IER Update – Compulsory registration

Filed under: Electoral,Local Government,Strategy,Technology — lenand @ 10:48 am
Tags: , , , , ,

To be fair, the IER Progress Presentation July 2012 did not use the word ‘compulsory’ for voter registration, but the meaning is clear.

  • “Opt-out” dropped
  • Civil penalty for people who refuse to register ….but ERO must take steps before can be used

This is the result of the consultation process for the Electoral Reform Act (2012).  The objective is to reduce risk of losing voters with more levers to drive registration and to build a more accurate register during the transition to the new scheme.  Believers in our democratic system should be pleased – the current method is too incredible for foreigners to believe.

We have also been given an overview of the IER Digital Service.

IER System Architecture

This separates the web application used by the citizen with two centrally controlled and hosted systems.  One is run by DWP and the other by the System Owner (Cabinet Office or DCLG?).  Local Authorities (LA1 to LA400+) are expected buy and operate a system from one of four Electoral Management Systems (EMSA to EMSB).  The lines and boxes are easy to draw, but what are the implications to the local Electoral Registration Officers (EROs) and their ICT service departments?

Some more questions spring to mind:

  1.  If citizens have to register on the national site, what local credentials do they have to provide?
  2. Does the DWP verification imply that somewhere they hold a register of all voters? If so, how does this map to the national policy not to hold national identification scheme?
  3. How much trust can the LA put on the identity of the voter, knowing that DWP data is 34% inaccurate?

No doubt all will become clear in due course and the risk register will be opened up to let us all see the major concerns.   The Cabinet Office “want to talk to as many people as necessary – what forums, groups and networks do you know of that could help spread the word?

SOCITM should be high up the list of organisations to help in the impact assessment to local authority ICT systems.  The current register may have additional local uses that have not yet hit the radar.


Plant the Flag: Think about outcomes

Filed under: Governance,Outcomes,Policy,Strategy — lenand @ 10:26 am

Dedicated followers of Socitm will know that the five year forward strategy is called “Planting the Flag”.  It was published in May 2011 and yesterday was a timely review in a joint meeting with the local CIO Council.  Progress is being made on “Planning the Routes” and “Driving the Routes”.  The diversity of size and responsibility of Socitm members is such that one size cannot possibly fit all.  The documents can only be considered as frameworks for action.  As one speaker pointed out, best practice is backward looking, and less important if we are trying to encourage innovation and transforming business processes.

“Planting the Flag sets out three core principles (collaborate, redesign and innovate), six strategic capabilities (leadership, governance, organisational change, strategic commissioning, shared services and professionalism) and six key issues around information and technology that are key to redesigning local public services – faster, cheaper, better – delivering better for less in ways citizens want. “

One group, consisting mainly of CIOs, pointed their problem is communicating the messages to their chief officers and members.  The the names of the stages are a metaphor of planning a trek into the high peaks of the Alps.  That’s fine for invigorating a live audience – but it gets in the way of releasing budget for doing things differently.  Most concerning was that the strategy does address the practical problems of delivering IT enabled services to citizens – it is not driven by the outcomes that are at the forefront of delivery agencies’ agenda.

Everybody in the room bought into those principles and capabilities – but they are essentially inward looking to the ICT profession.  They are not the issues that attract support from democratic or service leadership.  When CIOs go back to their patches, they are faced with translating the strategy and briefing notes into something digestible for supporting business cases for change.  The advice has to fit into the local political agenda.

Nobody is saying that is a simple job for Socitm – but there is a need for a simpler message for a broader range of stakeholders.  Neither should it be just for local authorities; it has to go out to health, police, emergency services, transport and innumerable voluntary sector agencies.


UKRA: Where are Citizens and Local Authorities?

Filed under: Governance,Local Government,Strategy,Technology — lenand @ 8:00 pm
Tags: ,

Led by HMRC, we now have a draft reference architecture for UK government services (unclassified).  The purpose of this reference architecture is to:

  • Provide a framework to enable activity, process and complex systems to be broken down into small modular components, with known attributes, functionality, interfaces and dependencies.
  • Record those components in a way that business process owners, ICT service designers and solution providers can readily identify common areas of functionality.
  • Provide a framework against which common process and procedure can be developed to enable the effective reuse of solutions and services across government.

It is not remotely citizen focussed – it is inward looking into arcane administrative activity.  Why?

One might also wonder what input there has been from the big service suppliers, Local Authorities (LAs).  Here’s the list,  a working group was created, formally consisting of representatives from:

  • HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC)
  • Department for Work & Pensions (DWP)
  • Ministry of Justice (MoJ)
  • Department Of Health (DoH)
  • Home Office(HO)
  • Ministry of Defence (MoD)
  • Cabinet Office (CO)
  • Department of Education (DoE)

No sign of the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) or LAs.  Why are LAs always latecomers into such strategic activity?

Let’s hope that there will be some input from Socitm in due course, they are used to managing wide consultations in public sector ICT.


A Framework for Frameworks

Filed under: Innovation,Outcomes,Politics,Process,Risk,Strategy,Time — lenand @ 4:24 pm
Tags: , ,

Whilst reviewing a worthy document on leadership in ICT, it seemed to lack structure.  The contents were fine, but left an uneasy feeling that not everything had been covered.  Was the advice MECE?  This led to a Leadership Model, reminiscent of one used by Quarkside before (7DIG).  The seven primary dimensions were Direction, Stakeholders, Resources, Action, Outcomes, Time and Risk.

The Expanded Leadership Model is probably a reasonable Framework for many ICT organisations.

It triggered an idea of a Framework for Frameworks. A self-help tool that gives a structure for all MECE dimensions.  It starts with seven generic concepts.

  1. Context:  the business environment and constraints
  2. Subjects:  People who are involved in processes
  3. Verbs: Words that denote action by people, Process
  4. Objects:  Things that are resources to be consumed or created
  5. Outcomes: Desired results from the process actions
  6. Time:  When things are to be done
  7. Risk:  What can disrupt the Process – and how to manage risk

The diagram may help some people.  Let us know if it has helped you.

Let the organisation decide the next level down.  They know the trigger points and politics that will enable changed behaviour or transformation of processes.  For many purposes, this simple framework for frameworks should be more effective than McKinsey’s famous 7S framework for changing organisations.


Government sidelines SME Innovations

Filed under: Innovation,Policy,Risk,Strategy — lenand @ 7:56 am
Tags: , , , , , ,

Innovation in Decline

Innovation is needed to kick start the economy, but the old ways are holding back growth. The public sector has been hit by budget reduction.  Large suppliers to the public sector are being squeezed in contract renewals and replacements.  Nobody is demonstrating an appetite for investing in innovation or intrapreneurship.

The old, arcane, procurement regulations are another inhibitor.  Invitations to tender published in the OJEU not only slow down the procurement process, they effectively bar entry from SMEs.  SMEs are the very companies who are most likely to have entrepreneurial ideas and innovative products.

Ministers support SMEs, understanding that they dominate the wealth creating economy.  For example, the Government ICT Strategy aims to:

“deliver policy and capability improvements covering EU procurement regulations; transparency in procurement and contracting; removing barriers to SMEs;”

But inertia in the Executive merely extends the status quo.  SMEs with innovative ideas are not welcomed with open arms into the market place. SMEs are sidelined by Government with the complicity of the big suppliers – neither of whom have the appetite for the perceived risk of innovation.

One Example

DWP’s Universal Credit programme states:

We estimate that £5.2 billion a year is wrongly paid out as a result of fraud and error: £2.1 billion of fraud and error in Tax Credits and £3.1 billion in Department for Work and Pensions benefits.”  

An OJEU notice was duly published with a value of £15m to £45m for a “Data Access, Processing and Analytics Pan Government Framework”.  Interested SMEs are informed that “Organisations expressing an interest are expected to have a minimum turnover of £9,000,000.”

Any young SME, believing that they have innovative technology to make a £ multimillions impact on reducing error and fraud, are immediately blocked.  They are also unlikely to pass additional financial criteria.  There’s a further off-putting condition: the envisaged minimum number of suppliers is 8 and maximum number of 12.  SMEs are most unlikely to wish to spend valuable resources with virtually zero chance of jumping the pre-tender hurdles.

There’s also a sting in the tail: “DWP wishes to establish a framework agreement that may be used by or on behalf of UK public sector bodies.”  This is not just central government, but also every local authority and even Channel 4.  Does this now mean that they could also be disadvantaged from supplying throughout the public sector?  All public sector bodies should be aware of the DWP negotiated framework, including it in any data analytics contract selection.  The appointed framework suppliers will be in a monopolistic position and easily able to deflect innovative entrants into their market.

A start-up technology company, which may have developed a more effective fraud and error mousetrap, cannot enter the market.  The best it can do is treat with the usual suspects for winning a framework contract and hope to become a sub-contractor.  They may even risk being excluded from directly competing for any other contracts in the public sector.

Such is the fear in SMEs, that they dare not make such examples public. A group of SMEs had to report in camera to the Public Administration Select Committee. See their infamous report “A Recipe for Rip-Offs”.

Portfolio Planning

Every product or service passes through a life cycle of inception, growth, steady state and decline.  In the public sector, it is convenient to map this into a matrix of service portfolios with four categories.

  1. Innovating for the future
  2. Transforming business processes
  3. Reducing transaction costs of customer facing operations
  4. Improving essential internal administration and services

There may be overlap of categories, but each should be allocated a percentage of total resources. If any drops to 0%, it is a most unhealthy sign. Large suppliers excel in Transformation, Operation and Administration but Innovation is where SMEs thrive.  Innovation can be a threat to the income streams of big suppliers, so it needs special protection by the Government.  Today’s innovation could become tomorrow’s transformation and eventually the key to efficient operation.



Message to Government Ministers

Support innovative SMEs with policy changes that will:

  1. Guarantee access to Department’s senior levels with a frequent opportunities to make proposals for innovations.  Encourage proposals for cross-departmental funding of joint projects.  Exclude big suppliers from the process, who already have access if they wish to innovate.
  2. Reserve some funds for small contracts with SMEs.  Constrain contracts to strict time limits and learn from both negative and positive results.
  3. Monitor investment in the Innovation Portfolio across all departments.  Communicate successes and recommend candidates for growing into transformational projects.


Liam Maxwell: One year later

It is more than a year since Liam Maxwell’s  “Better for Less” was published.  What has been achieved from the 69 pages of ideas? It obviously made the right impression because he is now working in the Cabinet Office in a one year appointment from September 2011


Our goal should be to deliver to the online population frontline public services with minimal, possibly zero, administrative cost, freeing up cash for more effective, intermediary-based, service delivery for those not online, and also as savings. This is already happening in some areas of local government and driving taxes down. It is happening in other countries, making service delivery better. It is time the biggest component of the British economy, its bloated state, started to learn these lessons.

How does it work? 5 principles underlining all IT in government We base our approach on a small number of core principles

1) Openness

a. Open Data – government data must be transparent
b. Open Source works – its concepts should be applied to processes as much as to IT
c. Open Standards will drive interoperability, save money and prevent vendor lock-in
d. Open Markets – competition creates efficient market-based solutions.

2) Localism – the centre may set the standards, but local deployment is best.

3) Ownership and Privacy

a. It’s our data, government can have access but not control over personal data.
b. Government should be accountable for data protection and proper use.

4) Outcomes matter more than targets.

5) Government must be in control of its programmes, not led by them.”

Let’s look to see how successfully the principles have been incorporated into the Government ICT Strategy.

1. Open data, open standards and open source are clearly stated objectives. And open markets are part of the procurement objective.

2. Localism does not get a mention, according to word search. This is a gaping hole, but perhaps Liam will explain this when he speaks at the SOCITM conference in November.

3. Alarmingly, neither privacy nor data protection are words within the strategy.  The objective for “Risk Management Regime” has implied elements for both, but the metrics concentrate system security – not anything based on citizen data protection.

4. Outcomes are potentially the most important gap in the strategy. There’s too much concentration on internal, central government processes. The four objectives for using ICT to enable and deliver changeare not really focussed on citizen outcomes.

5. Governance of programmes is an implicit role for the “Public Expenditure (Efficiency and Reform) Cabinet sub-committee (PEX(ER))“. There are twelve senior people named, with representatives from MOD, MOJ, HMRC, HO, DoH, DWP and Cabinet Office.   That  should be enough people. However, Quarkside thinks that UK plc should also have representation from departments with responsibility for improving the ICT skill base of the country. Shouldn’t DfE and BIS have something useful to contribute? And if localism is really important, why doesn’t DCLG have a place on the high table?

Quarkside gives “Better for Less” 40 marks out of a possible 100 for influencing the agenda. In the old days, this was a ‘Pass’ at A level. So not too bad. However, it would not have secured you a place in one of the top universities.


Low Confidence in Government ICT Strategy

We should be pleased that Government has published “Government ICT Strategy – Strategic Implementation Plan”.  It is evidence of a controllable top-down approach and provides an easily digestible 77 pages of prose that should give us all confidence that the full programme will be delivered.  There are 19 Objectives and 19 Programme Key Milestones in the document.  Looking deeper, each of the objectives has a project team and its own set of Key Milestones.  Hence there is   a total of about 60 Key Milestones. So, bottom-up, people are working diligently.  However, there is a risk that they may be too constrained to look at the overall programme.  By observation, it’s the people at the bottom who know what is really going on – but they are rarely asked their opinion.  Quarkside recommends that a cross-section of staff are interviewed on their level of confidencethat the overall programme objectives will  be met.  The initial impression is that there are too many objectives  with  low confidence of success.


This is the list of Objectives from the table of contents.

Objective 1: Reducing Waste and Project Failure, and Stimulating Economic Growth

  1. Asset and services knowledgebase
  2. Open source
  3. Procurement
  4. Agile
  5. Capability
  6. Open standards for data
  7. Reference architecture
  8. Open technical standards
  9. Cloud computing and applications store

Objective 2: Creating a common ICT infrastructure

10. Public services network (PSN)

11. Data centre consolidation

12. End user device strategy

13. Green ICT

14. Information strategy

15. Risk management regime

Objective 3: Using ICT to enable and deliver change

16. Channel shift

17. Application Programme Interfaces (APIs)

18. Online government consultation

19. Social media


Quarkside has mapped the Key Milestones (M) with the Objectives (O)



Key Milestone Date


100% of central departments have access to the ICT Asset and Services Knowledgebase and can input, discover and output data

September 2011



Cloud Computing Strategy published

October 2011



End User Device Strategy published and delivery programme commenced

October 2011



Green ICT Strategy published

October 2011



ICT Capability Strategy published

October 2011


2, 6, 8

First release of a draft suite of mandatory Open Technical Standards published December 2011


First draft of reference architecture published

December 2011



Publication of cross-government information strategy principles

December 2011



High level information risk management governance process designed agreed

December 2011



Roll-out of ‘lean’ sourcing process

January 2012



Data Centre standards published

February 2012



Core PSN capabilities delivered and services available to allow sharing of information between customers regardless of whether they are on the new PSN or legacy environments

March 2012



A set of open standards for data adoption established and progressed by government departments, driven by the Open Standards Board

June 2012



50 accredited products on the Government Application Store

December 2012



Full implementation of End User Device Strategy commences

January 2013



Agile techniques used in 50% of major ICT-enabled programmes

April 2013


9, 10

80%, by contract value, of government telecommunications will be PSN compliant

March 2014



50% of central government departments’ new ICT spending will be transitioned to public cloud computing services

December 2015



Cost of data centres reduced by 35% from 2011 baseline

October 2016

It is pure co-incidence that there are 19 items in the Objectives list and 19 Key Milestones.  That some Milestones support several objectives is fine, and not an issue.  However, none of the four Objectives for “Using ICT to enable and deliver change” seem to get a mention, namely:

16. Channel shift

17. Application Programme Interfaces (APIs)

18. Online government consultation

19. Social media

This is not mischievous arm-chair auditing.  It demonstrates one of the duties of a risk manager to check that ALL objectives are visibly targeted in projects. The Programme should either drop the objectives under change control, or revise the implementation plan.  The latter is obviously preferable, because they are the only ones that have impact on citizen services.  The first 15 objectives are largely internal and focus on efficiency, not effective service delivery.

Confidence in Outcomes

Confidence in ICT Strategy Implementation

Quarkside has used the Confidence Management method to review the Milestone Plan.  The Confidence Chart dramatically shows the impact of omitting four of the Strategy objectives. How is it possible to give any level of confidence that they will be achieved when they are not related to any Milestones? Admittedly, the results were obtained from a sample of one person; just think how more useful this would be if more people were sampled at each level in the programme teams.  There will be some interesting results that would make immediate sense to Ministers – who are reliably expected to look at only one sheet of paper.  The average  level of confidence in the overall programme is just 50%.  Surely this  would be important to Ministers if it was a true reflection   of what the Civil Servants think is likely to happen in the future. It is just like a doctor sticking a thermometer in a patient’s mouth – not a diagnosis.

The Governance structure includes a Director of ICT Futures, Liam Maxwell.  He has been appointed and has begun work to horizon scan and improve capability to identify risks and exploit new technologies (Action 28).  Liam Maxwell should be made aware of this innovative method devised by an SME.  Any objective with less than 50% confidence should surely have a prominent place on the risk log.  It is far more effective to sort out any issues at this early stage than wait until it is too late to correct them.  The end results of all large programmes can be predicted during the first 30% of their planned time period. Liam Maxwell should try and ensure that each of the project implementation teams own risk logs can be compared objectively.  The current sets of top three risks in each sub-delivery area are purely qualitative. They cannot be compared to identify which are truly the biggest programme risks.  Educating project teams to use the Crilog Risk Index is one possible way of ranking every risk in the Programme.


Policies need Confidence

All organisations need policy. How confident are they that policy (aka strategy) will be followed and that the desired outcomes will be achieved? Because policies are always top-down, confidence in success exudes from the top; but apathy, indifference and scepticism is the normal response from the bottom. Let’s see how Confidence Management could lead to more realistic expectations and implementations.

Here is an example     from a membership organisation of  managers working in the information domain. They have been developed, top-down:

Three core principles 

  • Collaborate, share and re-use assets
  • Redesign services to simplify, standardise and automate
  • Innovate to empower citizens and communities

Six strategic capabilities

  1. Leadership from CIOs
  2.  Governance
  3. Organisational change
  4. Strategic commissioning and supplier management  
  5. Shared services
  6.  Professionalism

Six key issues around information and technology

  1. Information governance
  2. Information management, assurance and transparency
  3. Digital access and inclusion
  4. Local public services infrastructure
  5. Business change
  6. Central government services have been integrated with local public services delivery.

The document had a successful launch.   Stage 1, on time and on budget.   Stage2 is for the individual members to plan implementing these policies (aka strategies) back in their own organisations.    Stage 3 is to convert those plans into changed practices throughout the UK.

The Confidence Management Process  converts the lists above into fifteen questions in relation to how confident each interviewee is about the progress that  will be achieved within  5 years, by 2016.

How confident, on a scale of 0% to 100%, are you that the following targets will  be achieved?

  1. The organisation and partners have  collaborated, shared and re-used information assets  with pooled budgets and staff for all services.
  2. All services have been redesigned to simplify,  standardise and automate business processes.
  3. Citizens and communities have been empowered by innovative methods in every service area.
  4. CIOs have demonstrated leadership and delivered more efficient and fairer public service outcomes, demonstrated by KPIs.
  5. ICT Governance processes have been managed by a Programme Office,   administering a portfolio of business change programmes and projects  with strong change and risk management.
  6. Outcome-focused organisational change methods have been employed successfully in all services.
  7. Strategic commissioning and supplier management has proved to be more effective and reduced costs by at least 25% with better service provision.
  8. Shared services have been operated 25% more efficiently  by     partnership arrangements.
  9. ICT Staff have been assessed under SFIA framework and improved their level of skills to  operate as  a certified professional.
  10. An information governance framework has been implemented and best practice is being followed.
  11. Standard information management, assurance and transparency processes have been instituted that control data throughout the lifecycle – providing a single version of the truth.
  12. Multi-channel digital access has extended to  80% of service transactions, with special provision for digitally excluded citizens.
  13. The infrastructure has employed the Public Sector Network for Cloud services, shared data centres and shared application.
  14. Business change projects have delivered measurable outcomes and benefits across organisational boundaries.
  15.    All central government departments have closely integrated ICT systems     for local public services delivery, eg Education, Health, Justice, DWP  and HMRC.

This would enable a bottom-up, and middle-out, perspective of the policy. It should help to identify the critical success factors (CSFs). In the end it is the foot soldiers who have to implement policy. They are likely to recognise similar initiatives from many years earlier, and carry on with business as usual. Leadership must focus on CSFs or lose the opportunity for another five years. Hard times calls for tough decisions.


Modeling Concepts: Free software

Filed under: Privacy,Strategy,Technology — lenand @ 11:16 am
Tags: , , ,

The ESD Business Model for public sector activity has been around for a few years now.

ESD model

It has a lot of valuable content but it could be made more accessible and dynamic. There is some free software that would help; Cmap. It has been around for many years and seems to have matured and stabilised. It allows clicking down to more detailed models and documentation references.

Although it is called Concept Modelling – it does work for business models and generic ontologies. It is even self-defining, see the home page of the Institute of Human and Machine Cognition.

If it were to be adopted as a standard by the ESD Toolkit and LeGSB, levels of common understanding should increase. Give it a try – it’s easier than Powerpoint or Visio for this task.


QA may madden Maude

The 2011 Government ICT strategy preaches standards.   Tick box = Good.  People who bore for standards preach, ‘to do it properly you must define the standard and check later that the standard has been followed’.  This blog compares the strategy against a standard (standard with a small ‘s’) – in this case against the same set that was used to review the SOCITM ICT Strategy, released in draft last month.

The target for all public sector ICT is established in the introduction:

“6. Information and communications technology (ICT) is critical for the effective operation of government and the delivery of the services it provides to citizens and businesses. It offers key benefits by enabling:

  • access to online transactional services, which makes life simpler and more convenient for citizens and businesses; and
  • channels to collaborate and share information with citizens and business, which in turn enable the innovation of new online tools and services.”

Everybody must agree with this, and observe that sharing information across multiple agency boundaries is critical for citizens, businesses and agencies.  It has led to much discussion about shared infrastructure, shared services and the benefits this will bring.  Fortunately, we can use a standard for quality assuring the Strategy and highlighting any gaps that need to be addressed.  It has nine dimensions for assessing multi-agency information sharing partnerships.

  • Business Scope and Plans
  • Governance
  • Legal Issues, Policies, Rights and Responsibilities
  • Information Sharing
  • Identity Management
  • Federation
  • Transactions, Events and Messages
  • Infrastructure
  • Sustainability

Overall these can be summarised into Process, Governance and Technology – the Quarkside mantra.  A quick traffic light assessment against the standard dimensions is as follows:

  • Business Scope and Plans: Amber

The reasons are good and there is an aggressive, but risky timeplan.  Dependence on on word ‘Agile’, is a recipe for systemic obscuring of progress.  It provides opportunities for hiding problems that only emerge when the end-users in multiple location are expected to change time-honoured processes, and new systems are not interoperable with old systems.  The needs of 450 local authorities must not be ignored.

  • Governance:  Amber

A structure has been developed, but it omits the input of local delivery agencies, such as local authorities.

  • Legal Issues, Policies, Rights and Responsibilities: Amber

Apart from the Policy, other issues are not raised

  • Information Sharing: Amber

Use of open standards and APIs will help at a programmatic level, but additional useful services, such as Master Data Management and systems interoperability standards are not mentioned.

  • Identity Management:  Red

Avoidance of a cross public sector strategy for citizen, employee and agent identity management risks complete failure of the strategy and policy objectives will not be met.

  • Federation: Red

Federated trust by all involved agencies is vital for both accuracy and efficiency.  Nowhere is this mentioned or implied.

  • Transactions, Events and Messages:  Green

Operational systems usually find technical solution for inter-system data transfers.  The use of Web services on the Cloud should help.  Channel issues are addressed

  • Infrastructure:  Greenish

The overwhelming weight of the document is technology and infrastructure, there are eleven actions planned.  However, one suspects that the thought process has ignored local government and external agencies in the calculations.  Are local authorities expected to reduce ICT costs by 35%?

  • Sustainability:  Red

The standard means to ability to sustain a shared service for operation over many years, not reducing carbon usage.  Most shared services fail because of the inability to agree funding for operations, and all the development investment is wasted.  Central Government must agree a sustainable funding model at the very beginning of every information sharing project.  The Cabinet Office should feel responsible for the whole of the public sector, not just central government departments and agencies.

So how do you react to 3 Reds, 4 Ambers and 2 Greens?  It is low on Process and Governance and higher on Technology.  Quarkside thinks it is good enough for a first draft to get the ball rolling.  But if Francis Maude thinks this document is going to deliver all his policy objectives, then I fear that he, or his successor, is set for a big disappointment and some explaining to do.

Next Page »

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.