What is the KM role of the Company Experts?

In a fully developed Knowledge Management framework, the company experts have a key part to play.

talk to the experts
The experts are one of your core stakeholder groups in KM, and your change management approach needs to explicity address these people.  For many years they may have acted as sole sources of much of the knowledge, and their personal status may be tied up with their own knowledge. KM needs to offer them a new role, which can be seen as an opportunity rather than a threat.

The technical experts in many knowledge management organisations tend to have a three-fold role:

  • Acting as a source of expert opinion for others, and for the identification and development of technical practices and procedures;
  • Maintaining guidelines and best practices, and validating lessons;
  • Building effective learning communities.

In other words, they are accountable for:

  • Developing and sharing their own tacit knowledge;
  • Ownership or stewardship of the explicit knowledge in their subject matter area;
  • Creation of the network that stewards the tacit knowledge in their subject matter area.
These new roles allow the Experts to become the stewards of knowledge, rather than the sole holders. Make sure these new roles are made explicit and built into their job descriptions.

View Original Source Here.

When Peer Assists add value

Peer Assists are one of the most powerful processes in KM, but they are not for every occasion.

A  Peer Assist – a meeting when a project team seeks input of knowledge and advice from experienced peers – is one of the most effective tools in the KM armoury. It is demand-driven, the knowledge which is shared will almost certainly be reapplied very quickly, the knowledge is brought into the project in its richest form (in the heads of experienced practitioners) and the diversity of viewpoints within a peer assist helps eliminate many of the common cognitive biases.

However a Peer Assist is costly in time and (in the case of multinational companies) in travel costs. It is not something that can be done quickly, as it takes time for the visiting peers and the project team to fully understand each others’ contexts. A Peer Assist for a major project may take days.

The value of the Peer Assist must outweigh the costs, which is why they are not a cure-all for every problem.

Here are some guidelines for whether a Peer Assist is the right solution for a project

  • The project recognises that it needs knowledge
  • The required knowledge is complex knowledge, which has not been codified into standards and best practices.
  • The Project team has tried traditional knowledge seeking methods such as searching, browsing, eLearning, formal training, expert support etc.
  • The scope of work, and the issues which need to be discussed, are clear.
  • The project team have enough knowledge of the subject to understand the core issues, but still need expertise and experience from other people to help them make the correct decision.
  • The project team are still open to new ideas and challenges, and are not yet committed to a course of action
  • The potential saving exceeds the cost of the meeting.
  • Therefore they need a Peer Assist

View Original Source Here.

KM value delivery through problem solving

Much of the value delivered through Knowledge Management comes as a result of solving problems.

“How do you show the value of Knowledge Management?”

Yet another client was asking me the same question – how can you demonstrate the value?

I had just quoted to him Shell’s claim that they deliver £200m per year though their knowledge-sharing communities, and he just could not see how that value could be measured.

The answer is quite simple.

Shell’s CoPs are based on Pull – on Problem Solving. People in the Shell business units have a problem, and they got to the Communities of Practice to find a solution. When they have found a solution, they estimate how much time, money or risk that solution offered them.
Here’s an example

You can see clearly how access to Community Knowledge allowed this guy to obtain a better price from a vendor. Demonstrable value added. Here’s another example

One man-month of effort avoided. Demonstrable value.
It is by adding up examples like this, that Shell come to the figure of $200m annual savings that they claim for knowledge management.

Part of the challenge for the customer, was that until that point, he had not made the link between Knowledge Management and Problem Solving. To him, KM was all about blogs and case studies  – about Knowledge Push, and not Pull.

Once he could see the problem-solving link, he could more clearly see how KM could deliver value.

View Original Source Here.

Why does one third of Knowledge Managers have no KM skills?

There are three types of Knowledge Manager on LinkedIN, and one type seems to have no Knowledge Management skills at all.

You know, on your linked-in profile, how you can build a list of skills, which people endorse you for? (see example to the right).

We all know that these endorsements can be a bit dodgy, with people endorsing other people they barely know, for skills they don’t know whether they have. However these skills lists at least give a rough indication of what people are professionally recognised for.

Recently, while circulating invitations to the 2017 Knowledge Management survey, I looked at the skills profiles of 200 people with Knowledge in their job title – Knowledge Managers, Heads of Knowledge Management, Knowledge and information Managers and so on (similar to a review I did of CKOs in 2015)

The results will surprise you. 

The graph above shows the placement of Knowledge Management in the Linked-in list of skills for these 200 people. I think we can see three groupings on this chart.

  1. The first group is where Knowledge Management is one of their primary skills. 60 of these people (30%) had KM as their top skill, and 92 (46%) had KM in their top 3 skills. These, I suggest, are the professional Knowledge Managers.
  2. The second group – a smaller group – is where KM is one of the top 10 skills, but not in the top 3.  The small peak at 7 in the graph above was consistent as the dataset grew, and there seems to be a group of people who have developed KM skills, but as a secondary skillset. They retain their core skillset, and have added KM. For example, these are the lawyers whose top skills are Law, Employment Law, Contract Law etc, with KM as number 6 or 7. Or the oil-field KMers with top skills in Petroleum Engineering, Drilling, Oil Shales etc, with KM at number 7 or 8. These, I suspect, are the temporary knowledge managers – either tasked with managing knowledge about those with a KM job to do, but not wit a long term commitment to Knowledge management.
  3. The third group are the ones I find the most puzzling. They have a Knowledge Management job title, but the Knowledge Management skill is either way way down the list (31 people) or does not appear on their list of skills at all (37 people). These 68 people, representing over a third of the dataset (34%), seem to have a KM job but effectively no KM skills. 
How can this be?  You would not have a job as a project manager with no project management skills, or an HR manager with no HR skills, or a Finance manager with no Financial skills. 
Looking a bit deeper, I think these are the people who may not actually have different jobs, but with a Knowledge Management job title

Here are 3 examples of the skillsets they Do have, which suggest that they are maybe not playing a Knowledge manager role.

  1. Information Management, SharePoint, Content Management, Document Management (an information manager rebadged as a Knowledge Manager?)
  2. Communication, PR, Client Satisfaction, Marketing (a marketing manager rebadged as a Knowledge Manager?)
  3. HR, Talent Management, Onboarding, Recruiting, Leadership development (an HR manager rebadged as a Knowledge manager?)

Now I know there is no accepted definition of Knowledge Management, and that anyone can call themselves a Knowledge Manager if they want to, and that my interpretation of the third group may be my own prejudice, but I still think that if you have a Knowledge manager with no knowledge Management skills, then something is wrong.

Either there is an unskilled person in a KM post, or its not really a KM post at all. 

View Original Source Here.

One week left to take part in the global KM survey

You have one week left to take part in our 2017 survey of Knowledge Management. As a thank-you we will give you a free copy of the 2014 survey results, as well as the 2017 results.

In 2014 we organised one of the most comprehensive surveys of global knowledge management ever devised.  The results were fascinating, with insights about the maturity of KM by region and sector, the size and composition of KM teams, the value delivered by KM, the technologies, processes and governance processes applied, and details of communities of practice, lesson learned systems and best practice approaches.
This year we are running the survey again, to see what has changed in the last 3 years. Anyone who takes part will be rewarded with a link to a free copy of the 2014 results, as well as being sent a set of 2017 results when the survey closes at the end of April 2017.

Would you like to take part?

If you can answer on behalf of an organisation that does KM, or has done KM, or plans to introduce KM, then please follow this link and take the survey. Bear in mind that the comprehensive nature of the survey means it may take up to an hour to complete, but this also means the results are equally comprehensive and rich, so your time is well worth investing.

Feel free to take the survey now, and/or forward this newsletter to any of your colleagues.

View Original Source Here.

KM newsletter – the 6 types of KM Audit – which one is right for you?

For those of you not on our newsletter distribution list, here is a copy of the Knoco April 2017 newsletter which was sent out yesterday.

April 2017 

A users guide to Knowledge Management audits

 

In This Issue

Other News

·         News from Knoco

Forward

If you have people you would like to forward this email to, please forward using the button above
If you are not subscribed to this newsletter and would like to be, please subscribe using the button above.

Unsubscribe

You’re receiving this letter because you signed up at knoco.com or ordered free templates from us.
If you no longer want to receive this newsletter, please unsubscribe using the button above.

Contact us

 
Javier’s blog in Spanish
Vedalis blog in French
Ewa’s blog in Polish

 This newsletter is a guide to the several different type of Knowledge Management Audit.
Auditing your KM program is always a good idea, but you need to know the purpose of the audit before you start, and have a clear idea of what you will do with the audit results.  Only then can you be sure what sort of Audit you need.
Explore our user guide below to understand the audit options available to you.

The 6 types of audit

We describe 6 types of audit in this newsletter. These are as follows:
·         An audit of your Knowledge Management Framework in order to identify the strengths and missing elements, so that you can put an action plan in place to close the gaps;
·         An audit of the KM culture, so you can develop a plan and strategy to strengthen the supportive cultural elements, and remove the blocking elements;
·         An audit of the knowledge itself, so you can identify those knowledge topics in most need of attention, and so prioritise and focus your KM efforts where they will make most difference;
·         An audit of one or more Communities of Practice, so you can help them develop through a number of stages ;
·         A high level KM maturity assessment of the organisation, to get a very quick overview of strengths and weaknesses;
·         An audit against a KM standard, for accreditation purposes.
 
Contact Knoco for more guidance on the type of KM audit you may need.

 

Audit of the KM framework

Most organisations already do some elements of Knowledge Management, even before formal Knowledge Management implementation begins. KM is, after all, common sense, and people have often made a start without even calling it “knowledge management”. However some critical elements of the Knowledge Management Framework are usually missing, and the elements which are present are often not joined up. Organisations usually commission a Knowledge Management framework assessment in the early stages of their KM journey,& to identify the gaps and to map out the actions for completing, and joining up, the framework.
A KM Framework audit will look at the following elements:
·         The transfer of knowledge through discussion and conversation;
·         The capture of knowledge, through recording, documentation and codification;
·         The management of captured knowledge, through curation and synthesis;
·         Seeking and re-using knowledge;
·         The roles and responsibilities which support the above steps;
·         The processes which support the above steps;
·         The technologies which support the above steps;
·         The governance system which supports all of the above, and seeks to develop and maintain the required behaviours.
The audit is usually conducted through a series of interviews, or at a workshop.  A typical Audit output will look at the status of all the component KM elements, indentify strengths and weaknesses, compare the organisation to Best in Class, and recommend actions to implement the ideal solution for the organisation.
Contact Knoco to learn more about the KM Framework assessment audit

Audit of the KM culture

Culture is closely linked to KM implementation. A supportive culture will accelerate implementation while an unsupportive culture will slow or even block KM. However Knowledge Management is itself a culture change agent, and a complete KM framework will act to slowly change the culture. It’s worth performing a KM culture audit in the early stages of your Knowledge Management Implementation in order to map out the specific cultural blockers and enablers in your organisation, and then running it again at regular intervals to map the progress of culture change.
A typical KM cultural audit will be based on a survey and focus group discussions, and may address some or all of the following cultural issues:
·         Openness vs. closed behaviours;
·         Honesty vs. dishonesty – The extent to which people will filter knowledge and information when communicating with peers or seniors;
·         Empowerment vs. disempowerment –  the extent to which people feel able to act on knowledge, independent of approval from their leaders;
·         Learner vs. knower. The extent to which people put a value on acquiring new knowledge as opposed to the knowledge they already hold in their heads;
·         Need to share vs. need to know. The extent to which people offer their knowledge to others rather than keeping it secret;
·         Challenge v Acceptance. The extent to which people seek to understand why things are the way they are;
·         Collaborative vs. competitive. The extent to which people identify with and share in the success of others;
·         Remembering vs. forgetting. This is the extent to which people acknowledge and incorporate the past when making plans for the future and the extent to which they consciously record decisions, judgments, knowledge etc. for future reference;
·         Strategic patience vs. Short-termism. This is the extent to which people consider the ‘bigger picture’ and try to understand how their actions fit into the broader, longer term vision for their organisation;
·         Relentless pursuit of excellence v complacency. This is the extent to which organisations acknowledge there is always room for improvement.
 Contact Knoco to learn about the cultural audit, or try a free online version.

Audit of the Knowledge topics

By Joaquim Carbonnel, Knoco Spain

There is no doubt about the value added by knowledge management to an organization. But knowledge management requires also an investment and an effort from the responsible roles.  One imperative consideration at this level is to prioritise the Knowledge Management activities, and to focus them on the knowledge topics of highest priority.
The knowledge of an organization tends to “infinite”, and it is not possible to manage something as big as the total sum of organizational knowledge. Sometimes the management of knowledge simply fails because the prioritization exercise has not been done and there cannot be an agreement on which are the most important knowledge topics for an organization or even for a functional area. We use the concept of “critical knowledge”: the knowledge topics that are essential to achieve corporate goals. As even this knowledge could be hard to manage, we must prioritize it following some agreed criteria. It is helpful to consider some of the following questions:
·         The current importance of the topic;
·         The future importance of the topic;
·         The level of documentation on the topic;
·         The current level of diffusion of the knowledge,
·         The required level of diffusion;
·         The maturity of the topic;
·         The organisation’s level of expertise on the topic;
·         The required future level of expertise;
·         The ease of replacing the knowledge if it were lost;
·         The risk of knowledge loss.
A useful recommendation in this case is to implement a knowledge scan. Its aim is to high-grade the knowledge topics that needs more attention. The knowledge scan (or audit) helps you focus Knowledge Management where it brings the highest value to the organization (or where it reduces the risk of losing the knowledge). To keep Knowledge Management “fit” as the organization priorities change over time, we strongly recommend carrying out this exercise whenever the main goals change. It will help keep our framework updated and people and KM tools fully operational.

Contact Knoco for help in Knowledge Topic audit

Audit of the CoPs

Many companies introduce Communities of Practice as part of their Knowledge Management Framework. Communities are not an instant solution – they grow over time, and pass through several stages as they mature.  A CoP audit allows you to track the development of the Communities of Practice, and the output from the audit can be used to plan the next stage of CoP development.
CoP audits review a number of dimensions related to the CoP, for example the list below
·         Leadership and sponsorship
·         Business case
·         Resources and roles
·         Member engagement
·         Deliverables and activities
·         Trusted relationships
·         Processes
·         Technology
·         Rewards and recognition
·         Metrics
 Outputs like the one shown below can help identify which of these dimensions the CoP needs to work on to reach the next level of development.

Contact Knoco for advice on CoP audit.

KM maturity audit

KM maturity audits are common as a quick-look review of the current state of KM. At Knoco, we think these maturity audits are OK as a general guide, but believe that you need more detailed audits in order to draw any firm conclusions.  Knowledge Management is more of a step-change than a maturation process, and using a maturity index for anything other than a single KM component such as a Community of Practice can be misleading.
However is all you need is a quick-look review, then try our free online KM maturity audit.

Audit against a KM standard

At the moment, there is no international standard for Knowledge Management which you can be audited against.  However an ISO standard is under development and should be released for public review later this year.  Once this standard has been reviewed and published, we will at last have an internationally agreed management standard for KM which will provide the basis for internal and external audit. Until then, watch this space!

Invitation to take part in our Knoco Global Survey of Knowledge Management

Take part in our 2017 survey of Knowledge Management, and we will give you a free copy of the 2014 results, as well as the 2017 results.
In 2014 we organised one of the most comprehensive surveys of global knowledge management ever devised.  The results were fascinating, with insights about the maturity of KM by region and sector, the size and composition of KM teams, the value delivered by KM, the technologies, processes and governance processes applied, and details of communities of practice, lesson learned systems and best practice approaches.
This year we are running the survey again, to see what has changed in the last 3 years. Anyone who takes part will be rewarded with a link to a free copy of the 2014 results, as well as being sent a set of 2017 results when the survey closes.
Would you like to take part?
If you can answer on behalf of an organisation that does KM, or has done KM, or plans to introduce KM, then please follow this link and take the survey. Bear in mind that the comprehensive nature of the survey means it may take up to an hour to complete, but this also means the results are equally comprehensive and rich, so your time is well worth investing.
Feel free to take the survey now, and/or forward this newsletter to any of your colleagues.

News from Knoco

Some updates from across the Knoco family are listed here.
·         Knoco Indonesia will conduct the 2nd Indonesia KM Summit in Yogyakarta, Central Java – Indonesia on 8-9 August 2017. Contact Sapta for details.
·         Nick Milton will be taking part in KMUK in June
·         In May, Rupert Lescott and Don Dressler will be running the Bird Island workshop at the KA Connect Conference 2017 – a KM conference aimed specifically at the Architecture, Engineering and Construction industry
Knoco is the registered trademark of Knoco Ltd.
All company details can be found at www.knoco.com
Don’t want to receive these emails anymore? You can Unsubscribe
Knoco Ltd, 37 Portland Rd, Kilmarnock, KA1 2DJ, UK

View Original Source Here.

Invitation to take part in the Global 2017 KM survey

Take part in the 2017 global KM survey and we will give you a free copy of the 2014 results, as well as a copy of the 2017 results when they are available.

The survey is a re-run, 3 years later, of a major survey we did in 2014 which gave some really interesting results, many of which I have covered in my blog. Just a few of the results are:

and many many more.

This year we are running the survey again, to see what has changed in the last 3 years, and also to extend the survey into countries and industries that were under-represented last time. Anyone who takes part will be rewarded with a link to a free copy of the 2014 results, as well as being sent a set of 2017 results when the survey closes.

Would you like to take part?

If you can answer on behalf of an organisation that does KM, or has done KM, or plans to introduce KM, then please follow this link and take the survey. Bear in mind that the comprehensive nature of the survey means it may take up to an hour to complete, but this also means the results are equally comprehensive and rich, so your time is well worth investing.

Feel free to take the survey now, and/or forward this blog post to any of your colleagues or contacts in other companies.

View Original Source Here.

How much knowledge can one person have?

What are the limits to one person’s knowledge? Other than being “one personbyte”?

The April 1, 2017 edition of New Scientist magazine has the theme of Knowledge, and contains a set of Knowledge-related articles, one of which deals with the issue of how much one person can know.

The issue, it turns out, is not so much about the storage capacity of the human brain, but the apallingly low speed of uploading the knowledge. Compared to computers, we are very very slow at inputting new material, and the limits to knowledge are constrained by our learning rate.

The article describes the idea of a “personbyte” – the amount of knowledge one person can reasonably learn in a lifetime. In the craftsman economy of 100 years ago, a personbyte was enough knowledge to create an impressive artefact – a steamboat, a canal, or a suspension bridge. Nowadays one personbyte is nowhere near enough to create modern products, or deliver modern services.

For example New Scientist suggests that

“to build an F-22 Raptor fighter jet, complete with on-board missile-guidance systems, you are going to need many thousands of personbytes.”

Which means, of course, that you are going to need Knowledge Management.

If all the necessary knowledge can be held by one person then there is no need for KM (Aristotle didn’t need a knowledge manager), but when a job requires the knowledge of thousands of people, then there needs to be some sort of management system in place; not just to coordinate this knowledge, but to preserve it for the future. When the Raptor Jet needs to be serviced, for example, that knowledge needs to still be available.

For any job requiring more than one personbyte of knowledge, the knowledge work must be seen as a collective endeavour and not a personal endeavour, which means that the knowledge must be treated collectively and seen as a collective resource.  The role of KM is to ensure that collective resource is well managed, accessible when needed, and of a reliable quality.

As the New Scientist article concludes;

“The barrier to progress lies not in the quantity of knowledge our brains can hold, but in its quality”

So its not so much about how much knowledge a worker can personally know, but whether they can access the correct, relevant, high quality, knowledge at the right time.

Ensuring the availability and quality of this knowledge is our task as knowledge managers.

View Original Source Here.

Knowledge, Justified True Belief, and David Brent’s dance

If Knowledge is Justified True Belief, then what does “Justification” entail?  A recent New Scientist article, and a BBC charity video, give us some pointers.

BBC Comic Relief charity video including Ricky Gervais’ character “David Brent”

The April 1, 2017 edition of New Scientist magazine has the theme of Knowledge, and contains a set of Knowledge-related articles, the first of which explores the definition of Knowledge as “Justified True Belief” (aka the JTB definition).

I am not an epistemologist, but from what I read there are many type of knowledge, and this definition only applies to one type.  There is Propositional knowledge (“I know that Paris is the capital of France”), there is Acquaintance knowledge (“I know (am acquainted with) Paris”), and there is Ability knowledge or know-how (“I know how to drive in Paris”).   In other languages there may be different words used for these different types of Knowing, which is why Knowledge is often a term lost in translation. The Justified True Belief definition applies only to Propositional Knowledge.

For propositional knowledge, the three parts of Truth, Belief and Justification are important. To know something you must first believe it, and for Knowledge to be factual it must by definition be true, or else it is falsehood (although the definition of True is not easy. Given the half-life of facts, “True” often means “True for now, as far as we know”). However Belief is not enough, and that is what brings us to David Brent, and the question on whether he really knows how to dance.

Illusions of belief and David Brent’s dance

Most of us believe things that are not true, and in particular overestimate our own Ability Knowledge. For example,

  • In a survey of faculty at the University of Nebraska, 68% believed they were in the top 25% for teaching ability, and more than 90% believed they were above average. 
  • 87% of MBA students at Stanford University believed their academic performance was above the median. 
  • In ratings of leadership, 70% of US students put themselves above the median. 
  • In ability to get on well with others, 85% of students put themselves above the median and 25% rated themselves in the top 1%.
  • 93% of the U.S. students and 69% of Swedish students in a survey put themselves in the top 50% for Driving Abiility for safety,
  • in another survey almost 80% of participants evaluated themselves as being an above-average driver.

This is the “Superiority illusion” described by Wikipedia. We consistently overestimate our Ability Knowledge, and the estimates above are of course nonsense. 80% of people cannot be above average, and 25% cannot be in the top 1%.  To make things worse, it is often the people who know the least, who overestimate their knowledge the most (the Illusion of Confidence).

Ricky Gervais’ comic creation David Brent is funny largely because he consistently overestimates his own ability, and this becomes very obvious to the viewer in the embarrassing situations that follow.  In the video above,  he honestly believes he not only knows how to dance, but knows how to dance better than the professional.

It is his firm belief, but is it Knowledge? Is it justified? We can see, through our own reaction and that of his Office colleagues from 3 minutes into the video, that his self-knowledge is in fact totally unjustified, and that it is false opinion, and not knowledge at all.

So why is this important to Knowledge Management?

Knowledge management seeks to improve the Ability knowledge of knowledge workers in the organisation, and thus help them perform better. It requires some way of sharing, co-creating and transferring knowledge – making it more widely available than just leaving it in the heads of the experts. But how much of the expert knowledge is justified? And how much is “David Brent” knowledge – asserted with confidence, but actually false?  Just because an expert confidently believes something, does not mean it is true. 
When seeking to transfer knowledge, I think that we often (or maybe always) need to transform Ability knowledge and Acquaintance knowledge into Propositional knowledge. An expert can be able in a topic and acquainted with a topic, but to teach or coach a non-expert, they usually need to transfer a proposition like “I know this is a good, or useful, or recommended way to do something”, or “I know that this is a bad, or dangerous, way to do something, which you should therefore avoid”. (I have to say that I could well be wrong here, not being an epistemologist).
Once you turn your knowledge into a proposition, it needs to be justified.
  • Teaching material should be justified as “good things to learn from”
  • Tips and Hints should be justified as “good things to consider”
  • Recommended practices should be justified as “approved practices to follow”
  • Guidelines and standard procedures should  be justified as “as far as we know at the moment, the most reliable way” to do something.

Justification comes through two mechanisms:

  • Justification through experience. Know-how knowledge is justified if it reliably results in above-average performance. The justification requires not just a correlation between the knowledge and the performance, but a justifiable causal link. Saying “I did X and my project succeeded, therefore doing X will help project success” is no more justified than saying “I wore red socks to the football and my team won, so wearing red socks will help team success”. 
  • Justification by the community of peers and experts. Once the community agrees that “doing X is recommended, as a way of enabling project success” you have community justification. 
These two mechanisms are also seen in the scientific method, where scientific results should be repeatable, and externally reviewed. David Brent’s dancing would not be justified, as it would consistently by rejected by any dancing community as being repeatedly awful. 
We need deal with the issue of justification in our own Knowledge Management programs, lest we end up with unreliable knowledge, the equivalent of David Brent trying to teach others how to dance. Because if it’s not justified, it’s not knowledge.

However we also need to recognise that justifying knowledge is not an easy thing to do, and that any justification is probably only provisional.  As the New Scientist article concludes:

Various attempts have been made to tighten up the standards of justification, and provide a definition of knowledge everyone can agree on. (However) all these epistemological investigations point us to one fact that we are wont to forget: that knowing something is a far richer, more complex state than merely believing it. The ability to distinguish between fact and opinion, and to constantly question what we call knowledge, it vital to human progress and something we cannot afford to let slip”.

View Original Source Here.

Skip to toolbar