business units.’)
  • IT Architecture (“the organizing logic for data, applications, and infrastructure captured in a set of policies, relationships and technical choices.”)
  • IT Infrastructure (“Centrally coordinated, shared IT services that provide the foundation for the enterprise’s IT capability.”)
  • IT Investments and Prioritization (“How much and where to invest in IT, including project approvals and justification techniques.”)
  • Business Application Needs (“Specifying the business need for purchased or internally developed IT applications.”)

While these domains may each be handled by different processes, policies and decision-making structures, all of these domains must be covered in ways that support a coherent strategy and set of beliefs about IT.

IT Governance, In Other Words…

IT governance deals with how the business makes decisions about the deployment and delivery of IT.  When sound IT Governance is in place, senior executives not only know their organization’s IT plans and policies, they also know how they are made.  IT governance is about the specification of decision rights and responsibilities required to ensure effective and efficient use of IT.  As such, it deals with organizational power and influence, and therefore  must be approached with care!

IT Governance 2.0

The implications of Web 2.0 on IT Governance are dramatic and far reaching!  On the one hand, with ‘transparency’ a watchword of good governance, 2.0 capabilities offer several important mechanisms to bring transparency both to the design of effective IT governance processes and structures, and to their ongoing execution and management.  On the other hand, dealing with decision rights and accountabilities in the types of highly diverse, distributed and fluid information environment enabled by social networking tools can become quite complex.  We will dig deeper into the implications of Web 2.0 for IT governance in a subsequent post.

Image courtesy of The ERM Current

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

Deming’s 14 Points Revisited: Part 4


Web - Quality 1This post picks up on Parts 1, 2 and 3 and examines the third of Deming’s 14 Management Points, which urges:

Cease dependence on inspection to achieve quality. Eliminate the need for inspection on a mass basis by building quality into the product in the first place.”

This is one of the fundamental issues in quality management, with the quality movement shifting from quality control to quality assurance over the years, in part thanks to Edwards Deming and his peers during the latter part of the industrial revolution.

Testing – Value Add or Overhead?

This is a tough question I’ve had to address.  For example, I’ve facilitated IT groups where the issue of the value of testing, and how to manage it has been an important point of contention in organization and governance design.  I believe that ultimately, testing is overhead.  In that assertion, I distinguish between “inspection of final product (testing) from activities such as prototyping, modeling, running experiments – which to the contrary can be a real value add to IT discovery, solution delivery and support.  I also distinguish activities such as structured walkthrough‘s etc., which have more to do with building quality in than with inspection of final product.

Note that Deming does not suggest eliminating inspection – he urges eliminating the need for mass inspection, and “ceasing dependence” on inspection.  As such I acknowledge there’s such a thing as “necessary overhead,” but that need should be monitored and reduced over time, as built in quality improves.

The Genesis of “Design Thinking”

Today, the movement referred to as “Design  Thinking” must welcome Deming’s admonition to “build quality in!”   But I don’t see evidence of a lot of Design Thinking in most IT organizations.  It is also often lacking in vendor products.

Design Thinking and Enterprise Architecture

One key role that, as I’ve said in many posts, is woefully under-served in terms of its potential to make a real difference to return on IT investment and the whole user experience, is that of the Enterprise Architect.  A key to the junction between problem analysis and solution design, including solutions on a grand scale such as enterprise architectures, the Enterprise Architect should be a conduit to inject Design Thinking into IT products and services.  And, with a nod to Deming, “building quality into the product in the first place!”

Image courtesy of Nanophase Nanoengineering Products

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]