In 2010, we ran a pilot project, Power to the People, that engaged with over 1,000 E.ON customers. Last summer, we opened a new challenge focused on a particular business area, electric vehicles. Over 6 weeks, we worked with 1,600 customers who shared, developed and voted on over 700 ideas. The winning idea is now in development at E.ON.

Working with our technology partner, Chaordix we’ve developed an online platform for customers and employees to come together, share ideas and develop them into investable propositions. We nurture and manage and moderate the community, and harness the collective intelligence of users to rate ideas, and find those most likely to form the seeds of profitable, pioneering innovations.

We also work with SMEs and independent innovators through a private submissions route that allows them to share commercial ideas with us whilst retaining control of their IP.

Once the challenges are complete, we select the best ideas and work with E.ON’s innovation, customer insight and technical feasibility teams to develop these into commercial propositions.

On Sunday 12 February, we’re now rolling out the platform to an even bigger audience, as we launch Home of the Future, a set of 5 new innovation challenges tied in with Channel 4′s TV series of the same name, where a family from Sheffield have their lives transformed by cutting-edge technology, giving them a taste of how we all might be living the future.

We’re looking forward to working with an even bigger group of collaborators, ands we’d love you to join us too. Watch the show on Sunday night at 7pm, and then meet us online at www.eon-innovation.com.

See you there!

Andrew Sleigh

Most of our clients tend to be large companies and whilst I love them all dearly (honest!), I can’t hide the fact that many are really frustrating to work with as they can be very slow to make decisions, can be very political, have bureaucratic systems that nobody seems to understand, and more importantly squeeze out the fun and creativity out of people.

Small companies, on the other hand, can be wonderfully creative. As an entrepreneur you can wake up with an idea one morning and have implemented it by the end of the day, in ways unimaginable by big companies.

Big and clever?

However, as this recent article in the Economist argued, we must stop glorifying small companies and vilifying big companies. They both have an important role to play and increasingly need each other more than ever. However the article went on to make the case that big companies are more innovative than small companies for three reasons:

1. Only large companies can sustain the investment in building the ecosytems (such as Apple iPhone or Google Android) that are increasingly prevalent in our economies.

2. Globalization means we are all putting a premium on size like never before, and many competitors from emerging markets are backed by the state.

3. Most of the interesting and complex problems we face, such as global warming, require changes to complex systems where size really matters.

It’s certainly true that some big companies we work with have the vision, need and budgets to do some really interesting work in a way that a small company simply couldn’t even contemplate. Yet whilst I accept elements of all of the above points, I feel the above points miss several crucial bigger points.

“Everything big starts small.” Paal Smith-Meyer, LEGO

Firstly, Google and Apple wouldn’t have an ecosystem if it weren’t for small apps and technology developers. In fact, the are 4x as many Apps developers than there are Apple employees. Both large and small are inextricably linked in an ecosystem, and these days it’s the best eco-system that wins, not the best company.

Secondly, globalization putting a premium on size feels like a circular argument. Yes we are all playing on a bigger pitch, but that doesn’t mean that people don’t want and value local and personalized solutions. In fact, in the pharmaceutical world it is extremely well documented that the era of the blockbust drug is well and truly over and ‘the market’ is looking for more bespoke solutions.

Finally, whilst big companies definitely have an important role to play in solving some of the biggest and most complex issues we are faced with, historically we have seen again and again that the solutions to intractable problems often emerge from the periphery, not within large companies. Kodak’s recent demise is a start reminder of a big company who failed to spot the way the world was changing towards digital photography.

The new role for big business?

Big businesses certainly are not going away. It’s an economic and statistical certainty that some businesses will grow to be huge, whereas others will crash and burn. In fact we arguably need big business more than ever, but what for?

They used to be about delivering i) economies of scale ii) secure employment for many people and iii) in providing investment in infrastructure and equipment outwith the scope of smaller companies. These days only the third of those functions really still applies, and even that may be time limited.

“It’s not the big that eat the small… it’s the fast that eat the slow.” Laurence Haughton

I’m increasingly coming to the conclusion that big companies really aren’t for doing R&D or for sparking creativity. They are about shining a spotlight on an opportunity or a market – they provide scale, aggregation, customer relationships and quality control. The rest, they should leave to the small guys, and source it from them. This is the toughest contemporty lesson for big companies – to realize that they can’t do it all.

Small companies are not only agile and creative, but also collaborative through through necessity rather than by design. They know they can’t do it all themselves and nor do they even try. However, their ultimate client may well be a large company who may want to license your product or even aquire it outright.

It makes my heart sink at the number of start-ups I see who sink an inordinate amount of time chasing expensive money rather than new clients. The best thing you can offer me (as a co-founder of a small company) is a paying client relationship, over an investor who needs to be managed.

Best of both worlds?

A nice recent example of where a large and small company have worked together for mutual benefit comes from a project we did nearly 3 years ago with Orange where we were looking for “The Next Orange Wednesdays.” See here for a more detailed description from one of the key instigators at Orange. And lo and behold we found one. A company called Last Second Tickets that was trading successfully in its own right but did not have the huge customer base that a mobile network operator such as Orange can offer.

By working together, and playing to their respective strengths, Orange found a big new brand proposition which is currently in the process of being launched regionally across the UK, with the national launch due in the spring. And Last Second Tickets for a huge new route to market for their excellent service (which hoovers up the spare capacity at entertainment venues – which there is in 95% of all performances – and sells it back to people at a discount on the day of performance). The new service is called Fun Finder and you can learn more about it here. We are proud to have helped make it happen and it’s a good example of playing to the best strengths of both big and small companies.

In summary, big businesses need small businesses to grow, survive and thrive. And small businesses need big businesses to scale and accelerate their innovations. To paraphrase Bill Clinton, it’s not a question of who wins between big and small, “It’s the eco-system stupid”.

by Roland

photo credit: Rlefranc

In working on open innovation projects with large firms we’ve noted that far from people resenting being asked for their ideas, the opportunity to express their creativity is highly self-affirming. People often complain of being unfulfilled in their jobs, so in many ways the problem is the opposite.

She goes on to ask whether businesses can recreate social business systems so that they nurture a spirit of contribution. That’s exactly what we try to do when setting up internal innovation networks. There are at least three guidelines to this:

Firstly, incentivise and reward. These incentives could be bonuses, Amazon vouchers and exposure to senior management is very powerful.

Secondly ask people clear and important questions that will affect the company and their jobs. This is empowering.

Thirdly always actually do something with the winning ideas.

This whole question is part a wider trend of course. There’s a new blending of work and personal selves that is irresistible and this forms the backdrop to social business systems.

Done sensitively, internal ideas platforms can enrich both the company and the employee.

We conducted a mini-crowd sourcing exercise to find the most common barriers and create some new solutions. Here are the findings for the top three most interesting questions.

How do you fight the corporate innovation antibodies?

1. Through charismatic leadership – i.e: Airmiles selling effectively to BA right at the outset, or Esure both of which benefited from a visionary leader.

2. Through having a compelling business proposition – particularly if it is related to a need and therefore has ‘commercial legs’ – i.e: Airmiles was a response to the fact that most airlines had spare capacity and wanted to fill the planes without losing on revenues through discounting. Part of such a proposition is maintaining a consumer focus – not just win- win, but win-win-win (with the last win being the win of the consumer).

3. Though ‘vaccinations’ – use the people in the boundaries between the big and small organisation to build a culture that enables collaboration. Maybe each can spend time in each other teams, for example. This will promote a culture where people are empowered to say ‘yes’.

How do we create an Empathy Engine that encourages trust and reduces fear?

1. By enabling shared knowledge – small companies often do not understand how large ones operate and where in their operational teams innovation sits. Encourage events or programmes where large and small companies can understand more about each other’s structures and constraints.

2. By creating a marketplace where people can collaborate safely – i.e: a place where the ideas can be peer-approved. This means effective tools like collaborative platforms and design challenges where large organisations invite partners to find a solution and offer some funding or a concrete business model.

3. Through intermediaries – an honest broker in the middle that understand the big boys and is also trusted by the small companies.

4. By investing in the future through younger communities of schools and undergraduate students in a culture of collaboration.

How can we make sure that there is a win/win right from the outset?

1. By carrying out ‘due diligence’ – this is essential if risks and rewards are going to be shared. Big companies or intermediaries can mentor the smaller ones through this process, as SMEs often lack full legal teams that can advise them.

2. By finding the right point of contact in the big organisation – the person who really is the champion of collaboration and open innovation.

3. By not exclusively relying on competitions, but rather collaborative programmes that are well structured and have clear outcomes for all involved.

4. By agreeing some sort of standardisation to how you bring an idea to market and creating communities of interest from which ideas have a better chance of being taken up..

We’re increasingly thinking the key to a successful business collaboration is to avoid arm-wrestling over ownership, but focus on how you’re both going to profit.

Let us know if you think there are angles that the British Library crowd missed. As ever it will be a pleasure to hear from you.

by David Simoes-Brown

To understand how businesses are different in ‘East’ and ‘West’, Nathalie Turner from Entheo (who are based in Singapore), recommended ‘The Geography of Thought‘ by Richard Nisbett which is all about how people think – and see – the world differently based on where they come from. It’s an excellent overview of developments in cross-cultural social sciences (up until it’s publication in 2005) and I would highly recommend it to anybody interested in supporting innovation across different countries and continents.

Thinking Differently

The book contains many fascinating insights into the difference between Eastern and Western thought, which is characterised as seeing the world as either a Circle or as a Line. It traces back the different cultures to the landscape of their origin. For instance he argues that rice farming in China requires irrigation systems that need centralised control and so a more complicated world of social constraints evolved. Greece, on the other hand, consisting mostly of mountains, favoured hunting, herding and fishing which require relatively little cooperation. These are obviously simple caricatures however he goes on to describe the differences in much greater detail, summarised as follows:

“The Chinese believe in constant change, but with things always moving back to some prior state. They pay attention to a wide range of events; they search for relationships between things; and they thing you can’t understand the part without understanding the whole. Westerners live in a simpler, more deterministic world; they focus on salient objects or people instead of the larger picture; and they thing they can control events because they know the rules that govern the behaviour of objects.”

The book then goes on to summarise numerous social science experiments to highlight the different viewpoints. For instance, it describes one experiment where subjects were shown a “dax” – namely a pyramid shape made of cork. They were then shown other objects that were a variety of different shapes and a variety of different substances and asked to pick out their “dax”. Interestingly Americans were much more likely to choose the same shape whereas Japanese were much more likely to choose the same material. In both cases this applies from 2 years old, right into adulthood.

Similarly, when shown 3 different pictures of either i) a chicken, a cow, & some grass or ii) a panda, a monkey, & some bananas, American and Chinese participants were asked to select which two out of the three were most closely related. What would you choose?

Apparently, American participants showed a marked preference for choosing a pair based on category (ie. animals) – either a chicken and a cow, or a panda and a monkey. However Chinese participants showed a marked preference for choosing a pair based on relationship (ie. eating) – a cow eats the grass or a monkey eats the bananas.

“Verbs are highly reactive, nouns tend to be inert.” Dedre Gentener

The book goes on to look at difference in languages, specifically the differences in use of nouns and verbs. Western parents are more likely to teach their children the names of objects (i.e. nouns) whereas Eastern parents are more likely to teach their children the relationship between objects (i.e. verbs). This all reminds me of a great article I read in New Scientist a few years ago that showed how many of the philosophical complexity of Quantum Physics (from a Western point of view) simply isn’t seen from Eastern point of view.

Again and again, Western cultures have been shown to tend towards simplicity whereas Eastern cultures tend towards complexity. Interestingly, mainland European cultures fall roughly in-between these two extreme positions.

Acting Differently

All of the above is about how Eastern and Western cultures think different but that also has huge ramifications of how they behave differently too. One fact from the book brings this into stark contrast, namely that in the USA, the ratio of Lawyers to Engineers is 40x that of in Japan. 40x! That is huge difference. The explanation given highlights the preference to resolve conflict in Japan to reach compromise (through mediators) whereas in America the preference is to reach justice (through lawyers).

Related to that, I’ve heard a number of unrelated reports recently about the challenges of implementing open innovation and co-creation strategies in US businesses. I’m told that US business culture is so naturally competitive that it’s actually hard to seriously adopt open innovation as a business strategy. This is of course ironic as that’s where the concept was conceived (or at least named) by Henry Chesbrough.

On the other hand, open innovation does not appear to have taken hold in Asian countries yet to a great degree either as far as I’m aware. And the recent story of the British CEO of the Japanese Olympus Corporation who ‘blew-the-whistle’ on payments related to the acquisition of British medical devices group Gyrus where three transactions were apparently used to cover up prior-year losses highlights the very different approaches to business, when East meets West.

Global Innovation Ecosystems

We’ve been saying for a while that Open Innovation only makes sense if it is either local or global. If it is local, people can physically meet up, build trust and collaborate. Whereas if it is global, you can tap into the best people and the best ideas from literally anywhere. If this is the case, then that leaves a challenge as to the role of nation states or even continents in supporting innovation and growth but that’s a whole other debate.

The news is full of news of the impending demise of the Eurozone today and the potential impact that will have on the global economy. Regardless of what happens over the coming days and weeks, perhaps the turbulence and rethinking that will follow will give us a chance to play to our respective strengths as described above.

Maybe, just maybe, western countries/cultures are best suited to be the global competitive economic engine and eastern countries/cultures are the global cooperative social engine. In between is Europe which could be the global innovation engine combining the best of both worlds, acting as a broker, facilitator and enabler between East and West. It does after all contain many of the right ingredients to support open innovation including diversity of opinions, intedepence, and decentralisation. Combine that with a central timezone, a very diverse population with global links, creative and financial hubs, why not seek to re-position Europe as the (open) innovation hub in a global innovation ecosystem? Goodness knows we could do with a different approach after all.

Anyway, I’d be fascinated in your experiences and opinions on any of the above, and even if you disagree with the final flight of fancy about the future of Europe, I would still urge you to look at “The Geography of Thought” if you are at all interested in building global innovation ecosystems.

by Roland Harwood

We’re running a series of challenges on different themes. Members of the collaboration community can submit and discuss ideas, and vote on those they think are best. The winning ideas are taken into further research and development at E.ON. And those who submit them can also win some great prizes.

The first challenge was to find ways of making electric vehicles easier to buy and use. We recently wrapped this up and awarded the prizes. First prize was a 3 month loan of a Mitsubishi i-MiEV car, and installation of a home charging point. John Quinn was the lucky winner, and Clare Gilby from E.ON, who worked with us on the project, travelled up to see him have his car delivered, and the charging point fitted.

You can see a video below:

We asked Clare to tell us about the experience, and how it felt seeing one of our challenges through to fruition. Over to you, Clare!

As I drove my (sadly non-EV) car through some beautiful parts of the Peak District with music blaring and the heating on, on a dull autumnal Thursday, I suppose it was natural to both be excited about meeting John, and seeing the car and charging point, but also curious about how John would get on with the EV in this undulating part of the country.

I can’t wait to see how John gets on over the next three months and — seeing how close the insight that our customers gave us on the challenge was to reality, reinforcing that innovating with our customers is the right thing to do! — I wonder what challenge we’ll look at next…

John is also blogging about his experiences with the car, and we’ll be checking back with him over the next 3 months to see how it goes.

We have now run dozens of these for various organisations but it’s always really good fun to run a public session with a mix of participants from large and small companies, public and private sectors, and creative and technical backgrounds.

We are continuously learning a huge amount in all of the work that we do and so these sessions are designed to be a deep-dive into the skills, the case studies, and the processes that we are using/testing/developing all the time, and therefore participation acts as an accelerator into the front line of open innovation today.

“Seems like the UK innovation scene has been waiting for this… I’m amazed someone hasn’t done it sooner.” Technical Director, BT

“What a fantastic couple of days, really inspiring, will hugely shift how I work, really grateful.” UK Start-Up, CEO

Anyway, we’d love it if you wanted to join us for the next one. Early bird discounts are now available. For full details please visit the registration page here.

Therefore it makes perfect sense for any individual or organization that wants ‘more innovation’ to seek to engage or build a productive and profitable external network. Some people refer to this ‘open innovation’.

The problem is, whilst productive networks can indeed be very powerful, they are generally invisible, have a limited lifespan, and are and are easy to destroy. As the rate of connectivity continues to increase exponentially, we need to come up with new sustainable networked business models. So what can we do?

Following a recent discussion with Cassie Robinson, Ellie Ford and Simone Jaeger, we concocted the bare bones of an idea (I hesitate to call it a business model, but that is indeed what we would like it to become), which we think could just work. It’s not fully formed but we’d like to share it here so that others can help make it better.

We call it, Give to Get.

Visualising and Sustaining Networks

There are two big issues with networks that must be addressed head on if we can make any progress in this space. Firstly, networks still tend to be largely invisible. Both formal hierarchies and informal networks play equally important roles in how anything happens, from a company merger to playground politics. And yet hierarchies are visible all around us, either through the organization charts that loom large over any company, or through the symbols or power and status that visibly indicate our place in society.

“Over time, hierarchies trump networks, however at any point in time, networks trump hierarchies.” Karen Stephenson

Our informal networks are much harder to see. Who do we go to for advice or information or with a secret? Not necessarily our boss or those ostensibly more powerful than ourselves, rather to those whom we like, respect and trust.

We are now starting to see a whole bunch of interesting tools and apps emerging that help us to visual social networks e.g. how our LinkedIn connections are connected for instance. Companies like Trampoline Systems and Cytoscape will visualize your social networks which is definitely an important first stage in the process, but not sufficient.

Secondly, networks cannot be propped up in perpetuity. And yet many are, but that typically kills their value. Rather, people have to want to come together to meet likeminded people, to learn, or to build something together. In our experience none of these things can be dictated by any kind of formal structure, rather must be (largely) voluntary for the participants and the organisers. However this makes it very hard for any network hosts to justify the time and effort in running and managing them properly.

Existing Models Don’t Work

Most networks essentially work based on the premise that everybody benefits through participation. However, when it comes to trying to monetize this, you can easily kill what makes the network function in the first place. So one of the challenges is coming up with a sustainable business model. The two standard approaches are subscriptions or transaction fees, both of which are fundamentally flawed for the following reasons:

Subscriptions – By charging a subscription you automatically force people to think about what they are getting out of it the moment they start paying/join the network. However any network is by definition a ‘numbers game’ – in other words ‘you have to kiss a lot of frogs to find your prince’. Therefore if you charge subscriptions for people to participate in a network, some people will consider it good or even great value, but at least as many people (and probably the majority) will consider it poor value depending on what they get out of it directly. The cliché is or course, that you get out what you put in, in terms of effort, however if you’ve already paid a subscription you are normally less likely to try as hard.

Transaction fees – Other networks tend to defer payment but request some kind of transaction fee for an introduction or as a percentage of business generated. However it is undeniably true that, regardless how good your network is, you will always make more introductions than the number of direct pieces of business occurring, and so you are bound to have more unhappy customers than happy ones which is also not very sustainable.

A ‘Good’ Pyramid Scheme?

Pyramid schemes get a bad name, but here’s a potential networked business model that essentially operates as an inverted pyramid scheme, that we call it Give to Get.

The basic principal for members of the network is you have to offer to help to two (or more) people with something they couldn’t do without you. It could be help, support, advice, resources, introductions, or possibly even commissioning a piece of business. Each time you do this you get a credit – this could be formalized with some kind of currency or points based system, however are first this is always reputational and informal.

Only once you have built up some credit are you in a position to ask for help from any other member of the group i.e. 2 x Give’s = 1 Get. The only way that this unequal exchange rate can function is if a) people pro-actively try to help each other and b) the network expands over time. Bother of which ought to be a good thing for everyone.

Any network must be underpinned by trust but how are people who don’t follow the spirit of the participation policed or punished. In terms of what to do about ‘freeloaders’ or ‘the tragedy of the commons’, the idealist in me thinks that this ought not to be a big issue as people won’t get the reputational credit (or actual credit) for being helpful unless they deserve it, and so any abuse get’s weeded out very quickly.

However without some kind of social connection it would fall apart, so the network ought not to grow above about 150 people, the Dunbar Number, above which the network should split in two separate networks. This model therefore has the opportunity to grow sustainably, creating a network of networks. I’m not sure whether there is a lower size limit below which this won’t work.

“The value of a network is proportional to the square of the number of connected users of the system.” Metcalfe’s law

This system ought to be better than any kind of transactional or barter system is because you pay forward the benefit to people who need it. If members of the network adopt this as a principal of the network then everybody will prosper. In sociology, this concept is called “generalized reciprocity” or “generalized exchange” and the idea was popularised with the concept (and film) Pay it Forward.

Eating Our Own Dog-Food

Google use the phrase Dog-fooding, by which they mean they ‘eating their own dog-food’ and trying their own innovations before unleashing them on the world.

In the same spirit, we already operate this Give to Get principal informally in many of the things we do. For instance we tend to make much of our Union network, Innovation Service Provider Network, and Lead User Network free to access on this basis. We do charge for other stuff (advice, training, project management etc) as a by-product but I’d really like to try monetizing the networks more directly if we can.

One really interesting example, that I think we could emulate comes from the social currency Flattr, with is a social micropayment system that works as follows:

This becomes a way that writers can start to build up revenues over time for doing what they do, without charging a fee up front that will put most people off from engaging in the first place. In essence your monthly fee becomes your network fee but rather than it becoming an administrative overhead, it actually goes to the people you value, which acts as a further incentive to them to keep on doing what they do.

What next?

We intend to try this with one of our existing networks and will see what happens and will report back in due course. In the meantime, we’d really appreciate your builds and comments as ever, or links to other experiments or examples where this Give to Get principal already works.

by Roland

The top image is a map of the frequency with which people in different places @reply to each other on Twitter. Credit to Eric Fischer under Creative Commons: http://www.flickr.com/photos/walkingsf/

They want to understand how they can better support the UK maker community, and I’m helping them find out.

I’d like to speak to anyone who considers themselves part of that community. You could be a maker, hacker or crafter, or you may be involved in innovation or manufacturing, technology or the creative industries. You might be a supplier of maker products or services, or involved in education or training in maker skills.

How you can help

1. Do a 30 minute phone interview
I’m going to be doing some phone interviews through October, and if you’re interested in chatting to me about makers in the UK, I’d love to speak to you. You can reach me on twitter or email (hello at andrewsleigh dot com) to find out more, or arrange a time to speak. Or you can leave your details in the survey form and I’ll get in touch.

2. Answer 7 survey questions
Not feeling chatty? If you’d still like to contribute, I’d really value your input, so I prepared a simple survey to capture your thoughts more quickly. If you can fill any of this out in however much detail you’d like, that would be really useful. Go to the survey >

What’s in it for you
As a token of my appreciation, I’ll pick the best respondent (based on how interesting and useful your responses are) and buy you something cool from either Folksy (UK craft marketplace and lovely people) or Oomlout (Leeds’ — and indeed the world’s — friendliest Arduino/electronics store). You choose. Anything you like up to £25, including shipping to you.

—

by Andrew Sleigh – a 100%Open Associate – Andrew is a maker (link), and a co-organiser of Brighton Mini Maker Faire (link)

Stages in the due diligence process includes detailed investigation of the key areas of a business: its management team, its finances, its HR practices, its operational competency, its technological prowess and so on. I have come across one or two references to more market-oriented language, but they weren’t exactly unequivocal in whether they nailed down my concerns about whether a business’s offerings to the world are actually founded on addressing some fresh insight into a new problem space and were making a great contribution to competitive advantage.

When you make an investment decision in your personal life, say a new laptop, you take a range of similar factors into account. You think about the people you are buying from (sales staff really know their stuff, and the guys at the technical counter answered all your questions), the value for money it affords (bit more expensive than the run-of-the-mill laptops but a brand with a great reputation), how well it operates (very reliable, the OS never seems to fall over) and how well made it is (build quality is superb: milled from a solid piece of aluminium!).

You also make decisions about factors around how well it meets your other needs, and whether one might better meet them than another (everything is so intuitive and you never seem to lose your way). You take great delight when you realize it also solves a problem you didn’t realize you had (like not having to mouse over to the scroll bar and click and drag to move within a pane, just put two fingers on the mouse pad and your done).

I got all excited when I came across ‘Know Your Customer’ which is “the due diligence and bank regulation that financial institutions must perform”. It turns out that this is not a legal mandate to ensure that the services an organization provides its customers are the most apt in terms of meeting their needs. It’s concerned with ensuring the customer is who they say they are and are not engaged in ‘identity theft, money laundering or terrorist financing’.

So, as a natural companion to the quality of a solution (Technical Due Diligence – TDD), I’d like to make a case for Problem Due Diligence: PDD. At 100% Open, we’d love to help you assess the quality of the problems you are looking at and maybe find you one or two more you hadn’t considered. You never know, you might just find the opportunities that lead you to become known tomorrow for a quality of problem AND solution, as Apple is today (you knew the laptop was an Apple right?).

by David Townson