First Serve Strategies

Recently, my sister Linda, who puts Indiana Jones to shame with her ability to dig up artifacts, sent me an electronic copy of the program from the 1963 Northern Kentucky Swim League Championship Meet.  In it was a photo of one of the many swim teams I was a part of as a child.  I immediately saw myself, in my eight-year-old splendor, seated in the front row among 53 teammates.

Since I thought my adult children would get a kick out of the photo, I immediately forward a copy to them.  My son, Brian, quickly responded with, “You’ve got some swagger there, pops.”  My first reaction was disbelief.  Although 1963 was a while ago, I still remember all the insecurities that came with being an eight-year-old boy.  At eight, my hands, feet and ears were clearly designed for a body much larger than mine, and my hair was curly, when curly wasn’t cool.  Clearly,  God either had a sense of humor, or was just having an off day when he designed me.

Then, I decided to have another look at the photo.  Sure enough, there was definitely a swagger.  If a picture tells a thousand words, the words coming from this young boy was, “welcome to my house and my team!”  Where was the insecure kid I knew myself to be?  How could this be?

Upon further reflection, a story started to form, providing context for the photo.  When I was eight, swimming was a big part of my life.  In addition to swimming in two summer leagues, I competed year-round on an AAU team, which involved interstate travel.

A typical summer day consisted of me waking at the crack of dawn, walking about ½ mile to the swim club where morning practices occurred.  Every morning, I would arrive about one hour before the rest of the team.  Upon my arrival, I would give the swim coach his wake up call, by knocking on the door of his apartment located at the club.  While the coach enjoyed breakfast, my job was to prepare the Olympic size pool for morning practice.  I would start by swimming behind a 2’ X 2’ window screen in order to skim the bugs off the water’s surface.  Usually, the coach and the rest of the team would show up just about the time I would have the lane dividers in place.

Following a two-hour practice, I would stay in the water to swim an extra mile.  I did this for endurance.  I didn’t know what endurance was.  I just knew that, if I wanted to be the best swimmer in the league, I needed it.   Following lunch, I would spend most of the day playing in the pool until late afternoon, when someone would pick me up to drive me to a nearby country club where I was on another team that practiced every evening.  As I got older, these daily routines were accompanied by weight training routines designed specifically for swimmers.  No, I didn’t do this because I had overbearing parents driving me to be an overachiever.  I did it because I was good at it, and I wanted to be the best.

That same “need-to-achieve” and “internal locus of control” is something I have experience time and again in successful entrepreneurs and business leaders.  It is a self-confidence that is rooted in hard work and dedication to a specific industry, customer set or domain.  It comes from working hard to be the best, not from an over-inflated view of self.  It is a swagger that says, “welcome to my house, and my field of expertise!”

©Mark P. Loschiavo

“From the outset, America had been a nation of entrepreneurs.”– A Patriot’s History of the United States by Larry Schweikart

I recently had the honor of hosting a delegation of entrepreneurs and economic development officials from Africa at Drexel University’s Baiada Center for Entrepreneurship.  During the dialogue one of our guests commented on the difficulty of obtaining financial support within the entrepreneurial ecosystem, be it private or public funds, for programs to incubate ideas, entrepreneurs and companies in Africa.  As she was explaining the situation in Nigeria, it brought to mind a similar conversation several years ago, while I was with a North American delegation to the United Kingdom to share best practices in entrepreneurship education and incubation.

When describing that the success of our programs at the Baiada Center are made possible through generous gifts from private individuals and companies, my colleagues from the UK informed me that private individuals/companies in the UK are not accustomed to contributing financially to endeavors like ours, rendering the government the only viable source of funding to operate their programs.  Said differently, the private sector in the UK looks to their government agencies to ensure growth of a healthy entrepreneurial ecosystem.

Recent events in China punctuate the impact of political systems on the state of the entrepreneurial ecosystem.  Baiada Center benefactor, Mel Baiada, recently visited a number of mega tech parks recently constructed in China.  With the full weight of central government behind it, entrepreneurship is becoming a booming industry in China.  Just a few short years ago, an educator visited me from China who was lamenting the difficulties of building momentum for entrepreneurship in China.  It is yet to be seen how government architected entrepreneurship will look.

Armed with a restless spirit and a longing to innovate, this country has prospered from its earliest days based on a strong belief in the power and ingenuity of private citizens over the wisdom of a central government.  That very spirit has propelled Drexel University’s Baiada Center to achieve top rankings in entrepreneurship.  I am grateful to the countless individuals and private companies for their contributions in helping us pursue our purpose of incubating ideas, entrepreneurs and companies.  It is a glowing example of the power and ingenuity of private citizens pursuing a common purpose over the wisdom of government.

Previously, on The Disintegration of Companies, I wrote about the art of alliances.  The blog ended with the caution that alliances often fail.  In this installment I would like to discuss some of the reasons for failure.

In their work on Entrepreneurial Alliances, Jeffrey J. Reuer, Africa Ariño, and Paul M. Olk argue that alliances fail because of changes in the environment of the alliance, poorly aligned partner strategies, governance issues, deficiencies in managerial capabilities and commitments, and a failure to collaborate.  While all of these reasons are relevant I will focus on two.

Partners’ Strategies

Partners’ strategies, should be carefully evaluated during the selection process and before an alliance is created.  The more closely aligned the strategic interests of the prospective partners, the more likely the alliance will succeed.  Several years ago I was one of the founders of a Joint Venture between two fortune 100 companies.  The Joint Venture provided computer maintenance and network services to customers for all of the top tier brands.  As a private label company, we acted as representatives of the companies who sold the products to the end users.  Even though we delivered service to thousands of companies in the US, our direct customers were IBM, HP, Gateway, Dell and others.

The majority partner in this strategic alliance was IBM.  As such their strategic interest in the alliance was quality service at an affordable cost.  The other partner’s strategic interest was primarily one of financial return.  While these two strategic interests are not mutually exclusive, it proved challenging.  As expected, both partners cared deeply about financial returns, but one partner was unwilling to gain it at the cost of customer satisfaction.  Ultimately, the joint venture did exceedingly well, but not without its share of governance issues that may have been minimized if the partner selection process focused more on partner strategies.

Culture

As mentioned above, Africa, Ariño, and Olk discuss managerial capabilities and commitments and collaborative processes.  I tend to group both of these under culture.  The need for a cultural match among alliance partners compounds as the level of interdependence and commitment among the parties increases.  If the alliance is in the form of a preferred vendor, cultural fit matters, but not as much as it does with a merger or acquisition.

In an attempt to enter the telecommunications market in 1984, IBM partnered with (and later acquired) Rolm Communications of Santa Clara, California.  In the mid-1980s IBM was known as an innovative company with a no-nonsense, button-down culture.  While employees were encouraged to take judicious risk and think outside the box, they were also encouraged to act and dress in only the most professional manner, which meant dark suits for both men and women. Alcohol was forbidden during the workday. A salesperson was only allowed to have a drink at lunch if his or her customer wanted a drink.  If that occurred, the salesperson was not supposed to make another call that day. While not forbidden, beards were discouraged.

Contrast that with the culture of California based Rolm, which held on-premise beer bashes for its employees each Friday, and the majority of the men I met sported full beards, and came to work dressed in casual clothes.  As far as I know, the women did not have facial hair, but they did dress casual.  I think you get the picture.  The two cultures were distinctly different, and I think it contributed heavily to the ultimate collapse of the alliance.

Cultural differences can lead to difficulties in collaboration, which can ultimately lead to the inability to adapt, a lack of communication and trust, and inadequate coordination and conflict resolution.

Before entering into an alliance it is important to look for fit—both in strategic interests and in culture.  All of these things can, and should be, evaluated during the selection process.  The selection process is much like the courting process in a romantic relationship, where each party is trying to put their best foot forward.  A dear friend once offered advice to her daughter regarding finding a mate.  “Take the one thing that bothers you about that person just a little bit now, multiply it by 100, and ask yourself if you could live with it for the rest of you life.”

©Mark P. Loschiavo

In part 1 of this series I talked about how more and more startup and emerging growth entrepreneurs are disintegrating their companies by outsourcing one or more of their three core business processes (product innovation/infrastructure/customer relationship).  Even corporate giants are outsourcing subsets of one or more of these processes.  Companies, who in the past would never consider entrusting any portion of the company’s customer relationship process to outsiders, have entered into agreements with outsiders to handle many of their customer sales, support and service processes.

In my last blog, I also wrote about the conflicts inherent in vertically integrated companies that can be minimized through disintegration. I would like to offer two more arguments in support of company disintegration through alliance.

The first is expedience.  In a world where technology cycles are measured in weeks or months and competition is truly global, speed to market has become increasingly important.  As mature companies attempt to grow, by entering new markets or expanding product lines, it is often more expedient to do this through acquisition or partnering.  Large pharmaceutical companies, who in the past have differentiated themselves through R&D, now allocate a higher percentage of their R&D budgets to acquiring technologies rather than developing them in-house.  This usually comes in the form of company acquisition or technology licenses.

For start-ups entering an existing market, the most viable protection from being crushed by incumbents is to get to market, reach scale and build brand equity quickly. eBay acquired Half.com in 2000 not because they were unable to build the same product but because Half.com had already owned the brand in the eyes of the consumers.  In order for start-ups to enter markets and reach scale quickly it is often necessary to partner with others to handle one or more of the core business processes.  One entrepreneurial company I worked with developed, manufactured, and sold fashionable compression garments aimed at women suffering from lymphedema—a condition that often accompanies breast cancer patients and survivors. In order to build the company they created an alliance with the company that produces LYRCA® and Coolmax® to develop the product.  They also used a toll manufacturer to handle production.  In other words, they disintegrated their company to the point where significant parts of their product innovation and infrastructure were handled through alliances.  What they kept in-house was what they saw as their points of differentiation (POD), print design and customer relationships.

The second good reason for company disintegration through alliance is economics.  For mature companies the decision to outsource is typically driven by income statement considerations.  While a solid balance sheet is always important, most large successful companies have sufficient access to capital.  They also have a healthy appetite for profit.  With increased specialization and advancements in technology come two economic principles, absolute advantage and comparative advantage.  Absolute advantage refers to the ability of a firm to produce a particular good at a lower absolute cost than another.  In this case a company may outsource the manufacture of the product it sells to an alliance partner who can produce the product at a lower absolute price. Comparative advantage speaks to one firm’s ability to produce a particular good or service at a lower opportunity cost than another.  In this case a firm may outsource one or more of their business processes to an alliance partner in order to focus their finite attention on those processes in which they are most efficient.

For start-ups the economics of disintegration tend to be driven by the balance sheet.  Unlike established companies, access to capital is difficult for new ventures.  As such, a start-up venture may choose to ally with a partner in order to enter markets and grow the business while conserving cash.  This often comes at the detriment of profit margins, but high margins on zero revenue still equals zero profit.

While alliances can help you build and scale your company quickly, they frequently fail.  When they fail, the results can be fatal.  It is important to:

1. choose your partners wisely,
2. implement the alliance carefully and,
3. nurture the ongoing partnership diligently.{a

©Mark P. Loschiavo

Ever since the industrial revolution there has been an inherent problem for companies.  A problem stemming from the nature of being vertically integrated—where research, development, operations, sales and support were all managed under the same roof.  While vertical integration has its benefits—centralized control of information, complete ownership of the customer experience to name two—it creates motivational conflicts throughout the organization.

Most business ventures can be broken down into three core processes—product innovation, infrastructure and customer relationships.  The inherent problem comes from the conflicting objectives associated with these three processes.

Successful product innovation requires speed-to-market and differentiation.  By contrast, economies of scale and standardization are watchwords for companies trying to maximize infrastructure efficiencies.  In the words of Henry Ford, “Any customer can have a car painted in any color that he wants so long as it is black.”  It doesn’t take long for conflict to arise when product developers are striving to frequently and rapidly introduce completely redesigned products, which require variations in infrastructure like tooling, molds, presses, automation equipment and assembly line alterations.

If that doesn’t create enough conflict, those involved with the customer relationship process care mostly about scope, wanting to satisfy each and every customer’s needs.  “What do you mean it only comes in black?  My customer is a Kentucky Wildcat fan, and wants his in UK blue!”

Until recently, companies have learned to live with these conflicts in order to ensure effective information flow and quality control regarding customer solutions and interactions. Rapid changes in information technology over the past two decades, however, have allowed for the disintegration of companies, where companies are becoming less vertically integrated.

In Corporate America this shift is happening at glacial speed, but in the new and emerging venture space it is becoming more the rule than the exception.  Over the past five years I have reviewed hundreds of business plans.  Virtually all of them employ a business model that is disintegrated, where one or more of the three core business processes are outsourced to vendors or alliance partners.

In this hyper-competitive business environment, the astute entrepreneur understands the need to focus attention on the company’s points of differentiation (POD) rather than trying to build a vertically integrated company.  The dichotomy is that new venture creation is not a linear process.  Often, discerning a company’s POD is an iterative process, making it important early in the strategic planning process to protect core business activities that may be critical to maintaining competitive advantage.  After all, we don’t want to throw out the proverbial baby with the bath water.

©Mark P. Loschiavo

At the intersection of business and technology there is a cloud forming that represents a new paradigm for collaboration and decision-making, which will encourage invention and innovation to flourish.  This cloud will make it possible for entrepreneurial ventures to scale like never before.  We are soaring into world of Cloud Computing.

It is possible that The Cloud is talked about as much, and is as misunderstood, as the Internet in the early ‘90s.  Like any new venture it is often explained using analogy. “The Cloud is like a Utility Grid.”  The Cloud is like the early days of computing where organizations rented computing power from IT service bureau companies like IBM or University Computing Corporation.  Much like the Gold Rush of 1849 or the Dot Com boom of the 1990s, few know exactly what it is or what it can become, but many want to be a part of it.

A look at the following definitions might explain some of the confusion.

“Cloud computing is Internet- based development and use of computer technology (“computing”). In concept, it is a paradigm shift whereby details are abstracted from the users who no longer have need of, expertise in, or control over the technology infrastructure “in the cloud” that supports them. Cloud computing describes a new supplement, consumption and delivery model for IT services based on the Internet, and it typically involves the provision of dynamically scalable and often virtualized resources as a service over the Internet.” (Wikipedia)

Maybe a more technical definition would help.

“[Cloud computing] is “a computing capability that provides an abstraction between the computing resource and its underlying technical architecture (e.g., servers, storage, networks), enabling convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction.”  This definition states that clouds have five essential characteristics: on-demand self-service, broad network access, resource pooling, rapid elasticity, and measured service.” (Wikipedia)

In his book Dot.Cloud, Peter Finger offers this definition:

“For geeks, Cloud Computing means grid computing, utility computing, software as a service, virtualization, Internet-based applications, autonomic computing, peer-to-peer computing, on-demand and remote processing—and various combinations of these terms.  For non-geeks, Cloud Computing is simply a platform where individuals and companies us the Internet to access endless hardware, software and data resources for most of their computing needs, leaving the mess to their Cloud Service Providers.”

As with any disruptive technology the Cloud is seeing its share of controversy.   A CNET article published in October of 2008 had this to say.  “IBM argued that cloud computing is a way for businesses to draw more value from their existing IT infrastructures, since much of the work is offloaded onto remote servers, but the cloud-computing concept has received sharp criticism recently from the likes of Oracle CEO Larry Ellison and Free Software Foundation President Richard Stallman.

In an interview with The Guardian last week, free software pioneer Stallman said cloud computing is “worse than stupidity” because it leaves users vulnerable.  ”If you use a proprietary program or somebody else’s Web server, you’re defenseless. You’re putty in the hands of whoever developed that software,” he said.

During Oracle’s annual financial analyst meeting in September, Ellison also criticized the companies rushing to roll out cloud services, saying the trend is “fashion-driven.”  ”It’s complete gibberish. It’s insane. When is this idiocy going to stop?” Ellison said.

Microsoft Chief Executive Steve Ballmer, speaking to delegates at a Microsoft-sponsored developer conference in London last week, said the company will launch an operating system for the cloud in four weeks.  Tentatively titled “Windows Cloud,” although Ballmer suggested it would have a “snazzier name” at launch, the product is designed to make it possible to “just…write an application and…push it to the cloud, Ballmer said.”

In essence the Cloud means different things for different people.  For likely Cloud Service Providers like IBM, Amazon, Microsoft, Google and Yahoo it means opportunity to get IT hardware, software, data resources and services to a much broader audience.  To Venture Capitalist it may minimize the need for their investment dollars going toward data centers for their portfolio companies.  For entrepreneurs it eliminates barriers to entry into scalable business opportunities that previously required large capital investments in server farms and software applications.

Just a few questions to consider:

1. Is Cloud Computing mostly real or mostly hype?
2. Is Cloud Computing likely to be a game changer for entrepreneurs that will level the playing field and break down barriers to entry?
3. What, if any, issues should entrepreneurs be concerned with before launching their new ventures into the Cloud (eg. data security, over-dependence, scalability)?

©Mark P. Loschiavo

In an interview with Ted Koppel, Dave Kelley, founder and CEO of the Palo Alto, California product design firm, Ideo, said, “Look around.  The only thing that is not designed by someone is nature.”  While this has been true since the beginning of time, the importance of design for the products and services we consume has not always been paramount.

Prior to the 21^st Century the demand for one product over another was largely driven by utility and price.  Terms like “price performance” were coined to indicate the importance of the price/utility relationship.  Typically, the product with the most functionality at an affordable price carried the highest competitive advantage.  Recognizable slogans like, “the quicker picker-upper”, “the ultimate driving machine”, “we bring good things to life”, “like a rock”, and “don’t leave home without it”, speak to the importance consumers and advertising firms assigned to function and utility.

As developed countries become more affluent—particularly the U.S.—consumers are demanding more than just utility in the products they purchase.  They want beauty, elegance and significance.  In short, they want good design.

Author Daniel Pink, in his book A Whole New Mind, writes, “While Harvard’s MBA program admits about 10 percent of its applicants, UCLA’s fine arts graduate school admits only 3 percent.  Why?  A master of fine arts, an MFA, is now one of the hottest credentials in the world where even General Motors is in the art business.”  Pink argues that product design has become a vital ingredient for competitive advantage, creating the need for a whole new mind in business.  Business leaders, who have traditionally valued left-brain thinking, need to embrace the importance the right hemisphere of the brain plays in building competitive advantage.

Think for a moment about the hottest new products of the last decade.  What were they, and what distinguished them from their competitors?  What role did design play in the product’s success, and what do we know about the companies that designed them?  They are usually viewed as innovative, but are they also viewed as entrepreneurial?  This begs the question.  As we move into the creative economy, will entrepreneurial firms have an advantage over established corporate giants and why?

©Mark P. Loschiavo

Throughout modern history the movers and shakers of developed countries have celebrated left-brain thinking.  Success is pre-ordained based on the mastery of standardized tests (PSAT, SAT, GMAT, LSAT, MCAT) that measure an individual’s aptitude for analytical, logical and linear thought. The ability to acquire and disseminate knowledge is valued.  After all, mastery of analytics, logic and linear thought put a man on the moon and returned him safely in the 1960s, and launched us headlong into the high technology world of the knowledge era.   Knowledge is power.

In 1997 left-brain engineers and scientists from IBM developed a computer program powerful enough to beat world champion Garry Kasparov in the quintessential left-brain competition, chess.  In so doing, is it possible they marked the beginning of the end of the knowledge era?  If technology can beat a world champion chess master at his game, what’s to keep technology from rendering a world-class disease diagnostician—think Dr. Gregory House—obsolete?   Isn’t a diagnostician’s skill derived from a comprehensive knowledge of known diseases, and the possible combination of related symptoms:  knowledge that can be stored in databases, and retrieved and processed at speeds far greater than the capability of the human mind.

While computers have the ability to handle left-brain activity with ease, they have difficulty with context. Discerning joy, fear, anger or anxiety from the expression on someone’s face requires the ability to instantaneously see individual parts of the face in the context of the whole.  In order for innovators and entrepreneurs to develop solutions for today’s complex needs, they need to understand those needs within the context of people’s lives, and/or the whole of society.  This ability to understand context comes from the right hemisphere of the human brain.

In his book, A Whole New Mind, Daniel Pink suggests that we are moving from a knowledge economy to a creative economy, requiring a renaissance of right brain thinking.  Is it time to re-engage the often-maligned right hemisphere of the brain?  Are we in an era where competitive advantage will be determined more by creativity, design and context than by knowledge, analytics and logic?

I welcome your thoughts,

©Mark P. Loschiavo

Nobody trips over mountains.  It is the small pebble that causes you to stumble.  Pass all the pebbles in your path and you will find you have crossed the mountain.
~Author Unknown

As we enter into the first month of the New Year I am reminded of the important role perseverance plays for the successful entrepreneur

Even in the most prosperous times starting an entrepreneurial venture can be a daunting process.  As educators, facilitators and mentors in the entrepreneurial ecosystem, we commit ourselves to providing every entrepreneur we encounter with a blueprint for success.  Our goal is to improve the odds in favor of the entrepreneur.  In reality, regardless of preparation and execution, “shift happens” that can instantaneously change the odds.  No matter how well conceived the business plan, it usually changes the minute it meets the marketplace.  The ability to persevere during those times of ambiguity, uncertainty and changes is the mark of a successful entrepreneur.

I believe Joseph Segel, founder of over 20 American companies, most notably QVC, summarized the importance of perseverance quite well.  When discussing the amazing success of QVC Joe said, “Everyone wants to hear about the one big success.  Nobody wants to talk about the 17 failures that came before QVC.”

In a recent interview, one of our entrepreneurs, Zach Conover, was asked about the skills necessary to be a successful entrepreneur.  He said, “Being good at something like this is like being a good pitcher in baseball.  You need a short memory. You have to remain confident after a bad pitch that your next pitch will be better.”  That is the voice of an optimist who sees the opportunity in every difficulty.  That is the voice of the Baiada Center.

©Mark P. Loschiavo

In today’s Voices (Harvard Business Publishing), there is an article by Jeff Kehoe, entitled, When Do You Fire Your Four-Star General? Kehoe summarizes the reasoning behind the recent firing of Gen. David D. McKiernan, formerly the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan.

Referencing an August 17, 2009 Washington post account, Pentagon Worries Led to Command Change, Kohoe writes, “The article gives a vivid sense of how Defense Secretary Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, first worried, and then concluded, that McKiernan was not up to the urgent task at hand—that is, not only quickly turning the tide in the complex and treacherous 21st-century battlefield of Afghanistan, but also, simultaneously and continuously connecting and communicating with the Pentagon and Washington about developments on the ground and responsive strategy.”

While reading this article, a comment made to me by a senior IBM executive immediately came to mind.  ”Out of sight, out of mind.”

It was the summer of 1992, and I was the financial executive for a billion dollar profit center of IBM.

Two years earlier I was finishing up a groundbreaking assignment during a pivotal time in IBMs history, reporting to the aforementioned executive (we will call him Hank). As we were preparing to part ways and take on the challenges of our new assignments he said, “I just want you to know that we would have never accomplished so much without your leadership. If you ever need anything from me, just let me know. I owe you.” He had been promoted to a position at corporate headquarters and I was promoted to a CFO position in Philadelphia. Even though I had never before asked for help in that way, his words meant a great deal to me.

Two years later an opportunity to take on a more significant leadership role surfaced. While it would require another relocation, the position was going to be filled by someone with my experience. As luck would have it, Hank was going to be a key influencer in the selection process, so I decided to give him a call.

Hank was glad to hear from me, since we had only talked briefly a couple of times in the last two years. After a bit of chitchat, I asked Hank if, in fact, they were looking at candidates for this open position. Indeed they were, and they were down to the short list. When I asked Hank why my name was not included on the short list his response startled me. He simply stated, “out of sight, out of mind.”  Even though my accomplishments measured up nicely, my name hadn’t come up.

Following the call, which ended graciously, my initial reaction was a feeling of betrayal. What happened to that heartfelt IOU?

Upon further reflection, I realized I had nobody to blame but myself.  While I had accomplished a great deal over those two years, I didn’t bother to keep in touch with those who did not have an immediate role or stake in my endeavors. I was so involved in trying to make a difference that I completely ignored the politics that exists in any organization. It is not enough to do good work. It is imperative to simultaneously and continuously connect with and communicate with your stakeholders.  You must take every opportunity to keep them apprised of your current state, the progress you have made to-date, and your strategies to get to your desired state.  For those of you who like to operate autonomously this can feel confining, and it is time consuming.   Ultimately, we attain our goals only with the help of others who are invested in the outcome.  One of our chief responsibilities as leaders is to stay “top of mind” with those who will help us succeed.  Otherwise we may be reminded that “out of sight” equals “out of mind” at a very critical time.

©Mark P. Loschiavo