The Elephant of Change

I’m sure you know the joke where a number of blind men are placed in front of an elephant and all asked to describe what the object is.  They all provide various descriptions based on where on the elephant they are placed.  What they don’t know is they are all describing the same beast even though the descriptions seem significantly different from each other.

I feel this is also true with what is happening to government.  We are all blindly trying to figure how how these new disruptive technologies are changing what government is.  We all have different ways of describing what is happening and in providing solutions.  A number of people have attempted to tell us what Government 2.0 is.  Some will talk about data as the savior of government, others will talk about government as a platform, more will talk about a great new tool that will change the world and government.  These seem to be the majority of the conversations that occurred at  O’Reilly Media‘s Government 2.0 Summit.  But they all seem not to see the elephant in the room.  And this elephant is change.

Change in what government is, how it works, what it provides to people, and who makes up the government.  This change has been caused by the introduction of new technologies that provide us with both opportunities and challenges, but they are only tools.   In order to take advantage of these tools, the government needs to redefine who it is and how it works.  It needs to conquer and embrace the changes coming through the introduction of these disruptive technologies.

This is not an easy thing.  It requires us to be self reflective and critical.  These are traits that are not normally characteristics associated with government.  It also asks us to develop a vision of who we, the government, wants to become – What role in society should government play?  How should it provide services to citizens?  What do we need to change about ourselves to be successful?  What are our goals for changing?  How will changing provide a better world for our citizens and our nation?  These answers are not easy.  There will be a solution provided by the Administration and probably variations developed by individual agencies.  Depending on the size of the agency, some agencies could have multiple solutions depending on their specific mission.  One thing is for sure, there is no single solution nor should there be.  This concept in and of itself is not something easily digested by government.  We are used to a hierarchical chain of command with direction coming from the Administration.  But in this new world, this approach will not help us achieve what we are striving for.

What we are striving for is a way for government to adapt and change how it does business.  The answers will depend on what our mission is and the changes we will need to make at a micro level.  Attempting to implement broad changes and mandating agencies all implement a series of changes uniformly would do a disservice to those agencies’ respective missions.  Government is a big complex beast.  It has been working more or less the same way since Roosevelt.  It is past time to take a hard look at how government is doing business and determine a new path.

Tools are easy to learn and to teach.  But changing an entire organization’s way of doing business is challenging to say the least.  I believe there are six areas we need to focus on when it comes to institutionalizing these changes.

The first is people.  All organizations are made up of people.  Those people are a community with their own culture and ways of interacting with each other.  We will need to identify change agents in each organization who can help people adapt to the changes being introduced.  We need to find ways to support the change agents and others who are working to ensure the agency successfully transitions to this new iteration of government.

The second change area are the laws all agencies must adhere to that govern how we do business.  It is easy to change a process, but very difficult to change a law that must go through Congress.  Let’s admit it, Congress is not known as an entity where decisions come quickly.  This is an significant disadvantage to those agencies who have to determine how to implement and uphold the current laws with changes in doing business and new technologies.  It is a delicate balance.  Some laws need to be modified for operation in this new age, others should probably be repealed.  None of these actions will happen overnight.

In the third change area we need to recognize the introduction and evolution of a new set of positions in government – community managers, social media strategists, new media directors, social media analysts and more.  Each of these positions is a disruption in and of itself.  They introduce new responsibilities, new ways of thinking, new reporting structures and more.  These are not easy for large organizations to absorb easily and with little friction.  Turf wars begin at even the thought of this conversation.  We need to establish these positions so we will be able to have the resources in place to do this kind of work.  This means we need to create new positions, job descriptions and get them approved not only by our respective agency’s Human Resources Department, but also by the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).  This can take several months or more for one position.  We need these people in order to successfully manage online communities and ensure government is taking advantage of the opportunities offered by these technologies.  These people are the change agents and are critical for success.

Training is the fourth area.  Training is one of the primary ways we implement a new way of thinking and doing business.  We explain why, we show people how, and we reassure the fears people are having.  Without proper training, we risk running communities that alienate people instead of bringing them together.  We also run the risk of upsetting the delicate balance we have formed between the laws we must uphold and how to operate in this new space.  If we upset this balance, we risk loss of reputation or perhaps worse.  The stakes in government are not based on loss of profit, but on the lives of the people we serve.  Both figuratively and literally.

The fifth area is the development of a social media policy.  This provides the vision for how the agency views social media and how it proposes to implement it into the organization.  Most policies talk about what you should not do.  Some, like the policy from the Department of State, takes great pains to tell you the use of social media is not only permitted, but encouraged.  These policies form the cornerstone of change that we will all be building on.

The sixth area is the rise of user generated content and the need to customize content for the intended community.  We must customize it for location, language, demographics and the culture of that specific online community.  This change of needing more tailored content and managing more user generated content requires us to hire different skill sets and perhaps more people to accommodate these requirements.  Currently, most agencies are not equipped to deal with either of these requirements.

All six of these change areas are things we need to be aware of if we intend to change how government works and the quality of services it provides to the citizens.  Each in it’s own way is critical to the adaption of these new technologies and in the ability for government to transform itself into something that resonates in a modern age.  These changes do not happen overnight.  Just like trying to eat an elephant.  The best way to do so is one bite at a time. (sorry, couldn’t resist!)  I hope, unlike the current conversations, I’ve been able to offer you some concrete things to consider as you begin to work on changing how government works.

Do you have other change areas I may have neglected?  I would love to hear about them.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Government, Lovisa A. Williams, People, Social Media, Technology and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

45 Responses to The Elephant of Change

  1. Pingback: Tweets that mention The Elephant of Change | Athena's Lightning – A blog by Lovisa A. Williams -- Topsy.com

  2. Pam Broviak says:

    Lovisa
    This is the best blog post followup to the Gov2.0 Summit I have read! You bring up a lot of the very issues and steps we need to take to make it all work. There are so many complexities as you point out that each agency & level of government will probably have to develop its own implementation. The training part for citizens will be critical – our country needs to beef up our civic education in schools to teach people how to be a good member of a community and take advantage of the transformation. For Gov 2.0 to really work, I see each group – govt and citizens – needing to grow down parallel paths.

    Thanks for your awesome insight!

  3. Thanks Pam! I have yet to attend an O’Reilly Government 2.0 event that seems to get close to hitting the real issues that we need to focus on. There is so much to do and so little of it actually has to do with technology.

    I agree about your ideas on training. I was thinking more about how to teach our employees how to use these tools both responsibly and effectively. I wasn’t even thinking about teaching citizens how to be good community members, but I think you are on to something there. Changes in education are also key for the future of our society.

  4. Arvind says:

    Excellent post @Lovisa. There seems a chance that the same elephant is already spread across the globe and we are yet to see a wholesome integration at a worldwide level. Right now each initiative, even though welcome, works within itself like an independent silo of locals & leaders.

    Imagine a future when the platforms start talking to each other and cross connect. As Sir Tim Berners Lee puts it, chips of data are gonna be linked. That’s going to be one big elephant you’ll see…:-)

    - Arvind

  5. Arvind,

    Yes, we will one day be connected in ways it is hard to imagine through technology. And in a number of ways are already starting down this path. A good example would be how we can meet people online, develop a relationship with them and find when we meet them in real life we pick up right where the online relationship left off. There are a number of studies that have focused on this. It is also part of what I talk about when I speak about being a global citizen. All of these things are happening. We just need to be sure not to forget the people side of the equation if we are to be successful. Thanks for your comments!

  6. Great post Lovisa – I’m really glad that more people are talking about the need for effective change management in the Gov 2.0 space (http://steveradick.com/2010/09/08/do-you-have-what-it-takes-to-change-government-and-create-gov-2-0/). As a communications/change management guy, not a tech guy, I’ve been harping on this for years. I guess it’s taken the tech guys to see that a lot of awesome, really cool tech platforms to go unused and/or shut down in the government space for reasons they don’t really understand (“why aren’t people using this – it’s sooo much better than email!”) for them to see that this Gov 2.0 stuff requires a mult-pronged approach that touches on all of the components you mentioned above.

  7. Steve,

    I couldn’t agree with you more! Definitely need more people talking about these issues and helping to explain to others that addressing these concerns will help us adopt new technologies faster. Thanks for your comments!

  8. Another point on this – Gov 2.0 represents a HUGE change. We’re talking about using technology to fundamentally alter the way our government works. You just mentioned six areas that need changing and need it fast. I think we’d all agree that the reasons these changes are needed are because of technology, but also that technology can help facilitate these changes too. There could EASILY be six different conferences for each of these six areas of change. What I’ve started to do is just stop expecting any conference/seminar/event to be everything to everyone. The Gov 2.0 Summit and Gov 2.0 Expo events are usually pretty heavily focused on tech. I don’t think anyone would argue that and I don’t think that’s a bad thing. That’s the niche area of Gov 2.0 that the O’Reilly folks fill and it’s sorely needed (disclosure: I served on the Program Committee for prior O’Reilly events). Did it get into the change management aspect of Gov 2.0? Not as much as I would have liked (a change management/communications guy), but I’m sure some of the technology guys are saying they didn’t have enough Silicon Valley-ish tech stuff either.

    Take events like the Red Cross Social Data Summit – that focused 100% on social media and emergency communications and attracted a pretty diverse crowd interested in that subject. I think we’re going to start seeing more and more niche events that focus on the six (and more) areas of Gov 2.0 you mention above and smaller crowds that get more into the meat of Gov 2.0 about that individual area of interest.

    Maybe instead of having conferences where the entire elephant is invited, we should have conferences where we only bring a piece of it?

    • I do hope that people will start drilling down more into these issues and the couple hundred others I haven’t mentioned. Technology is the easy part. People is the hard part.

      • It’s clear that your six points of change resonate with the community and provide grounding for thinking about what’s next, sparking a great conversation here. Based upon my experience last week, I’d suggest perhaps that all of the conversations at Summit “seem not to see the elephant in the room” might be worth revisiting.

        Let me take a step back. Before I joined O’Reilly, I covered tech as a regulatory compliance reporter. Confronting bureaucracy, entrenched culture and habits of mind or work are incredibly difficult. Add in regulations and it’s spectacularly difficult to change the ways things are done, particularly with regard to IT systems that are built to specific requirements.

        So I’ll wear that hat for a moment, as opposed to that of a new media journalist that has been reporting on the evolution of social media in government, business and society for a few years, or that of O’Reilly’s guy in DC. When we’ve talked about Gov 2.0 in LA or here in the District, those issues have naturally top of mind in a way that they are not when I interview a data center manager or security officer, each of whom often is struggling with very real, difficult tech challenges.

        If technology were truly “easy,” why is there an IT gap between public and private sector? Why does Geek Squad exist? Why are so many of our parents moving from struggling to figure out how to program the VCR to figuring out how to export their contacts from their phone or configure privacy preferences? Or, to ground the issue in government IT, migrate legacy systems with limited budgets? How do CIOs navigate issues of interoperability or international data governance laws? Or civil liberties in the age of cyberwar?

        This stuff is all very hard, and I was glad to see many of these issues come up last week.

        I know you’ve been in developing social media policy at the State Department, and how invested you are in spreading the perspective on training, culture, new roles and the disruption that results from citizens and government employees alike owning the means of production.

        That’s important, and will continue to be so. As Steve rightly points out, however, it’s hard for any event to be all things for everyone. The specific training or issue set you present was addressed at the Expo in May, which was grounded in more practical insights that the more conceptual discussions that I’ve seen Summits feature over the years.

        O’Reilly hat back on: There were many conversations held between hundreds of people at Summit. Most of them were squarely grounded in the following words, which should be familiar:

        “What we are striving for is a way for government to adapt and change how it does business. The answers will depend on what our mission is and the changes we will need to make at a micro level. Attempting to implement broad changes and mandating agencies all implement a series of changes uniformly would do a disservice to those agencies’ respective missions. Government is a big complex beast. It has been working more or less the same way since Roosevelt. It is past time to take a hard look at how government is doing business and determine a new path.”

        That’s squarely in line with the program I saw come together and reported on, and with the more personal interviews I conducted there.

        To Steve’s point on the Red Cross Summit: attendees and virtual participants alike agreed that solely focusing on social media was to the detriment recognizing the importance of mobile technology in delivering information to the point at which is needed, or in gathering crisis data. I raise that anecdote because it illustrates that many different conversations can occur within a specific event, much less a broader movement.

        The theme of the conference I watched build and culminate last week was founded in how to bring change in terms of efficiency, innovation or productivity, including considering the ways in which that institutions can and must shift in the face of immense challenges to privacy, security and fiscal solvency.

        There are many ways that Summit might be improved, and I’m glad to see that the vast majority of the online conversations have been so constructive, since I’m sure that the folks on the events side are listening carefully. I look forward to hearing more of your impressions offline around the District soon, perhaps even in the context of the State Department’s workshops on innovative uses of data, mobile or connection technologies.

        • You know how there are those people in your life who are naturally good at things? For instance, the ones who seem to pick up foreign languages as if they have always known them while others struggle? We all know people like this. I see technology as just another language to be learned. It requires us to learn new patterns of thinking and communicating. Ones which may not come naturally to everyone. But like a language, I can teach you how to use it and be proficient in it. How to program a VCR, use Facebook, configure an encryptor and more. I cannot force people to accept a new way of doing business or to adopt a new way of thinking.
          The key to making the implementation of technology successful is getting people to understand why we need to work this way, what the benefits are, and teach them a new way of thinking. If we do not teach and explain these things and if they are not open to learning, then we will never have widespread adoption of the tools or technologies we are promoting. It won’t matter how cool or valuable the tool is if no one uses it.
          Our CIOs do struggle with a number of technical and compliancy issues. I don’t mean to belittle their efforts. That being said, social media is a bit of a different beast than what our CIOs normally deal with. The beauty behind social media (when developed correctly) is its ease of use for even the most non-technical user. Whereas, when we are talking about infrastructure, servers, desktops and telecom we quickly get into a very technical discussion. By design, they assume they are talking to other engineers who have a technical background not average people on the street. There are different tools and conversations for different audiences.
          The primary drivers (mission or business requirement), supporters and funders of social media do not reside within the CIO’s shop, but within the business components of an organization. It can be the Public Affairs Office, the Web Shop or any number of other business functional areas. These are two very different groups with very different missions and perspectives on technology. Here, I am talking mostly about the adoption of consumer technologies and social media that are supposed to be designed so any one’s elderly grandmother or parent could use the tool without training. Granted, that is a bit of a stretch, but compared to learning how to configure an enterprise grade router it is much easier and should require less training on the tool.
          I agree. No one event can be everything to everyone. But I have yet to see much real in depth discussion on the issues I raise here and a plan of action be developed to address these issues. In fact, I realize I neglected to add in the development of new kinds of partnerships and acquisitions as two additional areas we need to focus on.
          Some attention has been brought to the acquisitions issues through Better Buy Project, but this is only the tip of the iceberg. As Andrew P. Wilson put it, we are not set up to procure solutions that are SaaS based. This will be problematic, if we intend on leveraging these kinds of solutions. The partnership issue is one that will cause the lawyers to be troubled, but will be necessary. The government cannot solve all of its problems alone. We must take responsibility to be leaders in providing workable, scalable solutions to our respective agencies and to the public we serve.
          Thank you for your comments.

  9. People is the hard part – how right you are!

    This whole issue goes so much deeper than most people appreciate. You correctly point out that the way government works is essentially unchanged in decades. This points to an entrenched culture. Many point to culture as a roadblock when what they really mean is “climate”. And climate – what are people’s attitudes, which way are the political winds blowing, do employees feel comfortable with the tools they have – is not an easy thing to change, but it is far easier than changing the culture.

    Culture forms the bedrock of an organization. It encompasses the values, the ideologies, the norms that dictate and inform every decision, at every level, by every employee at every rung of the hierarchical ladder. In fact, there is some debate as to whether it is even possible to “change” culture – or is it more a matter of destroying the existing culture and creating a new one in it’s place?

    And that, particularly in the context of government, is a mighty elephant to attack.

    (if you are interested, we have some further discussion of this topic on our blog, thx)

  10. Great thoughts….but also so very sobering of the challenge that lies ahead (especially under the umbrella of the first three in your list). This will certainly be a marathon, not a sprint….

    • I agree. We may master the tools, but unless we address these other issues we won’t be successful. This is the time to start asking ourselves these questions and working on ways we can solve.

  11. Gadi Ben-Yehuda says:

    In a memoir about depression, the author says that episodes come on “gradually and then all of a sudden.” I think the same thing applies to cultural changes (both good and ill).

    As it applies to Gov 2.0, I think that the way this change is unfolding is that the front-line people–currently GS11s-14s, I would say–are of an age where they have always used social media and digital tools. And they are good at feeling out new tools, figuring out if and how they can be applied to their agencies’ missions. In Lovisa’s metaphor, they’re touching different parts of the elephant and getting to know it in its entirety. In my metaphor, they’re creating that gradual change.

    But one day, all these 11s-14s are going to be 15s and SESs and they’re going to be responsible for the whole elephant, and their knowledge of all parts is going to be synthesized into comprehensive plans, and we’re going to see “sudden” changes.

    I’d say that day isn’t too far off, either. I think it’s likely that we’ll see that change in the second Obama administration (if there is one), and almost certainly if he’s replaced by someone who uses social media more effectively than he does.

    • The real question is will those of us who have this knowledge be able to stay in government long enough of be the decisions makers or will we burn out first?

      • Gadi Ben-Yehuda says:

        I think that there are enough people who are developing this skills set that though some will inevitably burn out, equally inevitably, others will not.

        Another issue is political appointees. Right now, the top slots are filled with Boomers, and their deputies are Jonesers. But within a couple of election cycles, it’ll be Xers and Millennials. And those people are far more likely to know the elephant.

        (That should be the official slogan of the next social media for government conference: “Know the elephant.”)

        • I love it! Love the idea of this being a potential title for a conference/camp. I think this post does a good job at challenging people to start addressing these issues.

          I am kept awake at night thinking about how important change agents within government are and how many roadblocks and challenges there are to overcome. I do worry about people giving up because they become fustrated with the system or are driven out by people who just aren’t intersted in hearing the message.

  12. Alan W. Silberberg says:

    This is a great post. Not because of what it says or does not say. But because it is one more continuing element in the Global conversation.

    • I agree. There are many opinions and approaches out there. None are wrong. They are just different and all have their value.

      • Respectfully, in a broader sense, not every opinion is in fact correct. Making sure everyone has the opportunity to be heard is an important aspect of community. Free speech begets more free speech.

        But as any scientist will tell you, hypotheses are frequently not born out by an experiment’s results. In my experience in the biology lab, in fact, rendering an unfounded opinion was the quickest way to get a stern scolding from my professors.

        The recent upswell in people questioning the theory of evolution or even heliocentrism is a good example of that issue in broader culture, or the opinions that have been circulated in California or abroad with regards to the importance or efficacy of vaccinations.

        I know you make that observation in the spirit of encouraging conversation and validation but it’s important to draw the line in evaluating policies or strategies. After all, that seems to be what you’re arguing here with regard to change management around social media in government.

  13. Pingback: Gov 2.0 Radio Hot Links – September 15, 2010 « Adriel Hampton: Wired to Share

  14. Pingback: Gov 2.0 Radio Hot Links – September 15, 2010 | Gov 2.0 Radio

  15. Thom Kearney says:

    Fabulous post. Very insightful.
    Change is the only constant and we need to learn to deal with that reality.

    • Thanks Thom!

      It really is true. And to be fair, government isn’t the only organization who has this problem. Most large organizations have problems dealing with and accepting change.

      Good to see you last week!

  16. Excellent post, i think blog posts like this add so much value to the marketing community,i have learnt some valuable info from you. Keep it Up! Sincerely, The Social Media Guru

  17. Very important post! Very systematic also. In some ways the exact contrary of what everybody is doing in this field…
    Just an exemple: in Italy (and in ohter countries too) it often happens that a person trained for a specific competence (good training of course), after the courses, is moved in another position (good HRD)!
    So, to achieve some goals, your areas too should be considered as strongly connected to each other, just like the elephant story…

    • Massimo,

      Thank you for your comments. Yes, we have discovered in order to leverage social media effectively you cannot have people who only know their job. They must have knowledge and expertise in a number of areas. This idea of how people do work and their role in the organization is changing due to the disruptive nature of technology. This will be a major impact on our respective organizations and is definitely something we need to consider both from a training and workflow perspective.

  18. Pingback: Gov 2.0: Transparency is Dead. Long Live Transparency.

  19. Great, great post Lovisa!
    Your six areas to build Gov 2.0 are worth valuable in a Country like Italy, where the road to open government is currently long and painful. But people like me is working on it…

    • Pietro,

      Thank you for your comment. Believe me, everyone here will tell you trying to change government is not easy. It does not happen overnight. But everyone, across many different governments, are all working through these issues. Nobody has all of the answers and the solutions will probably vary depending on our government, culture and way of doing business.

  20. I’ve skimmed most of the comments, but I apologize if I’m reiterating an obvious point…

    The value of the O’Reilly conferences, and especially the one-track Summits, is not necessarily in concrete details, but in the exposure to ideas. I appreciate their attempt to simply throw out as many ideas as they can cram in one day.

    While I may have longed for more depth or how-to information, at this stage of this conference’s lifecycle (in year two) the name of the game is expose and inspire. In line with your first premise that “It’s the people, stupid,” change happens when people get fired up…when they go back to their cubicles bound and determined to bring their new ideas to life.

    Don’t get me wrong, in my day to day life, my message is the same as yours — don’t focus on the tech but on your goals as an organization. But some times a dash of cool tech is just the spark needed to make real change happen.

  21. Lovisa, thanks for laying out an elegant and more complete version of the proverbial “people process technology” model–and hosting an awesome conversation. I think your six “lenses” are well chosen and offer these dimensions to extend some of your ideas.

    In Macro(economics) in 1990, I learned that the level of communication (assuming most is at least of average quality) is tied to the efficiency of markets. Lack of communication leads to inefficiency. If you’re a producer, however, you may find efficient markets upsetting because they discover that your service or product may have a few warts or be too expensive. In 1990, I had no idea that this principle would completely change the structure of society a few years on (now).

    Our society (and, of course, government) was built for a different era. CxOs often say that their organizations need to be more “agile” because they can’t adapt, as you and many respondents indicated. SOCIAL media brings a new level of HUMANity to digital communications; it enables multimodal sharing in all parts of the human spectrum, including: goofing off, wisecracking and personal experiences as well as serious stuff. But its processes are digital and a fraction of the cost of other types. So what does this mean?

    When people share, they influence each other’s opinions, which leads to action. If the action can’t be fulfilled, tension increases. This is where all large organizations are increasingly at a disadvantage: they will increasingly be out of alignment with their constituents and customers, unless they can learn to act responsibly but in faster cycles.

    So how do we do this in general? And, as you put so well, government is under legal constraints, so how does government do this? Here are some back-of-the-envelope thoughts:

    1. In the private sector, when demand outpaces organizations, people make up new ways to do things, so responding to market need emerges outside large organizations, which learn and adapt.

    2. Economic or outside forces disrupt large organizations, whose people see that they have to jettison a few sacred cows and change fast. For example, one of my first social media case studies was CDC (http://bit.ly/cs-cdc1); they’ve been a guiding light. Why? Bird flu and other epidemics emerged, their perceived threat was very high and they had no extra budget. They took risks on social media to help citizens educate each other. The current (and I believe persistent) dodgy economy will force people to recognize it’s not life as usual.

    3. The role of government will fundamentally change. I watched (and wrote a social media case study on http://tinyurl.com/9ntonk) the Obama campaign’s use of social media. It was different because it *reduced the cost of participation*. The Industrial Economy produced unprecedented wealth, but one of its side effects was a relatively uninvolved populace. We were busy making money, things were more of less fine for most people (rising tide was lifting most boats). People wanted government to do things for them. This is only a gut feeling, but I think social media is going to empower people do collaborate more with government, so, more “citizen government” and involvement.

    Having been an executive myself at several stages of my career, I can appreciate the desire to influence (indeed, since you’re responsible for) outcomes–by being “in control.” However, social media constantly teaches me to have faith in the group, we will figure it out. More specifically, I think @Gadi is onto something: citizens and government are all getting more skilled with social tech and collaboration, and, as their portion of influence increases, they will drive changes in behavior.

    In the meantime, we need people blazing the trail and having awesome discussions like this one!

  22. Pingback: Interesting elsewhere – 23 September 2010 | Public Strategist

  23. Odell Bachas says:

    Fantastic blog! I actually love how it is easy on my eyes as well as the information are well written. I am wondering how I can be notified whenever a new post has been made. I have subscribed to your rss feed which should do the trick! Have a nice day!

    • @Odell

      Thanks for the compliment. I’m glad you enjoyed my post. Yes, if you have subscribed you should get automatic updates on all future posts. I have one in the works now which I hope to publish by the end of the weekend.

  24. ha, I am going to try out my thought, your post bring me some good ideas, it’s truly awesome, thanks.

    - Thomas

  25. branchenbuch says:

    In searching for sites related to web hosting and specifically comparison hosting linux plan web,
    your site came up.
    You are a very smart person!

  26. Angla Diven says:

    Great article do you mind if i link this on my site? Thanks

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s