Jump to content


Root Admin
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Gerry last won the day on June 16

Gerry had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

344 Excellent


About Gerry

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 03/19/1966

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Recent Profile Visitors

3,593 profile views
  1. @Malcolm Can we understand a little more about what you are trying to do? If you bulk update the passwords, what will you update them too? How will your users get to know what their new passwords are? Thanks Gerry
  2. @Michael Just had a quick look at this, and just wanted to ask, what was you expecting/hoping to see here? For my own perspective, I am not sure the employee portal requires postal address information for example, this is a bit of a hangover from when the employee and customer portals were sharing one codebase. Would you see it useful to have address details in your scenario? or are you trying to show different contact details (ie. email, telephone etc) per service domain? Gerry
  3. @Michael Sharp @Martyn Houghton Changes/improvements to this are currently in the works so you should see something soon Gerry
  4. @HHH I need to check, but I am pretty sure DKIM is not yet implemented for outbound mail, I cannot really remember why that is now, I will need to look back that the history. It made it into our 90-day backlog looking at my comments above but did not make it into the platform as best I can tell. So, no, not at this time I am afraid. Gerry
  5. Hello @Shamaila Naim Thanks for the clarification, makes sense, this is exactly what we have in our backlog. I will ask questions internally and see if there are any realistic timescales associated with this. Gerry
  6. Hello Shamaila, Currently this is not possible, but it is on our backlog, we call it Prescribed Reading and its been on our backlog for quite a while. I am interested to know more about your use case for this - can I ask you to expand on it a little please? Thanks Gerry
  7. Remote Working Part 3: – Key management practices that must change In Part 2, I tabled the idea that a transition to remote working will be difficult for many organisations, because I think it’s very important to recognise and deal with the challenges instead of just focusing on the many positives of remote working, of which there are many.  I promise I will get to these as I move towards Part 6. To open, I wanted to reaffirm my belief that to have a successful transition to remote working, you will need to change your management practices, you might not want to, you might not have even given any thought to this, so my goal today is to highlight some of the things you should be thinking about. Employee experience will be a key consideration. Brand loyalty both from its customers and its employees is key to a vibrant organisation.  Developing an organisational strategy to support fluid remote working is more vital than ever.    Employee Business Value Like all things that involve money, there must be a fair “value” exchange, that is the essence of commerce and I think we all intuitively understand that.  So just for a second, I would like you to think about yourself as an employee and ask yourself this question – ’How is the value I bring to the table measured and evaluated against my salary? As an employee, it is incredibly important to understand this. The world of information workers has very much moved on from presenteeism and task-based performance measurements.  It is of course different for each job role, and each company is different too, but in my own experience much of this “value judgement” is still being made on the basis of you being in the role and being part of the team and often not on a task-by-task, or individual contribution basis. From corporate perspective, its people are the company’s largest single, and ongoing investment. The roles required are defined by operational need and managers are given and/or request “head count” which then leads to recruitment and hiring to “fill the position”. This is a very traditional approach, and we all know this story, but how do you think the organisation makes value judgements about the return on their investment? In truth, it’s challenging at the organisational level to make judgements about individual contribution. In most cases, the workforce has to be looked at as a whole; the performance of the company, department, team or unit is typically measured by looking at metrics like the bottom line, utilisation, and revenue contribution per employee.   If the finances work, then most companies, and the management teams, do not have to make individual employee value judgements, but instead rely on this overall performance as a leading indicator of return on human capital investment. When performance is poor, it’s no surprise therefore that companies often turn to the cost of its employees. Managers generally adopt traditional schemes for staff management, things like objective setting, regular review meetings, performance checkpoints, 360 discussions and so on. When done well, these schemes tie into the company’s mission and value statements, but rarely do these directly tie back to outcome-based value judgements against the cost of that employee or team. Let’s consider a use case scenario. As a manager you are given the task to get your IT team certified for an ISO standard, and your organisation will undoubtedly ask you to “find out how much this will cost”. To do this, you may need to use a consultant with relevant experience - let’s call her Jane. Jane will provide a quote, say 10 days at £600/day, which you feed back to your organisation, and it is approved. Jane delivers the agreed days, helping you set things up, go through the audit, and so on, until the job is done. Now think about what has happened.  You have determined that you need a temporary employee (Jane) for 10 days to help you get the ISO cert.  You have told your organisation it will cost them £6k, and on the back of that, the organisation has made an “investment decision” in which it feels £6k in exchange for an ISO cert is a fair exchange of value.  This is a typical business approach, and in this context, it is easy to understand how we measure the value that was delivered by our temporary employee Jane. We have a well-defined objective, we have “bought the outcome” and anyone in business will find this intuitive. So, as a manager, the big question you have to ask yourself is this - Why do I not measure my individual employed contributors in the same way? Why does my organisation not expect me to do the same as I have done with Jane? Interesting questions right… People who were traditionally not allowed to work from home will be asking their employers “why can I not work from home now? We know its possible because we have been doing it without any issue”. It will be tough for most organisations to answer this truthfully and say “it’s because we do not have the right management practices in place to facilitate this”.  Remote working will become more common, in fact current predictions from Gartner estimate a six-fold increase, from 5% to 30% of information workers will be permanently remote post COVID-19 lockdown. There will be flexible arrangements between employers and employees, yet employees cannot be measured by traditional value judgements, like “she is in the office” or “he always works the extra time to get the job done” etc. Instead, people will need to be more measured according to outcomes, and this presents management with new challenges. Of course, there is a spectrum here. At one end of the scale is the “part of the furniture” employee in specialised knowledge, or leadership roles. At the other end of the scale is the gig economy where employees are paid for outcomes on a job-by-job basis, like short term contractors such as Jane I mentioned before. Traditional management practices will need to evolve to use value-outcome based measurements of individual and team contributions. Alongside that, an organisation will need to formally recognise both levels of trust and of seniority, as well as the nature of the work being done, even on a role by role basis. These things will need to be more formal and rely less on management intuition.    People and Presence When you think about what makes “a company” you invariably think about its people, and there is no doubt that they can make or break a company.  When prospective customers, investors, potential partners or existing customers come to visit, make no mistake, they are coming to “get a feeling about your people” which by association establishes trust with your company.  If all your people are remote, and you do not have a central location, how can this be managed? Taking it one step further - What about prospective new employees? Typically, they will come along for an interview, and will make judgements about your office, if it looks tired, and shoddy with little activity. If the office is modern, and vibrant with people buzzing around, that leaves quite a different impression. Much as the interview process is about checking employee suitability, it is also about the candidate checking you out.  If you are proud of the working environment, part of the interview process is likely to be “let me show you around”, because you are selling to them, and showing them where they *could* be working.  This is all standard stuff that we do intuitively – but what happens when there is no office? If everyone is home working, there are no cool social facilities, and no people buzzing around – what then? When a new employee joins, how do they “sit alongside someone who takes them under their wing” to train and mentor them? How do they meet other members of the team who they do not work directly with when there are no coffee machine conversations. How does a new employee work towards “fitting in”, and “gelling with the team” etc? These are all very real problems which in my own view, if not addressed would easily cause an unprepared remote team to rapidly decline. The last thing you want is a collection of autonomous individuals where there is no “team” and just a bunch of “I’s”. And what about that “investment” the company is continually making in their people? When teams are no longer visible, and people are out of sight, autonomous, individual contributors, how does a business look at its workforce and make a judgement about the “value” of their people? Leaders can’t just walk around the office to observe the value being delivered In reality, “teams” deliver greater overall business value than just the sum total of individual value contributions. Even the best people have their off days, and that’s where a great team comes into play. A great team irons out those bumps and can still deliver great team performance. Organisations can make much better judgements about how a team delivers value than how any individual does.  I have often heard statements like “you have a great support team” – an easy value judgement to make when a team delivers specific value to a business, in that case it might be based on SLA’s and customer satisfaction for example. The bottom line is this - for remote working to be successful, your long-term strategy must ensure that your teams remain connected, strong and supportive. Without a clear HR strategy to support this, your teams may dissolve into just a collection of autonymous self-directed individuals.   Team Interaction & Trust Trust is the cornerstone of any team.  Great teams build trust over time by working together.  In a physical office environment, much of this trust building happens organically. People are social creatures and they interact naturally, without encouragement, and trust gets built as a consequence, without much management effort. The office environment helps drive this, in simple ways that we take for granted. Coffee-machine/kitchen conversations Visibility (people are present) Accessibility (you can ask people for help) Social activities (lunch, the pub after work, or exercising with your colleagues) Face to face meetings Chance conversations, inspired innovations, and so on. These interactions allow you to get to know people, understand their personality, knowledge, interests, and unique characteristics, all of which, builds trust.  It is relatively easy when people are in the same physical location. Remote workers opt out of this, and as a consequence, most feel the need to come into the office once or twice a week in order to interact with their colleagues and be a team player. From a company standpoint - does it make sense to commit office space to facilitate this need for remote workers to physically interact with their colleagues?  And if you facilitate part-time interactions in this way, you may well be doing just enough to avoid doing anything to properly facilitate a remote team working culture. How much hot-desking space do you need to reserve to fulfil that need for office interaction? And even if you did reserve space, what about overseas employyes? From a long term cost perspective, it may be an unreasonable expectation, as the transition to a remote working model must invariably factor in the reallocation of office space. That could mean down-sizing, reallocating space to other functions, or could mean removing the need to upscale office space as the company grows in the future. As more formal policies are adopted, remote workers will most likely lose the right to allocated and dedicated office space.   Employee Visibility In an office environment, it is easy to know “who is at work” because you can physically see them. Door entry systems track staff entry and exit, and having travelled to the office, employees are exclusively “at work” for the day.  None of this works when the office is taken away. Team members are less visible, there are less opportunities to track when people arrive or leave the office, how long they spend at lunch etc. Remote workers must therefore be trusted to a higher degree than their office-based peers. Teams are more effective than the sum total of their individual contributors, because they work together. Team members collaborate, share ideas, inspire and motivate each other. Much of this happens organically through interactions, contribution to shared goals, and fair distribution of workload, and praise for a job well done. Managers do not need to force cohesion, as bonding happens naturally over time. So, what happens when there is no office? How do you know who is “at work”, or whether it’s “ok” to interrupt someone to ask for help. If all interaction is done virtually, how can you gel with your teammates, other teams, and with the organisation itself? In the absence of an office, and physical so interaction, a different approach is needed.  I believe it will become incumbent on employees to make their presence known. People will need to declare their “at work” status and their “availability” and will need to work in a transparent manner, which highlights individual and team contribution, and individuals will be responsible for ensuring the value they deliver is visible across the organisation, that will no longer be something that will just happen on its own.  As the new normal unfolds, organisations will become less reliant on traditional middle-management functions to assess team performance and value. Organizations will expect digital ways of working from every member of the workforce, which means working out loud, sharing plans and experiences, with full scale collaboration to connect silos. In Part 4, I will set out some practical approaches to tools, systems and metrics that could help with some of the above. As ever, please feel free to comment below and let me know what you think…
  8. @Michael Sharp I thought you would have more faith in us than that Yes its built in, the problem is, there was a problem with the build and the order in which things were done got out of step, its not a usual problem but after investigation we found the issue and solved it, the fastest workaround was a cache reload sadly. Gerry
  9. @Michael Sharp Ok thanks, I am afraid pulling the release would not solve the issue, it was a dirty cache issue that needed a cache flush, the most effective resolution was a cache reset on each affected instance. Sorry for any inconvenience caused. Gerry
  10. @Michael Sharp Just checking, so things are working? or is there still an issue? Gerry
  11. Remote Working Part 2: – The “New Normal” is unlikely to happen for most organizations! In Part 1, I introduced the idea that Remote Working seems simple, and this could be the new normal for many organisations who have workforce made up of knowledge workers.  When the lockdown for COVID-19 kicked in, all businesses had to adapt and quickly. There was no time to plan, it just had to happen. Of course, for some businesses this was catastrophic because it meant an immediate end to trading.  For other companies, like Hornbill, we are fortunate that our workforce, with the aid of a computer and internet access, are able to work from home almost as effectively as being in the office. Our story is one mostly of a “non-event”, the government announced that people should work from home, we instructed our workforce and that was that. Pretty much everything we use is either in the cloud or already accessible via VPN and people in the company largely already had the ability to “work from home”, so when the instruction was given, it just happened. Immediately, there was a general feeling of success, we did it, we done the thing we never planned to do, everyone was working from home, and I think like many other companies we probably gained an instant belief that working from home could easily be the new normal.  At that point, it is very easy to focus on the benefits, the potential cost savings, the improved life/work balance, the removal of commute times and the congestion and forced social proximity on crowded transport systems.  Where is the downside? When I really started to think about what remote working means, it became apparent to me that its possibly not as simple as the initial outcome might suggest. I created The Reality Curve above to try and map out some of the key points that I considered, and how these fit into the phases of a transition to a remote working model, and that’s the key point, it is a business transition. There should be no surprise that there is a big dip in optimism levels once the initial transition has happened, if you choose to ignore this I am sure it will lead to a lot of issues later on. The fundamental problems are organisational, and the dependency on traditional management practices, as well as employee expectations are very problematic.  Traditional management practices centre around a “place of work”, everything from the Employee Handbook to employee value assessments are based around very traditional approaches, rooted in the command-and-control structures established in the the early years of the industrial revolution.  As a business, when we employ someone, the is making an investment, and through various means, the business measures value back for that investment over time. The reason why I make this specific point, is people are an “ongoing” investment, the biggest single investment almost all businesses make. Its important to always measure the return on any investment, and because these investments are ongoing we need to look very carefully at exactly how we measure this people capital ROI. For some roles it is easy to measure, for example, salespeople, who are typically targeted on revenue from deals they work and close, and this is measured quite stringently. It is remarkably easy to make judgements about the ROI for this type of role, it is also remarkable simple (by comparison to other roles) to set required performance levels. For many other roles though, that’s not the case, often people are measured by other, softer, more human measures. Like “Bill is always on the case when there is a problem” or “Jane always does a great job organising events” and so on.  It is these softer roles where the office base is the cornerstone to this measurement, people “in the office” are present, visible and its obvious to other people who gets involved and who does not, great subliminal input for a manager who is responsible for those people. One of the first indications that someone is not pulling their weight is often when they turn up late/go home early, its visible to their manager, their team mates and other people in the company. Aside from presence, an office environment creates a “vibe”, and from that vibe, culture is built.  Team culture is terribly important in all businesses, the right culture is critical component to what makes a company succeed. I like to think of culture as a “community of people aiming for the same goal”, and in that community, the most important thing that happens is, people build trust between each other.  People make continual ongoing assessments about who are the contributors and even, who is being carried, this happens by observation and day-to-day interactions. Just like in social situations, the more interactions and observations, the more trust that’s built (or not), so interactions play an incredibly important role in building a company culture and for a business like Hornbill, the stage for these interactions and that visibility is of course in the office. When team Hornbill went home on March 23rd, we left the office, but that culture, that established trust and those relationships were already forged, and that is the key reason why the transition to home-working was so easy to achieve. It was not the technology, or our organisational structure or our collaboration and business tools all in the cloud, those things helped of course, but it was really the trust and relationships within the established team that made it work. The real problems I believe start forward of this initial success. When onboarding new team members, traditionally, we have an office base, and this is the cornerstone to our onboarding process – everything we do is geared up in this way, new members are trained “on the job”, they get to sit with, observe and work with their co-workers, and managers rely really heavily on this “learn on the job” approach to get people settled in, up to speed, and productive. While they are learning, they also start forging relationships and building trust. Like many cloud companies, we have remote teams and workers in our domestic market (UK) as well as internationally (in our case North America, Australia and Europe) but most of these people, when first employed, worked out of our main offices, we have not so far had the need to recruit people who are remote workers from day one. So I started to think about what it would be like if we did not have an office base at all, and the majority of our workforce were remote working, if we were hiring people who were all remote workers from day one, in any geography, how would this work? That’s where it becomes apparent to me that the way we currently do it will simply not work. In fact, I expect that hiring would become far more difficult and more risky, with a higher likelihood of failure, and this creates a problem as we try to scale, or even replace people who we might just lose through natural attrition. It is a compelling question for me as despite wider market maelstroms, we are winning business, we are growing and we are actively hiring even in the midst of the COVID-19 lockdown. The lack of an office would also mean less face-to-face interactions, less observations and so what happens to that trust that was once built through these interactions, how long before it dissipates and how do new employees “learn on the job” and get the opportunity to build relationships and join that same circle of trust. All these issues start to paint a very different picture, I have listed a whole bunch of things along the downslope of The Reality Curve infographic headlining this article. When you consider all these points, you have to conclude that there is a large amount of organisational change to do if you are going to be successful at transitioning from an office base to a remote working model.  I would propose its likely the effort and buy-in required from all levels of the organisation, and the difficulties that will need to be overcome, might just be large enough to leave you wanting to just get back to “the old normal” as quickly as possible, something I expect will be the reality for many organisations asking themselves these same questions. If you’re brave, and forward-looking, you might see this as an opportunity for organisational change and go for it. If you want to make this change, it’s also worth noting that this is a time-limited opportunity, the threat of COVID-19 second spike, or future coronaviruses are compelling time-bound events, but most importantly, as of today, you do have a team who have pre-existing relationships and trust already established, they probably do have the motivation to make home-working work for them which is on your side. You will need their commitment to forge a new culture, a new operating model and new ways of working, if your people are willing to make the change, and adopt a whole new way of working, then I believe you have the opportunity of a lifetime to transform your organisation and gain many benefits that such a transition to remote working could bring. For me at Hornbill, I am still undecided to be honest, much of the decision really depends on how the team at Hornbill ultimately feel about the changes that would be required to make it work. In the next article I am going to get into some detail behind the key organisational and management practices that I believe will have to change for Hornbill, and what those changes might look like. As ever, please feel free to comment below and let me know what you think…
  12. Remote Working Part 1: Is working from home really this simple? On March 23rd 2020, I put out a general company communication that *all* staff should work from home with immediate effect, and until further notice – a communication I never envisaged I would ever put out at Hornbill. Of course, I was not alone; everyone experienced a near-instantaneous overnight shift in the way the world had to be because COVID-19 had arrived. As soon as the dust settled though, my thoughts immediately turned from the practicality of ensuring the company was operational to - what must I think about now everyone is at home, and the office facilities are closed. For Hornbill, the transition was both seamless and near-instantaneous, this was because of several things we had already done as a business, but I won’t cover this in any more detail for now. Still, to say, Hornbill did have a very positive first day with no lost productivity and full business continuity, a great outcome, and a testament to the fantastic team at Hornbill. What I want to write about is what the New Normal might actually look like, mainly because over the last eight weeks, I have spent a lot of time thinking about exactly that and having thought through what this would mean to my organization. I believe some issues will surface over time that people are not thinking about today, and I expect these issues will be common to most organizations. I would hope that eight weeks of thinking about this has culminated in something more than a single 750-word blog article, so I am going to make this a short blog series and talk about some of the specifics I have to think about and highlight elements which I expect would be relevant in your own journey. Part 1: Is working from home really this simple? (this article) Part 2: The “New Normal” is unlikely to happen for most organizations! Part 3: Key management practices that will have to change Part 4: Employee Business Value Metrics Part 5: The role of IT in this New Normal Part 6: The opportunity for business transformation I am going to wrap this introduction up by saying this blog series is really just my thoughts, and I am learning along with 99% of the office-based business population. I am sharing my thoughts in the hope that this might be useful to other people thinking about this New Normal and how it might apply to them. Is working from home really that simple? On the 23rd March, the government ramped up a national lockdown, essentially stalling the movement and gathering of citizens in all public places, shut down the transport systems, bars, restaurants, shops, and anything else that was likely to encourage people to come out of their homes. It was an unprecedented move that left businesses shell-shocked and in a world of fear and uncertainty. Within just a few short days, some companies that could have people working from home switched quickly, while for others, it was a total shutdown. The first thing I would suggest you need to do is to recognize the “type” of business your organization is. You especially need to understand the nature of the work your people do and group them into information workers and others. It should be self-evident that if you are a high street store worker, a health worker, factory worker, etc., these jobs are impossible to do from home, you need to be in your place of work, and for these people, and business who depend on these people to operate, the change was clearly dramatic and impactful. However, if your employees spend the majority of their time at a desk with a phone and a computer; and attend face-to-face meetings with internal or external people, then you likely had a very speedy and successful transition to homeworking. Hornbill is a software company, and for us, 100% of our staff fall into this category, so our change to homeworking and a total shutdown of our physical locations was instantaneous and happened overnight. Productivity continued at previous levels, and we showed no material disruption to our day-to-day work or productivity. We are very fortunate as all of the major industry analysts have highlighted our technology stack with cloud automation, service management and collaboration as the key digital technologies which organisations must invest in support their own journey from resilience to recovery. It is critically important that you consider the type of work your people do, it’s not just a simple case of can we work at home or not, each business will be unique and will have individual needs. If your business is the type of company that could in theory transition, then I believe you may have the opportunity of a lifetime to transform your business. Soon after the transition occurred, I started to think about what had just happened and what the business looks like now. It will be of little surprise that one of the very first questions I asked myself was, hmm, could we work like this permanently, and what might that New Normal look like?  From a financial perspective alone, this was an intriguing thought I have to admit. There is a significant cost associated with operating physical premises; a company like Hornbill could easily add a substantial six-figure sum to its bottom line, all other things being equal – and that itself is quite a motivating thought! There are other considerations too. If we insist people must travel into work every day to sit in front of a computer and phone; we are contributing to the global carbon footprint, congestion chaos, forcing people to be in unnecessarily close proximity to other people in confined spaces twice daily. Commuting can easily remove 2-3 hours a day to a persons working day, lowering their overall quality of life too.   There is a lot to like about the idea of changing the business model, it is a real and very justifiable opportunity for some organizational engineering, and a chance to pioneer and innovate new ways of working. The ease at which we (Hornbill) transitioned into a homeworking team, which I hailed (to myself) as a great success, was notable, but actually, is likely giving my team a false sense of possibility. There are some very real issues that if ignored, the company will likely suffer in the long term, because a workable strategy would require very different behaviours from our people, our management, and our leadership. In Part 2, I will document some of the pitfalls I can foresee, and why I am concerned that one of the biggest business transformation opportunities we will see in our lifetime will likely wither away as most organizations' “New Normal” will very quickly turn into getting back to the “Old Normal” as swiftly as possible. Please subscribe to our blog if you like this content, and look out for Part 2. I would love to hear your  comments…
  13. @Shamaila Naim Thanks for the question. It is technically possible to use auto-responder to do this, but we have found after many 100's of installations that most people then turn this off again, here are a few reasons why that you should consider. * When we log a ticket via email, depending on the email message, its source server type and originating company policy with things like disclaimers, its next to impossible to know what content is relevant and what content is noise, take for example a footer with a logo in it, we cannot tell of the logo is a footer component or a purposeful image attachment that is relevant to the request being made. The net result, tickets are logged with a lot of noise, which the agents will also find a real chore to pick through each time they have to look at the ticket. * Typically we will use the presence of a recognisable request reference that is tied to that user who's email is received from, then we can post that as an update to the ticket rather than log a new one. The problem here is the same though as the point above, by the time the customer has replied four of five times, the call timeline ends up full of noise, again its not technically possible to extract just the relevant information, and exclude the duplicated content. Experience has shown that the relatively small amount of time it takes to do the initial log/update from the email, where you can make intelligent decisions about what and what is not relevant content is far better than havign everyone thereafter having to pick out and understand the noisy content. If you automate this, which you can, then I believe overall you will need more time spent through the life of the ticket. I would suggest you should seriously consider asking the question "why are there so many email requests in the first place"? Is this something that, given our concerns over wasted time you could tackle by say, getting your end users to use Self-service instead of email? Thats the route most customers take because ultimately, its a better experience for the end users and its a better experience for the support team. Interested to know your thoughts. Gerry
  14. @chriscorcoran I hope I am just stating the obvious but if there is only one outflow from a decision, either no decision is being made OR the workflow will simply break when it meets a condition not handled. We are tightening up the design rules in the BPM to help protect customers from themselves It seems that some people where using single output decision nodes as a way of routing the flow to help tidy up the flow diagrams, for that we have now added a new "Via" node, this does nothing, apart from routes the flow. In your case it seems if the outcome of the decision was not "Priority" your BPM would break, so as @Victor rightly says, you can simply remove it and join the proceeding and following nodes. Gerry
  15. @Jeremy Yes that does make sense. So the tasks route does make sense for this I think, but we would still need to deal with the data collected and get it into a reportable form from what you are saying, I think we have enough to at least look at what we might be able to do, but I would suggest this is definitely an asset manager application requirement. @James Ainsworth can you add this to the list of requirements to look at and consider for inclusion. Gerry
  • Create New...