Transcript
Page 1: Discussion paper Innovation

10

Page 2: Discussion paper Innovation

Institutionalizing innovation Discussion Paper, Brian Lund, March 2015 Page 2

1 Preamble Arguably Oxfam’s raison d'être is to facilitate change. Very often it means changes based on ideas and initiatives in circumstances that we are already familiar with, however this is far from the extent of our work. It would be unreasonable to suggest that all the answers to poverty and injustice are known and the job at hand is simply to roll them out. On the contrary, Oxfam would argue that it is essential to engage in new ideas, new applications and new circumstances. This is why, as a global organization we specifically invest in innovation1. But necessarily, our interest as a global organization must extend beyond simply surfacing innovations to include adaptation and replicability, then incubation in readiness for scale and impact. Add to this, some argue that we should not only be emphasizing innovation but moreso ‘continuous’ innovation for without this investment we risk lapsing into reliance on ‘traditional’ work organization that is very often designed to foster standardization and actively discouraging innovation2. All of this underpins the requirement for Oxfam to direct attention to institutionalizing innovation by taking actions that at a minimum include common language and common processes, with the potential to reach to shared responsibilities and accountabilities in investments. This paper is intended to present a framework for discussion then a series of recommendations that would assist Oxfam in building the means to toward enable the discipline needed to institutionalize innovation.

2 Toward institutionalizing innovation An organization as diverse and networked as Oxfam is certainly fertile ground for surfacing innovation. For those privileged to have seen Oxfam’s work first hand it is clear that there are many innovations at hand and many more in the making – “here is space for a thousand flowers to bloom”3. But it is also clear that most innovations struggle to reach their potential for want of focus and resourcing. To draw a parallel; the vast majority of would-be great small businesses fail. Not because they weren’t base on good ideas but for reasons of insufficient or inappropriate business development4. This paper seeks to move beyond the general discussion on innovation to address some of the actions that Oxfam might take in order to institutionalize innovation. It seeks to 1) unpack the key elements and requirements of the innovation lifecycle from surfacing to succeeding, 2) to discuss some actions that Oxfam could consider in order to institutionalize innovation and 3) serve as a continuation in the discussion in Oxfam that is “building’, as Whitehead suggests, “upon Oxfam’s track record of 70 years of social innovation5”. Very often individuals like Muhammad Yunus or organizations like Kiva are cited as examples of how to advance innovation but in these types of examples I would argue that the organization typically grows around a singular innovation. These organizations were effectively borne of the innovation with organizational diversity emerging at later stages. Conversely, one of Oxfam’s strengths is the diversity already across the confederation. However this same strength can present a challenge to attempts at a focus on innovation, scale and impact6. Consequently, for Oxfam, fostering innovation warrants different approaches7 in which Oxfam needs to be able to 1) champion multiple innovations at various levels of maturity while 2) recruiting external and internal supporters.

                                                                                                                                       

1  Include  reference  to  Kimberly’s  definition  of  innovation  prepared  for  Rockefeller  Foundation  2  Stace,  D  &  Dunphy  D,  (2001)  Beyond  the  Boundaries,  2nd  Edition  ISBN  007470841  3  Eijkemans,  C.  (2015)    Country  Director  Oxfam  in  Cambodia  pers.  comm  4  Australian  Business  Council  5  James  Whitehead,  Social  Innovation  –  Food  for  thought  for  PLT  6  Goldberg,  S  makes  the  same  argument  but  in  terms  of  a  multiplicity  of  small  organizations  in  “Billions  of  Drops  in  Millions  of  Buckets”  (2009)  ISBN  9780470454671  7  Oxfam  is  not  unique  in  this  regard.  Could  build  out  discussion  to  include  innovation  in  Kodak,  Nisan,  DFAT  (aust),  Rockefeller  Think  Tanks,  Harvard  Labs,  Adelaide  University’s  Systems  Approach,  others?  

Page 3: Discussion paper Innovation

Institutionalizing innovation Discussion Paper, Brian Lund, March 2015 Page 3

2.1 Championing multiple innovations at various levels of maturity

Using the model of the innovation life-cycle8 as a platform for mapping out an illustrative selection of innovations supported by the Oxfam9 it is possible to make some general observations about innovation in Oxfam; 1_ The majority of innovations have emerged from within the single affiliate. While this can simplify management during the early stages, it tends toward the perception of single-affiliate ownership often making it harder to solicit wider support from across the confederation at later stages. That said there are good examples of ideas being developed in collaboration with other affiliates. This sample includes; a) OUS, ONL, OGB being at the early stages of collectively preparing to test Social Impact Bonds10 b) The DEVATAR Initiative is managed by OUS with incubation funding via OGB11. 2_ The mapping suggests we are able to maintain quite a strong pipeline of ideas aligned with Oxfam strategies. In terms of the innovation life-cycle the strongest concentration is in developing and testing innovative ideas – possibly where unrestricted fund allocations where sufficient. The pipeline appears less populated when moving to scale where combinations of unrestricted funding plus restricted funding and coordination with other collaborators is necessary. Arguably this reflects the difficulty of recruiting and resourcing for scale. Diagram mapping the portfolio of innovations recognized in East Asia12

                                                                                                                                       

8  Find  correct  reference.  Note  that  the  model  should  not  be  interpreted  as  presuming  that  the  innovation  lifecycle  follows  a  singular  pathway.    9I  have  had  to  use  the  portfolio  of  OUS  East  Asia  Office  (EARO),  simply  because  that  is  the  work  with  which  I  am  most  familiar.  Ideally  this  discussion  should  include  much  more  of  the  cool  work  that  has  emerged  through  the  efforts  of  other  affiliates.  10  Discussion  paper;  Position  Oxfam  to  champion  Social  Impact  Bonds  11  The  DEVATAR  Initiative  –  an  outline  12  The  mapping  shows  all  current  innovation  but  only  some  are  discussed  in  this  paper.  For  details  of  other  innovations  please  contact  the  office  directly.  

Page 4: Discussion paper Innovation

Institutionalizing innovation Discussion Paper, Brian Lund, March 2015 Page 4

The same platform can then be expanded to map specific innovations. SRI and SfC are illustrated here. 2.1.1 The System of Rice Intensification (SRI) Originating as a package of (pre-existing) good husbandry practices applied specifically to the hand-planted rice crop. Arguably one of the most significant bottom-up innovations seen in rice growing and also a strong foundation for engagement on development agendas including; smallholder extension; smallholder economies; women in agriculture; agricultural policy; climate change adaptation; etc. 2.1.1.1 Mapping the progress of SRI as an innovation The blue boxes offer some insight into Oxfam’s experience with respect to particular points in the lifecycle. The pink boxes in the diagram indicate some of the ‘complimentary’ innovations that have emerged in this lifecycle. While they make good sense when associated with SRI, they can also be mapped separately and/or in association with other innovations. For example, the Rice Dragon and Contracting innovations would be equally recognizable as innovations in BoP market development

2.1.1.2 Oxfam’s experience in summary SRI was already emerging as an innovation in smallholder agriculture when Oxfam first engaged. Oxfam began supporting local partners in developing and testing the application of SRI in local contexts before working with partners to design and deliver a scaled-up in Cambodia and Vietnam. a) In terms of internal audiences, OUS wasn’t very successful in recruiting support from other affiliates being

most often thwarted by 1) the tendency of Oxfam staff outside the SRI program to accept the message of nay-sayers and subsequently discount the worth of SRI13. So that no common understanding or interest in investment has been established. 2) an inability to develop joint resources and sometimes 3) an inability to reconcile program strategies, on this point OUS was unable to convey SRI as more than a

                                                                                                                                       

13  SRI  exhibits  the  characteristics  of  a  disruptive  innovation.  It  challenges  norms  –  in  this  instance  input-­‐based  agricultural  systems  –  and  so  must  be  expected  to  attract  challengers.    

Page 5: Discussion paper Innovation

Institutionalizing innovation Discussion Paper, Brian Lund, March 2015 Page 5

technical package or that its true value was in changing systems pertaining to the related development agendas and, 3)

b) In terms of external audiences OUS was successful in recruiting UNDP support. The SRI program ultimately acknowledged by the UN as being in the top three most scalable programs in Cambodia - but joint resource development was unsuccessful and the partnership stalled. In Vietnam, OUS was particularly successful in recruiting government authorities as implementers, direct investors and advocates.

c) Notably, outside of Oxfam, one of the most successful efforts to maintain the momentum of this innovation has been the Cornell University SRI website14 that is actively supported by faculty team actively soliciting and disseminating information.

2.1.2 Saving for Change (SfC) Is an Oxfam-branded version of the savings –led microfinance products that has been refined via formal and informal collaboration of several International NGOs. Underpinned by an exceptional evidence base it addresses the issues of access to finance and particularly women’s empowerment. Increasingly it’s versatility has allowed it to be used as a platform for an increasing range of development interventions of importance to Oxfam. 2.1.2.1 Mapping the progress of SfC as an innovation Again, the blue boxes offer some insight into Oxfam’s experience with respect to particular points in the lifecycle.

                                                                                                                                       

14  http://sri.cals.cornell.edu/    

SRI  farmer  in  Takeo  uses  Rice  Dragon/Niek  Srei  to  remove  weeds  from  her  rice  field.

Page 6: Discussion paper Innovation

Institutionalizing innovation Discussion Paper, Brian Lund, March 2015 Page 6

The pink boxes in the diagram indicate some of the ‘complimentary’ innovations that have emerged in this lifecycle. The majority shown here pertaining to new and targeted markets or new applications of SfC as a platform for other development initiatives.

2.1.2.2 Oxfam’s experience in summary The circumstance of SfC is somewhat different given that it is a member of a specific family of innovative microfinance products called Savings-led Microfinance15. Other agencies have been championing the same innovation around the globe, most notably, CARE International, PACT, CRS and AHA so that globally participation of the poor is in excess of 8 million. a) In terms of internal audiences, Oxfam US has managed to program SfC in 5 of the 16 countries but only a

few times in alliance with other affiliates. Easily one of the most significant barriers to adoption has been OA’s inability to convey to other affiliates 1) what savings-Led microfinance actually is – the tendency is to presume it is the same as other older and sometimes ineffectual services that Oxfamers have encountered in the past. 2) the potential of the program to provide a platform for virtually any other development agenda dependent on women’s empowerment.

b) In terms of external audiences, in Cambodia, aside from the 20+ NGOs that have been trained in SfC services, Oxfam worked with CARE, PACT, CRS formed an informal alliance to advance savings-led microfinance. The alliance was able to pursue research and advocacy on indebtedness16 that continues to fuel national debate and to convince USAID of the merits of SfC such that the USAID mission is currently the biggest investor in SfC in Cambodia

Several other innovations from the mapping that warrant detailed descriptions;

2.1.3 Learning about Living Increases access to information and services on SHHR and gender amongst adolescent youth. Started in Nigeria in 2007, successfully replicated in Senegal, Morocco, Mali, Egypt, Cambodia and soon-to-be Myanmar. It would reach to phase 6 if mapped.

                                                                                                                                       

15  Reference  the  profile  document  16  Drowning  in  Debt  

Page 7: Discussion paper Innovation

Institutionalizing innovation Discussion Paper, Brian Lund, March 2015 Page 7

2.1.4 Gender Action Learning Systems / Gender Road Map (GRM) Developed in Africa by ONL as a tool to mainstream gender at household and community level. Especially effective in combination with livelihood development. Applied in Cambodia by OQC leading to a guide book for the local context that is now used by 13 OUS and ONL partners amongst their target audiences. This would reachto phase 5 in mapping

2.1.5 Pink Phones The Pink Phone is another innovation that warrants mapping. It displays some unique characteristics given that sine it was proven digital phone technology and affordability has changed remarkably. This may reach to phase 4 if mapped.

2.1.6 Ask your MP An interesting concept developed by One-Worls UK and COMFREL (Cambodian LNGO) in 2013 as an IT platform where young people can ask questions by email, SMS and Facebook to elected MPs to raise concerns and keep them accountable to election promises. It is still to be proven outright but the it is extremely timely given the role of youth in the changing political context of Cambodia. This would be mapped as reaching phase 3.

2.2 Recruiting external and internal audiences. Given that Oxfam is a confederation and the country and regional offices have an increasing capacity for self-determination, where some other organization, might respond to a directive in relation to an innovation (eg a new product graduates from the R&D Department and becomes the responsibility of the Marketing Department), response in Oxfams is reliant of recruiting internal support in much the same way as recruiting external support. Here Rogers Adoption Curve17 serves as a useful model for discussing some pertinent characteristics of adoption i.e. recruitment. 2.2.1.1 Rogers Adoption Curve

Using Rogers Adoption Curve is a long standing representation of how populations adapt to change. While the percentages shown in the graph generally hold true regardless of the circumstance it should be expected that as Oxfam is an organization focused on change, the curve should be skewed to the left with a higher proportion of innovators, early adopters and early majority. 2.2.1.2 Combining the models - Rogers Adoption

Curve and the Innovation lifecycle Using Roger’s Curve as a platform for this discussion it is possible to overlay the innovation life-cycle. Applying the logic of the two models arguably it is possible to describe some of the features of the individual or institutional units operating in each space. Innovators are more commonly associated with seeing challenges ①and generating ideas②. They require some access to discretionary resource so that they can take risks. They are particularly valuable in that they are generally able

                                                                                                                                       

17  "Diffusion  of  ideas"  by  Rogers  Everett  -­‐  Based  on  Rogers,  E.  (1962)  Diffusion  of  innovations.  Free  Press,  London,  NY,  USA.  

 

Page 8: Discussion paper Innovation

Institutionalizing innovation Discussion Paper, Brian Lund, March 2015 Page 8

to process failure and bounce back. – insert as example; the Rice Dragon. Early adopters are also recognized as being prepared to take risks, but they focus more on systematic testing and development of ideas – insert as example; Oxfam and SRI.③④. The early majority is much more responsive to evidence and can be encouraged to take up implementation when they can clearly see an innovation fitting their business objectives – insert as example; UNDP on SRI ⑤ The late majority⑥ is much more conservative with risk, only being prepared to take on change when it is entire known. They make up a substantial portion of the population so warrant attention if change is to be realized ⑦. As a progression, they each warrant a different support strategy in order to progress but for the purpose of simplicity they can be rendered down to three key phases. 2.2.1.3 Applying strategies to the combined model The phases allow a simplified grouping of the strategies that Oxfam could apply in order to instil an institutional approach to encouraging innovation

The Phase 1 focuses on supporting staff and offices interested in innovation and early adoption that would provide a pipeline of innovations. From Oxfam’s perspective this pipeline should draw from our diversity, seek to identify ‘winners’ with potential for focus, scale and impact. During Phase 1 innovations should undergo a filter process and decision point to determine continuation or otherwise. Criteria for the filter would include Phase 1 outcomes plus consideration of Phase 2 and Phase 3 prospects. This would set Oxfam on a course to overcome the diffuse investment that Goldberg describes as the $10million then $100million dollar problem18. The Phase 2 begins when Oxfam is able to assign resources and begin developing external resources. The innovation should be subject to a second filter and

decision point before continuation. This would be equivalent to an Oxfam endorsement for moving to scale. The Phase 3 begins when combinations of unrestricted funding, restricted funding and coordination with other collaborators has been developed.

2.3 Actions that Oxfam might take For simplicity, the actions that Oxfam might take in working toward an institutional approach able to 1) champion multiple innovations at various levels of maturity while 2) recruiting external and internal supporters, have been captured in terms of foundational actions that establishes the environment for innovation followed by a suite of actions attuned to the three phases.

2.3.1.1 Creating the foundation for innovation in Oxfam a) In order for Oxfam to gain an edge we will require a systematic approach that considers all aspects of the

organization. Efforts to build strategy intent in institutional innovation for Oxfam would only be effective with the endorsement of senior management because an innovation strategy would require affiliates to agree on collaborative allocation of unrestricted resources.

o Outline a series of recommendations to senior management including guidelines for resource allocations (possibly linked to GPIIF or RPIIF) that directly encourage affiliate collaboration on innovation funds.

                                                                                                                                       

18  Goldberg,  S  (2009)  “Billions  of  Drops  in  Millions  of  Buckets”  ISBN  9780470454671  

Page 9: Discussion paper Innovation

Institutionalizing innovation Discussion Paper, Brian Lund, March 2015 Page 9

o This idea could be further expanded to include peer organizations – imagine the incentive for collaboration if Oxfam and ActionAid, EcoTrust, KIVA etc combined resources to call for proposals for collaborative innovations19.

o Prepare for management a recommendation for common criteria and language for deciding and describing innovations filters for Oxfam. This is a critical step as it has the potential to introduce the discipline we would need to gain focus

b) Support of innovations or innovation processes is rarely included in Job Descriptions or performance

objectives. As an organization we rely quite heavily on the individual taking the initiative often outside of prescribed job descriptions. This is not to suggest that innovation should feature in every job description but it is a response to the fact that the bias in Oxfam at the moment is probably toward job descriptions featuring implementation without reference to innovation.

o Describe a series of statements for inclusion in Job Description and Performance Objectives that can be adopted commonly across Oxfam. Make these available to line management and HRM offices.

c) Build up a library of innovations by;

• Build our baseline – map out and document the lifecycles of innovations we already have in Oxfam - use the lifecycle model above. The examples above (SRI and SfC) are described only briefly but is was a really good exercise. Doing the same across the confederation would be breathtaking! The expectation would be that there would be a library or innovations and the prospect of convergence and collaboration amongst some would be almost immediate.

• Design and apply the innovation filters now so that Oxfam can be confident in which innovations already warrant continued support. The filter should address implications/opportunities at all levels in the organization; program; campaign; fundraising; new business models etc.

• Undertake some pipeline analysis. It should be possible to assess the level of innovation in our current pipeline. Is it enough? It should also be possible to look back at innovations over the past 5 years and determine the ratio of success and failures. Could do this to EARO’s work as an example.

o Set out a process to map out Oxfam’s investment in innovation. Ideally this should be done by applying a set of criteria and models (such as above). It would also be logical to employ one team to develop the first iteration in order the criteria from being too widely interpreted.

o Once innovation is mapped, maintain a library of innovation for Oxfam.

d) There are a lot of organizations (most in the Private Sector) with substantial experience in innovation within diverse organizations. Examples include, Kodak, Nisan, Rockefeller Think Tanks, Harvard Labs, Adelaide University’s Systems Approach, DFAT (Australia) and the list goes on….

o Initiate a schedule of regular exchanges with these organizations.

e) Note that this process should include partners and extended networks. o Set out a process to extend these actions to include partners and allies.

2.3.1.2 Action specifically to support Phase 1 a) Surfacing innovation seems to be where most investment is made. Here there is an interesting question

as to whether is investment is best managed centrally or at the coal face. There are some excellent examples of initiatives in Oxfam that are centrally managed, often with specific themes such as ICT4D that is surfacing innovation. However, many of the innovations currently championed by Oxfam where borne of country and regional initiatives – outside of centralized systems. The Challenge for Oxfam is to decide how to support a balance that will ensure a strong pipeline.

o Test this as a hypothesis by assessing the performance of a sample of offices over the last 5 years. It will be important to undertake this because there is a school of thought in the

                                                                                                                                       

19  Note  that  this  approach  is  already  employed  by  some  agencies.  A  current  example  being  the    Global  Resilience  Partnership,  between  Rockefeller,  USAID  &  Sida  

Page 10: Discussion paper Innovation

Institutionalizing innovation Discussion Paper, Brian Lund, March 2015 Page 10

business world that innovation is better served by centralizing. To this end some organizations have set up departments and knowledge centers - IBM being one of the more celebrated examples. It hasn’t always worked… and reviews suggest the question becomes one of opting for the approach that best suits the particular organization. If Oxfam is heading toward a decentralized, country-empowered model this may not be a good option so analyzing our past performance using a decentralized approach warrants attention.

b) In Oxfam as in many other organizations, innovations are most often fostered via a competitive process.

Whilst this can be successful, it is logically encourages competition that can be at the expense of collaboration. This risks small, siloed projects that are owned by the competition winners. Where these innovations show promise they are then confronted with lack-of-ownership across other affiliates so their ability to move to phase 2 or 3 is curtailed. This shortcoming can be overcome by emphasizing collaboration and focusing efforts from the outset. Some options include; • Affiliates to apply an overarching priority to proposals that can show direct collaboration with

existing innovations inside or outside of Oxfam. • Where ever possible, initiating the innovation in multiple places at the one time – this approach was

used by OUS in advancing SfC with projects in Africa, Asia and Central America – and it lead to a very strong early progress.

• Using a compete-and-complement approach to prioritizing proposals. This essentially assigns funds via a selection process that seeks to balance the emphasis on competition with an emphasis on collaboration. It can be done by adopting a 2-phase process; the first phase assigning a portion of available resources via a competitive shortlisting of tendered proposals followed by a second phase inviting unsuccessful tenderers to re-apply with new proposals designed to complement the tenders that were successful in the initial shortlisting. This would 1) focus resources and accelerate the potential to test the best prospects, engender wider ownership and therefore interest in supporting scale-up and 2) encourage the innovators and early adopters in Oxfam even if their original idea was unsuccessful20. The effectiveness of this compete-and-complement approach would be greatly magnified if the call was supported across affiliates – and even outside Oxfam.

o Detail a process based on a compete-and-complement approach and make this available to management.

c) Where innovations are active it would become the responsibility of the Project Manager to provide

updates to a shared platform (Intranet for sensitive innovations, Drop-Box for innovations involving external actors). a) Alert system across related OCS/ORS/OIS so that innovations are available for adoption and/or

adaptation o Set out a protocol for using external repositories. Include text for responsibility in Job

Description designed to achieve the above.

2.3.1.3 Action specifically to support Phase 2 a) In order to widen the prospects for an innovation (and Oxfam), Affiliates should consider preparing a

program prospectus that includes the innovations they have supported and that they are prepared to support if adopted by other affiliates21 with actions like funding cross visits, funding scoping exercises etc. It is going to be important for as many offices in Oxfam as possible to be aware of what is on offer.

o Set up one or more Program Prospectus specifically attuned to innovation. Introduce to Oxfam managers and track response.

                                                                                                                                       

20  Note  that  The  Global  Resilience  Partnership,  Rockefeller,  USAID  &  Sida  adopted  a  variation  of  this  approach  in  their  2015  call  for  proposals  referring  to  the  second  call  as  ‘wildcard’  bids.  They  selected  15/100  proposals  and  re-­‐opened  the  round  to  the  unsuccessful  applicants  for  a  second  ‘wild  card’  submission.  21  Add  the  EARO  Program  Prospectus  

Page 11: Discussion paper Innovation

Institutionalizing innovation Discussion Paper, Brian Lund, March 2015 Page 11

b) Where innovations have been through the filter process and acknowledged by Oxfam for stage2, Affiliates should assess the prospect of committing unrestricted resource for leverage for resource development, match and partnership. This would be additional to normal budget allocations. This would serve as an inventive to ensure Oxfam uses unrestricted resources to best advantage.

o This could be linked to the recommendations above.

2.3.1.4 Action specifically to support Phase 3 a) Responding to questions posed by Whitehead; how can we take corporate engagement to the next

level? how can we increase our collaboration with ‘unusual suspects’ at every level? how can Oxfam access new funding and financing modalities that will enable us to achieve our goals?

o Still to describe an action

b) At an early stage of the lifecycle begin describing potentials to contribute to Impact/Change in Systems. Systems Approach to Solutions for Impact. These should be well described for Phase3 so that affiliates and partners are able to fathom the wider potential of supporting an innovation. As an example, SfC improving women’s empowerment programs

o Prepare a guideline for staff managing innovations and disseminate. Consider inclusion in Phase1 and Phase2 filters

c) How Oxfam manages leadership of innovations warrants re-consideration for each Phase. Given that

the progress through the different stages of the innovation lifecycle requires engagement from different people with different skill sets- much like the progress of a child’s education requires pre-school, primary, secondary and university-level teachers – each point of the life-cycle review requires different support. It may be OK for an innovation to progress through Phase1 under the management of a single office but progress to Phase2 may warrant multiple country or multiple affiliate support providing different inputs and contexts then graduation to Phase3 a different approach again. By way of example arguably the greater barrier to Phase3 lies with affiliate collaboration and resource development. Perhaps it would be appropriate for fundraisers (from across affiliates) to be appointed by Oxfam to leadership roles for graduated innovations.

o Prepare a discussion piece on the progressive suite of skills and resources needed to advance an innovation. This should assist in identifying the types of leadership arrangements Oxfam should be encouraging.

3 Looking forward As Whitehead envisions, we must aim to be more relevant to the changing context, more innovative, able to access more income and better able to be Oxfam at our best. Making investment toward institutionalizing innovation is a step in that direction but taking that step requires a commitment to actions across Oxfam. This discussion piece is certainly far from ‘complete’ nonetheless, I hope it presents thinking that can be challenged or advanced to Oxfam’s advantage, ultimately contributing to a suite of measureable and accountable initiatives that we can all own. Brian Lund


Top Related