I was in barcamp Shanghai on 3rd March 2012, to give a talk, titled the Pursuit of Happiness: How Gamification Unleash Total Engagement.
In this talk, I shared how engagement has become the new competitive advantage. Alas, many organisations are clueless about engaging their people. This is about to change, however, thanks to a new emerging field called gamification. Successful organisations are those who know how to gamify the workplace to engage their people.
Of course, allowing the use of established pseudonym also means Google and Twitter are whacking Facebook in the nym wars. Unlike Google, Facebook stubbornly cling onto its draconian real name policy. Such tyrant attitude can make Facebook the loser in the nym wars.
The Nym Wars
Nym wars (#nymwars) involve not only the major web 2.0 players, i.e. Facebook, Twitter, and Google, but also people who needs to manage online engagement platforms (i.e. discussion forums, blogs, webinars, Twitter townhall, etc). Yep, we (KM-ers) are in it.
At the heart of the nym wars, is the dilemma on whether people should be allowed to be anonymous or to use pseudonym/moniker (fake name), or should be forced to use their real name.
On one hand, you want to promote freedom of speech/expression or even to promote a free flow of ideas. On the other hand, you want to promote accountability so that people can give a more thoughtful and constructive feedback – instead of any feedback.
Of course, the million-dollar question here is: whose side you’re on? I used to be a staunch supporter of real-name camp. But not anymore. I’m leaning on the dark side, i.e. anonymous/pseudonym. Though I support a variant of the dark side, called persistent (established) pseudonym - not the real dark side, i.e. a complete anynomity.
I like the idea of using real names. Partly because, by using real names, people are held accountable for whatever they say. Thus, eliminating the negative side of anonymity: disparaging, irrelevant comments.
However, people may be afraid to speak their mind or opt to sugar-coat every words that they say. In other words, ideas can get stiffled.
The problem with real names doesn’t stop here. Another problem is the complicated nature of our identities. This best illustrated using Lady Gaga example. Lady Gaga is a stage name – not a real name. But the woman prefers to called as lady gaga. The whole world knows her as lady gaga. Could we then insist: ”kindly use your real name”?
The Trouble With Being Anonymous / Using Pseudonym
The anonymous / pseudonym camp is championed by civil rights groups like EFF. They argued that anonymity is required to allow people to freely share their ideas without fear of being reprimanded.
I don’t completely buy this argument. I don’t agree with it because total anonymity also means anarchy. People can give disparaging comment, irrelevant comment, or personal attacks, without any implication. It’s like getting away with murder.
In fact, I believe anonymity encourages spams and trolls more than constructive feedbacks. Look at what happened to REACH portal (Singapore government feedback portal). It is full of rubbish, angry comments! (here is an example).
How Persistent / Established Pseudonym Wins the Nym Wars
Liz Gannes in her All Things Digital article argued brilliantly that the gist of the nym wars is about having unified online identity – which would allow Facebook or Google to analyse our web footprints more accurately across multiple platforms. But Gannes’ article doesn’t fully explain how unified online identity is the key to win the nym wars.
Well, thank God Mathew Ingram plug the gaps in Gannes’ article. In his GigaOm article, Ingram explained that unified online identity, or established pseudonym, allows people to protect their privacy and build reputation at the same time. And when reputation is attached to a pseudonym, people can establish an online identity (distinct from their real name), attract like-minded folks, and build communities around common interests.
This is the reason why Google+’s revised real name policy is a wonderful policy. It is now flexible enough to accommodate established pseudonym. Furthermore, to gain access to myriad of Google tools, you need to have a unified Google identity. So Google is subtlely promoting the use of established pseudonym (yes it is a sneaky but superb move).
Another policy that I like is that of Twitter. Twitter has no real name policy – but acknowledges people for using their real name. And like Mathew Ingram pointed out, Twitter doesn’t need such policy. Pseudonym in Twitter is heavily attached to reputation. To gain reputation/credibility in Twitter, people need to stick with their chosen pseudonym.
I believe established pseudonym is going to be the new norm. And whoever allows the use of it will win the heart and soul of the digital natives.
I’ve been thinking about Innovation lately. As a matter of fact, I’ve been thinking about Innovation since I started working about eight years ago.
I believe key challenges in championing innovation can be summarised into four.
The first key challenge is defining innovation and prioritising areas for innovation in the organisational context. Different people define and interpret innovation differently. Without a common understanding on innovation, the organisation can’t spur innovation. So the challenge here is about creating a common understanding of what innovation means, how to do it, and what the priority areas are. To address this challenge, I suggest conducting focus groups to seek inputs from staff and top management, to merge the definitions of innovation, and to prioritise areas for innovation.
The second key challenge is engaging staff to innovate. According to 2006 Gallup study, engaged staff are more likely to innovate. Thus to spur innovation, organisations will have to engage their staff. Although there is no easy sure-fire way to engage staff, engaging staff is not an impossible feat. Based on my experience, the best way to engage staff is by conducting regular staff communication sessions between staff and top management – for e.g. Townhall meeting – where staff can have a dialogue with the top management on organisational issues and on ideas to improve business processes
The third key challenge is creating safe-fail environments in the organisation. Innovation requires collaborative and supportive environments where passionate like-minded staff can connect, can prototype ideas, and can innovate upon each other’s ideas. Alas, nurturing such environments in the organisational context is difficult. To address this challenge, I suggest cultivating communities of practice, i.e. communities of passionate like-minded people who meet regularly to solve organisational issues. Thriving communities of practice create safe-fail environments that encourage experimentation and give people time to fully develop innovative breakthroughs.
Last but not least, the fourth challenge in championing innovation is incentivising innovation. Rewarding people with monetary rewards or other extrinsic rewards isn’t sustainable, because people will soon demand for bigger extrinsic rewards. On the flip side, giving intrinsic rewards such as recognising and/or giving resources (time and fund) to staff who propose innovative ideas, can spur and sustain innovation. Thus, to address this challenge, I recommend designing recognition system which raises the profile of staff who propose innovative ideas, and setting up innovation funds to provide staff with the necessary resources for innovation.
What do you think? What’s your experience in championing innovation?
There are lots of synergy between Knowledge Management (KM) and Organisational Development (OD)/Organisational Excellence (OE). In Singapore public sector, many organisations subsume their KM unit under OD. This new tango with OD could push KM into greater heights.
Coincidentally, I was asked recently on the key issues/challenges in championing OE. Here are my answers:
The first key challenge is identifying the organisational “pain points” (organisational issues) that the organisation faces and recommending actionable plan that makes sense to staff. The OE team usually doesn’t deal with day-to-day operation and is not being involved in key projects in the organisation. Thus, many organisational issues are not surfaced for OE team’s action. To address this challenge, I suggest appointing OE representatives in various business units so that the OE team can collaborate with them to understand the issue, to quickly intervene and to recommend effective actions to solve the issues.
The second key challenge is showcasing the intangible result of OE initiatives to the stakeholders, i.e. the rank-and-file staff as well as the top management executives. The result of OE initiatives is often intangible, and this can cause scepticism and thus lead to the lack of buy-in among the stakeholders. It is not uncommon for stakeholders to put OE initiatives at the bottom of their to-do list. To address this challenge, I suggest collecting positive anecdotes/testimonials from people who have participated in OE initiatives, and showcasing the anecdotes during management meetings or in the corporate intranet.
Last but not least, the third key challenge in championing OE is implementing lasting organisation-wide change. Organisation-wide change often means changing the corporate culture. And changing corporate culture involves not only the stakeholders’ buy-in, but also communication and staff engagement. The challenge here is two-fold: (1) communicating the reason underlying the change initiatives; (2) and getting staff’s commitment to implement the change. To address this challenge, I recommend engaging staff in the early stages of the change initiative, by asking for their ideas and recognising early adopters as well as change evangelists.
In summary, the key challenges in championing OE are: identifying and understanding the organisational issues, showcasing the intangible result of OE initiatives, and making change permanent in the organisation. To deal with the three challenges, I recommend the following actions: appointing OE representatives in various business units, collecting and showcasing positive anecdotes, and communicating the reason for change and engaging staff as early as possible in the change process.
Thoughts? Do you agree with the key challenges that I’ve identified?
Facebook Timeline is awesome! That’s the first thing that runs through my mind when I tried the new feature in Facebook. Essentially, Facebook Timeline is a beautiful storytelling tool that helps you to lay-out milestones in your life. Isn’t this cool?
Oh wait, perhaps Facebook Timeline is not so cool when you have dirty little secrets. You know, stuff that you don’t want people to know (read: private stuff, e.g. partying hard, getting drunk).
But then again, you shouldn’t let people to be your Facebook friends if you don’t want them to know about your life. Better still, don’t post anything stupid in your Facebook – especially if your boss is your Facebook friend (*silent panic*).
If you are still concerned about your privacy, then consider these options: “un-friend” people you don’t trust, or adjust your Facebook privacy settings. It’s that simple. You have complete control over what to share on Facebook.
5 Things Facebook Can Teach You About User Adoption
The truth is people want to maintain status quo as much as possible. In physics, this is called inertia. In business, this is called “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” mentality. In intranet / technology lingo, this is called user-adoption challenge.
Many times in our daily course of work, you and I (KM-ers) have to deal with user-adoption issues. We usually face it when we are introducing new features, or new collaborative tools in the social intranet.
We can definitely learn from Facebook. I really like how Facebook roll out its Timeline. Despite what the critics say, I think Facebook has a sound understanding on how people behave.
Here are five takeaways from the roll-out of Facebook Timeline:
1. Leave them no choice but to adopt the new feature. Are you thinking to persuade your way to get people to adopt the new feature? (*cynical smile*) Let’s get real. There is no way you can get 100% user adoption using persuasion alone. Even the best demagogue in the world, Barrack Obama, can’t get all Americans to agree with him.
2. Explain what the new feature is using one-liner and creative contents, e.g. video, visual illustration. Check out Facebook Timeline page. Facebook describes Timeline in one simple sentence: Tell your life story with a new kind of profile. And Facebook illustrates Timeline using great videos and visuals. Neat!
3. Use Social Proof. At the bottom of Facebook Timeline page, you can see how many of your friends are using the new feature. Nothing is more persuasive than “peer pressure”.
4. Make the transition easy. To use Facebook Timeline, you only need to click Get Timeline button. In one click, you can instantly see the preview of your Timeline page. You can then fine-tune further and publish your page.
5. Give “opt-out” function to hide (sensitive) information.You can’t not force people to share information that they don’t want to reveal. People will resist fiercely to protect their information. So provide an “opt-out” function so that people can choose not to share (sensitive) information. See how Facebook does it.
Thoughts? Do you like Facebook’s user adoption method?
Think you have nothing to do with Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) and Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA)? Well, think again.
The whole SOPA/PIPA saga has implications beyond US politics and beyond the use of information in the internet. It also contains valuable lessons for intranet managers who need to craft information and data protection policies in the organisation.
SOPA & PIPA – Explained Visually
Being a non-US citizen, I honestly couldn’t care less about the massive online protest against SOPA and PIPA. Heck, I don’t even know what they are. That’s until Wikipedia was voluntarily shut down for 24 hours on 18 January 2012.
The Wikipedia blackout leaves me with no choice but to find out what’s the big fuss all about. It’s not easy. Wikipedia “simply” told me to contact the senate now (I’m not in the US). And everybody in Twitter and in other online media were just parroting each other and said that SOPA/PIPA is going to censor internet, inhibit innovation, and kill the start ups.
I thought: “Wow. Can two US-based regulations create so much ripple-effect in the internet?”. And “why people are against good-intention policies (they are meant to deter piracy, aren’t they)?” To me, something was lost in translation (no pun intended). Thankfully this video helps to shed some light.
I found another visual explanation that is equally good in explaining the technicalities of SOPA and PIPA.
Basically the problem with SOPA/PIPA is its vague language. And the worse part is, they are killing the “messengers” – not the pirates. As a result, the weak languages in the two bills can be exploited and lead to internet censorship, while the pirates go scot-free. In other words, SOPA/PIPA doesn’t address the problem that they intend to.
4 Lessons Learnt for Intranet Managers
One direct implication of SOPA/PIPA being shelved for intranet is this: you can still download online information from internet, copy-and-paste it to Microsoft word, and share it in the corporate intranet. Yes, I know many of you are doing this stuff (Pheww! what a relief). But trust me, you should make use of pull technology, i.e. RSS feeds.
The SOPA/PIPA saga, including the campaign against it, has some valuable lessons beyond the use of information in the organisation. It also tells us how to promote open culture, how to craft great information policies and how to implement it in the organisation.
Here are the key takeaways:
1. Use Internet Publishing Model: Publish and then filter. Intranet has to encourage information sharing. Thus, make it easy for people to publish information in the internet. Filtering should take place after publishing, not before. This will encourage openness, and reduce effort required to filter information.
2. Don’t kill the messenger. The punishment has to be directed to those who abuse the shared information. Normally, it is understood that people aren’t allowed to share corporate information to outsiders. So people who share corporate information in the intranet shouldn’t be held responsible if another person leak the information to the outsiders.
3. Get diverse opinions before rolling the policy out. SOPA/PIPA was supported by Rupert Murdoch and Hollywood, but criticised by many internet entrepreneurs like Google founders, Jimmy Wales, etc. Worse, the policy makers don’t have answer for the critics. You don’t want this to happen on your intranet policy. Get staff’s opinions from different departments/ranks, and make sure you plug any flaw in the policy.
4. Run campaign to promote your policy. Remember I mention earlier that Wikipedia blackout made me aware of SOPA/PIPA saga? You have to run great PR campaign to bring the newly-minted policies to people’s attention. Informing people via email will not be sufficient. How about getting the top management to share their views? Or how about showing how many people support your policy, like how Google does it. (of course, for this to happen, you have to make it easy for people to show their support. See how Mozilla does it.)
What do you think about SOPA/PIPA saga? How are you going to learn from it to create better intranet information policies? Share your thoughts.
I have been told that social media isn’t for old folks. So any programme that targets senior citizens, shouldn’t use social media – but should only use the traditional media, i.e. brochures, pamphlets, tv commercials.
Well, I disagree. While the senior citizens may not be savvy in using social media, their children and grandchildren are. Senior citizens can benefit from reverse mentoring and pick up the required social media skills from their younger relatives. And, by doing so, the senior citizens have opportunity to connect and bond with their family members.
Using “Live Well, Age Well” programme as a case study, I’ll describe how social media can benefit programmes targeting the senior citizens.
According to the Council for Third Age (C3A), Live Well, Age Well means wellness in six dimensions: intellectual, physical, social, emotional, vocational, and spiritual. The breadth of Live Well, Age Well programmes necessitates cultivating strong communities of interest and organising engaging events like Active Ageing Carnival.
Using social media, C3A can strengthen these communities, can enrich the senior citizens’ experience and can provide better engagement and motivation in its programmes.
The rising trend of social media usage among American senior citizens, gives reason to believe that more Singaporean senior citizens are using social media. Like USA, Singapore has high internet penetration rate. Social media provides a new opportunity for C3A, to motivate and engage Singaporean senior citizens.
Getting the senior citizens to learn social media can be challenging. However, this challenge is also an opportunity to improve the senior citizens’ intellectual wellness, since they need to learn a new skill, i.e. social media skill. Furthermore, social media can boost motivation and engagement level in C3A’s Live well, Age well programmes, because:
1. Social media connects the seniors’ activity with that of their family and friends.
The seniors’ participation in C3A programmes becomes visible to their family and friends. When their family and friends “follow” their activities, the seniors become more engaged and motivated to participate in the programmes. In addition, the seniors can keep track of their family and friends’ life and vice-versa – which means, social media can boost the seniors’ social wellness.
2. Social media captures stories and promotes knowledge sharing.
Senior citizens love to tell stories and to share knowledge about their passion or life experience. Social media is the perfect medium to capture these stories / knowledge and to distribute them in the seniors’ social network (family and friends). This provides a new channel for the senior citizen to express their feelings and thoughts – which can boost their emotional wellness, as well as their vocational wellness.
3. Social media provides space for conversation and community-building.
In Social Media, the senior citizens can converse and connect with like-minded peers, whenever it is convenient for them to do so. This extends the peer-support network, so that the seniors can continue to encourage each other through online space. Providing an online space to converse, connect and cultivate communities of interest, could translate to a better spiritual, physical, and vocational wellness.
In short, social media can be used to supplement the C3A’s Live well, Age well programmes so that the senior citizens have higher motivation and engagement. Through social media, they can receive morale support from their family and friends, can capture stories and share knowledge, and can participate online in community of interest discussion.
I hope C3A can seriously consider social media as an additional means to get involvement from the senior citizens’ family members. Thoughts?
Happy Water Dragon Lunar New Year! (Gong Xi Fa Cai!) With new year, comes new hopes and aspirations. So I thought I’ll do a review of my life thus far. This is my first time doing a life review.
What triggers me to do a life review? Well, time flies and life is short. So I need to examine whether I have been living the way I want it to be. It’s the right time for a review, because the year 2011 (metal rabbit lunar year) had been so special to me in many ways:
January 2011: I got married
April 2011: I got promoted (my first-ever promotion in a job)
July 2011: I hit the big 3-0 (I’m 30 years old)
September 2011: I traveled to central Europe for the first time. I had a super good time there.
November 2011: For the first time in my life, I spoke in front of an audience about something that I’m passionate about (no, it’s not directly related to my work).
December 2011: the biggest achievement in my life so far: I became a father.
Not bad eh? After all those achievements, you probably think that I’m contented and happy.
But I’m not…
Hold your judgment. I’m not a greedy ungrateful dude that you think I’m. I’m not contented because I miss my life, back in 1999. That’s when everything in my life went so well. I managed to prove people wrong. No one believed I could achieve my dreams. But I did it! I went to National University of Singapore, and I got a pretty girlfriend.
Ah, the sweet taste of victory. This movie clip pretty much described my feelings in 1999.
Oh gosh! Now I get it. I know the result of my life review now. Here it is:
My current life sucks
Yep, that’s true. My life sucks. Despite all my achievements, I don’t feel any glory like the one that I had in 1999. And my current life doesn’t lead me to shout: “I’m the king of the world!” (that’s how I felt back in 1999). I have nothing to shout about now. My life thus far has been average. Average in happiness and success. Simply average in every angle!
It’s not about being grateful for what I have (I’m grateful for everything that I have now). But it’s about being outstanding – not being average. It’s about wanting more and about shaping the world around me, the way I want it. Sounds crazy, doesn’t it? Listen to Steve Jobs in the interview clip below, and you’ll see that I’m not so crazy after all.
I know I’m capable of achieving so much more. I believe in myself. I believe in my ability – because no one else will.
It’s 2012 (water dragon lunar year). And I have bigger dreams now. I won’t tell you what these dreams are, because according to Derek Sivers, I have to keep my goals to myself. But mark my words: I will make these dreams come true – just like I did in 1999. (I will “go get it. Period.”)
It’s 2012 folks! This year marks the end of era where “average-joe” intranet rules, where SOP is preferred over empowerment and engagement, and where customers keep mum about their dissatisfaction. And this year means screw business-as-usual! Organisations have to transform themselves to be social organisation or face slow-painful-death.
What is Social Organisation (a.k.a. Social Business/Enterprise)?
Yunus’ concept on social business is beautiful. The world certainly needs Yunus’ social business model to beat poverty. Too bad, the IT and KM folks use the same term to mean organisations that use social technology, i.e. social media and social intranet, as competitive advantage (for examples, case studies, and definition, please read how IBM consulting describes social business).
For the sake of clarity, in this blog, I will use the term social organisation to refer to businesses empowered by social technology. I will avoid using the term social business/enterprise - unless I want to talk about Yunus’ version of social business (very unlikely as microfinance is not my passion. Social technology is). I suggest you do the same too.
So, which version of social organisation is correct? It depends on what you believe in. I believe corporate (internal) and consumer communications are converging, and thus I think social organisations have to be supported by social media and by social intranet. So I agree with Fred Cavazza’s definition of social organisation.
I also think the main purpose of social technology is to build communities. Combining these thoughts, I get the following definition of social organisation:
Social Organisation is organisation that maximises the use of social media (technology) and social intranet, to improve consumer and employee engagement and to build communities for innovation.
Why Organisations Have to Be Social Organisations?
Three big benefits underpin the need to become social organisations:
First, improved ability to engage employees, esp. the gen-Ys. Gen-Ys are moody bunch. This generation was brought up with a belief that the sky is the limit. They have a high (often unrealistic) sense of entitlement to pursue their dream/passion. The Millennials demand empowerment and bask in entrepreneurship working environment. Social organisation offers them such environment – an environment where they can be engaged and have the freedom to pursue their passion.
Second, improved ability to build communities. Social technologies are great community-building tools. They allow people with similar passion to “gather” and connect beyond the physical limitation, i.e. geographical boundaries and time difference. In other words, social technology is a catalyst for community-building. And we all know that passionate communities are breeding grounds for collective learning and innovation.
Third, ability to build relationship with social customers. Many people use social media like Facebook, Twitter, not only to improve the way they interact and live, but also to give recommendations and voice-out displeasure. Organisations would be wise to maintain presence in social media, to engage the social customers, to capture their testimonials, and to address their concern real-time.
Any thoughts? Write them down in the comment box below.
Recommended Readings:
Bradley, A., J., and McDonald, M., P. (2011). The Social Organisation – Chapter 1: The Promise of Social Organisations. Harvard Business Press.
This is the part II of Why SMRT Has To Be More Empathetic and Be a Social Organisation (read the part I). In this blog post, I’ll discuss SMRT’s poor understanding of who the social customers are, and what they want. I’ll also convince you that SMRT has to transform itself to be a social organisation, to deal with the social customers.
Poor understanding of what the social customers want
Let’s face it. SMRT wouldn’t be in a rut like they are in today, if the MRT broke-down incidents happen 10 years ago. Most customers are just going to complain verbally with their buddies in Kopitiam (Singapore-style coffee shop). A few would probably bother to write to the print media. SMRT can quietly do their work, i.e. fixing the damaged rail way and the trains, and the public will soon forget the whole incidents.
Alas the customers today are not the customers 10 years ago. The customers today are equipped with Facebook, Twitter, blogs, and other social media tools that give them the power of media. So the customers today are in fact some sort of amateur journalists / publicist who can distribute contents at will. There is a term for this new breed of customers: social customers.
Let’s find out how bad the online sentiment against SMRT is. On 17 Dec 2011, I did a quick check on online sentiment for SMRT, using Twendz and Socialmention (both are tools for online conversation tracker). Here is the result:
1. Twendz reveals negative sentiment against SMRT. The negative mood grows 18%, in 8 minutes of Twitter conversation. See the following illustrations for further details.
First caption. On 17 Dec 11, at 4:23 p.m., here is the online sentiment for SMRT: 43% negative vs 39% neutral vs 19% positive.
Second caption. On 17 Dec 11, 4:31 p.m., here is the online sentiment for SMRT: 61% negative vs 26% neutral vs 13% positive.
2. Socialmention also reveals a negative trend against SMRT. Within 15 minutes of Twitter conversation, the positive:negative ratio decreases from 3:1 to 2:1 (about 17% decrease).
On 17 Dec 2011, Socialmention shows decreasing positive vs negative ratio (highlighted in yellow) for SMRT.
SMRT’s response to address this issue? In my view, they did two major things. First, SMRT created a corporate Twitter account (@SMRT_Singapore) to improve information flow to customers. Second, SMRT conducted a postmortem and announced that they will revise their SOPs.
Sadly the two responses above wouldn’t be able to satisfy the social customers’ needs. What these smart, young, and vocal people want isn’t a better SOPs (who cares about the SOPs – which were created by the same people who messed up – anyway?), or a one-way-communication tweets from a corporate account that sounds stiff, cold, and super boring (see the following screen-shot and you’ll know what I mean).
one-way-communication tweets from SMRT_Singapore on 18 Dec 11. A classic example of how NOT to use Twitter to promote your brand.
What the social customers want is engagement. Yes, they want to be involved. They want to be part of something. So what SMRT needs to do is actually engage the social customers. When they conduct a postmortem, get some opinions from the social customers. And when SMRT tweets, ask for feedback, or “talk” to the social customers. Twitter isn’t an information panel. It is a two-way communication platform.
Engagement, both online and internal staff engagement, is something that SMRT has to learn urgently. To be successful in engagement, SMRT has to let go of its command-and-control culture / Taylorism (i.e. an outdated management theory that emphasises high-level management control over employee work practices and standardisation of work (read: SOPs)). A manifestation of SMRT’s Taylorism, other than the SOPs, is the do’s and don’ts list for the public. Would anyone bother to remember the list?
And SMRT has to transform itself to become social organisation. Social organisation invests in social intranet – so that poor internal communication/coordination among staff can be minimised, and in social media – so that the organisation can engage its social customers and can crowdsource new ideas to solve problems or to innovate (these days, no organisation can claim they have all the solution to meet customers’ complex needs).
Facebook Timeline
