The Short Answer: 

1- The Process Itself

2- The Environmental Assets

3- The Human Asset Managements

Click on the graphic above to enlarge – and/or copy.

The understanding of the ideal and actual for these three is crucial, as it is one, two, or all three of these variables which may be in need of an improvement effort to leverage overall performance. Those improvement levers are determined after the analysis has been completed and ROI has been calculated for various improvement scenarios.

It may be that the process and human assets are fine, but that ¾ of the performers lack one of the proper environmental asset. Think of ¾ of the lumber jacks and jills with dull saw blades due to a budget constraint.

Let’s go deeper…

1- The Process Itself – Overview

The Process is merely a “paper design” initially – until brought to life with the Human and Environmental assets.

Either The Process – as designed (in the “As Is” state) is capable of meeting the needs of its downstream customers, their downstream customers – but also all of the Other Stakeholders – Stakeholders include but are beyond the Customers’ chain.

If The Process isn’t designed already to meet those needs – balanced if in conflict – then you start there. If The Process doesn’t exist yet – and is in someone’s mind’s eye – you still start there.

You use things like ToC (Theory of Constraints), Lean and Six Sigma (including many other tools/methods such as DoE – Design of Experiments)   approaches to make sure that it – The Process – is or will be capable of meeting those needs.

To determine those needs BEFORE you design The Process – you might use marketing tools and QFD (Quality Function Deployment) for the Customers, interactions with representatives of other stakeholders (Regulatory, Compliance, Legal, etc., etc.) to determine “those other pesky NEEDS” – to make sure that The Process’ design is capable before you start making it real.

Process design/redesign is targeted at improving error reduction, cycle time reduction, and cost reduction. Better, faster and cheaper. Tools and techniques used in process design/redesign include: process mapping, value stream mapping, statistical process control, process simplification, process automation, activity based costing, and so on.

Not all of the enterprise’s systems/processes have to always be in tight, statistical process control to produce the required outputs/deliverables necessary to achieve peak performance. But some do.

Control won’t make up for a bad business plan or reconcile with other conflicting goals within the enterprise. But it is still a critical component to pulling off the business plan. The stakes are high for the high-impact processes. Failure of core business processes is usually not a viable option, for it can result in the overall death of the enterprise.

The Performance Model provides an illustration of both ideal process performance and actual process performance via its gap analysis, and can provide the basis for the targeting of improvement resources for various improvement interventions, including design/redesign of the process itself.

Either the process is designed to meet its current or future metrics, or it needs to be redesigned to do so. This is always the starting point…the process itself.

After that one would look to the other assets that enable – and if they are deficient – then one would look further upstream to see their Processes and Systems that provide what their downstream Processes requires.

2- The Environmental Asset Management (Provisioning) Systems – Overview

The Environmental Asset Management Systems that “provision” the right stuff – non-people-wise – to the Processes provide the Processes with all of the non-people things in the right balance between what the Human Assets (Performers) provide to meet the needs of the Processes.

3- The Human Asset Management (Provisioning) Systems – Overview

Whatever these Enterprise Systems provide to The Process must be in balance and harmony with those other asset-type provisioning systems – the EAMS.

Click on the graphic below to enlarge – and/or copy.

Like Russian Dolls

The EAMS and HAMS have many Processes – and they too have Provisioning Systems – luckily –  they are usually the same as those “feeding” the original or other Processes – so if an EAMS or a HAMS is not meeting the needs of The Process – it needs to have its Processes analyzed – just as you did for the original “The Process” – and see if its Process is an issue – not designed to really meet all of the Stakeholder Requirements in the first place – before going to solve the issue with a fix to one or more of the EAMS or HAMS.

For example – don’t fix your Process issues with Training/Learning – unless the Awareness, Knowledge and Skills of the Performers in the Process  are THE PERFORMANCE LEVERAGE FULCRUM – “THIS TIME.”

Deming claimed that it’s not The Worker in 94% of the cases – which may be part of The Reason that most workers learn their jobs primarily on-the-job mostly informally (watch another, trial and error, etc.). Because THAT’s NOT THE ROOT CAUSE of problems/opportunities.

So it’s very OK for that to be like that. Something few in the L&D field seem to appreciate.

Rummler said 15-20% of the time it was The Performer.

Rummler also said:

Put a Good Performer in a Bad System and the System wins every time. 

Mostly it’s The Big-Bad System.

According to them.

What’s That – The System? 

If it’s not the People, the Performers, the Learners – then where do you turn – to look for Root Causes?

What is this System thing anyway?

Again, I would look to:

1- The Process Itself

2- The Environmental Assets

3- The Human Assets (even though this is not where to start for problem solving – it is the place to start sometimes for new hire needs).

And then – look to the EAMS and HAMS upstream.

Want More?

For more about THIS MODEL/APPROACH to Performance Improvement (by any number of “names”) – see my recent book – whether you are from the Training/Learning world or not:

For info on this book and an ordering link – please go here.

For consulting support/help on this – please connect with me via email or phone.

If you’d like to offer me a job to help you with implementing something akin to this in your Enterprise – I’d be happy to consider your offer.

# # #

Communications. Is there such a thing? Do we ever really communicate? Or do we
simply mis-communicate with greater or lesser amounts of error?

I know I’m playing with the semantics of it all, but as a colleague quotes a friend, “it’s not
just semantics, it’s always semantics!” The American Heritage Dictionary defines
communications as: “The exchange of thoughts, messages, or information, as by
speech, signals, writing, or behavior.”

Communication/communicating connotes that the message intended was the message
received. But how often does that happen with zero defects?

If we started with the premise that there is really no such thing as communications, that
we never can achieve zero defects in our communications, we will then be on the road
to better communications. Nirvanic communications.

For my 2000 article on this – please go here.

# # #

I conduct most projects Fixed Fee – and in 30 years I have never used a Change Order on a Fixed Fee project. I can help you with…

• Staff Development in our analysis, design, and project planning and management methods - formal Workshops and informal Coaching Sessions

• Curriculum Architecture Design projects

• Instructional Analysis and Design efforts where we hand off designs for your development

• Instructional Analysis and Design efforts where we also handle development the content and Pilot-Test it before final Revision & Release

• Performance Improvement efforts based on the analysis finding in Curriculum and Instructional efforts – or targeted separately.

Every Enterprise is Different

They have organized themselves in functions that may look similar to others, but they have probably organized, defined and perform their Processes differently.

Back in the 1980s the Quality gurus told everyone to organize by Processes rather than by Function. Lots of noise about Functional Silos and little forewarning about Process Silos. Most firms didn’t make that transition. But many got a bit more process-centric within their functional architectures.

The goal I think/have thought for quite a while – is to be more Process-centric in the Functional-centric structure of the Enterprise. For the Functional structure didn’t seem to be going away. I needed to treat it as a given.

For Profit or Non-Profit. For Governmental Agencies. A flexible framework, adaptable where needed and rigorous where needed.

Take your Organization Chart – and for each and every department (or whatever you call the equivalent) complete one of these.

Then you can begin to systematically derive the enablers.

And where those fall deficient look upstream to the enabling systems that I sort into two: Enabling Human Assets – and Enabling Environmental Assets. You won’t find yours in this configuration. Yours will vary. Use this next graphic as the framework to uncover “where it’s happenin’” in your world.

As I have written before – I started with the Ishikawa Diagram. Back at Motorola in 1981. And while working for about 18 months on projects with the late Geary Rummler. Where “his stuff” – licensed by Motorola – is the basis for Six Sigma – a way to organize the big picture down to the detail levels so various improvement tools and methods could be organized – a kind of VR on VR – Variability Reduction on Variable Reduction – not a novel concept, huh?

Practicing what we Teach. Walking your own talk.

Let me digress.

I recall my AT&T client asking me about Curriculum Architectures for our staff at SWI – Svenson & Wallace Inc. back in 1987. We had a semblance of one was my truthful answer. But it would have been inappropriate from an ROI perspective to invest in formal learning when informal learning could happen “well enough” – as we were team oriented and new people could be integrated into the flow of the projects of the moment will OJT. We had defined our own process-set back then.

And so with a knowledge that the functional organization structures weren’t going anywhere – I decided to use a departmental level as one key framing device for Processes – and just as both Financial Budget Roll Up and Down – and Sales Quotas Roll Up and Down – so would the data that my process was intended to capture – of data needed for the next downstream step and steps.

Here is one branch of that tree – of a Departmental to Function to Enterprise “Roll Up” – if EPPI data. EPPI being Enterprise Process Performance Improvement.

And I brought into the data capture/structure/architecture – an MRP influence (later an MRP II and then later an ERP extension) framework to my thinking – and combined all of that with a Rummler-like Process Orientation.

Which – Process data -at the Enterprise level – is simply a roll-up of all of the processes, and can capture/report out data about the enabler requirements for the humans performers as well as the enabler requirements for all of the non-human stuff, the Environmental supports/enablers. Taking the Ishikawa Diagram to only two key variable-sets. It’s because I came from that Human Improvement side – Training. And I understood that somewhere between 20% and 6% (Rummler and Deming) of Process Performance, System Performance – has problems that are attributable to the human element. The workers. The rest are systems issues and management is in control of that system. The System. THE SYSTEM.

Please note that I use “Systems” at varied levels to be more conversational than formulaic. Sorry.

The Big Picture…of EPPI.

If you started greenfield, with only a set of paper processes (processes only on paper) – and had to enable them, stand them up and then operate them – what would you need?

I think something like this – to capture your specifics. 1- The Processes. 2- The enabling Human Assets. 3- The enabling Environmental Assets.

Because Every Enterprise is Different

And this data enables all departments that design, install and enable the 3 types of Processes of their world:

1-Primary Processes, the Value Chain – to determine Follow the Money in a Backwards Chain sort of way.

2-Owned Processes, that we – the Department – control.

3-Supported Processes, that we – the Department – don’t own or control – but support.

This way we have something to use that’s the same framework, up and down and across the hierarchy and breadth of the Enterprise, however flat and narrow – or not. This is intended to provide the flexibility point to control maintenance to change with changes in the Enterprise. All linked to processes – of three types.

This allows you to create a common, shared understanding of The Processes – the Primary Value Chain processes, and all of the other enabling processes. Some (think Payroll) are important too. And while I believe that not every process is worthy of performance improvement investments – due to ROI perspective – every Enterprise needs a common framework for processes to capture their architecture.

To reflect the needs of their unique set of Stakeholders and their unique internal organizational structure of enabling organizations and sets of resources to meet the needs of the Primary processes and all of the Enabling Processes.

This EPPI framework and model-set allows you to better:

Focus on the Processes – and Enable Them 

More systematically and systemically. Using data.

# # #

I’ve been publishing/published since 1984 – in the big press – Training Magazine (1984) and the then NSPI Journal (1984) – as well as more recently in PROVEN (2011) and in that new-fangled web thing at eLearn Magazine (2011).

Here on this site I have listed over 85 of my publications – since 1979.

Click on this GIF to see the short slideshow…

Here is a link to that newest publication – at eLearn Magazine – here – on:

Why Is the Research on Learning Styles Still Being Dismissed by Some Learning Leaders and Practitioners?

# # #

Depending on your level, and job, you might be the one who needs to be thinking BIG PICTURE, see the Trees for the Forest and Forest for the Trees, and deciding if you are OK or not OK. And deciding what, if anything to improve.

With somebody else with their nose to the grind wheel to get the actual work done, is it you or others who should be thinking about:

Are you really meeting the needs of the stakeholders in your On-Boarding efforts?

Do the Learners feel that they are prepared to be Performers when that time comes for them? Or is it sink or swim?

Are you delivering Topics without specific, authentic Task applications?

Are people generally prepared and Qualified/Certified to perform at a defined level at the conclusion of their On-Boarding?

Is your Content overlapped and gapped?

Are the overlaps “redundancy by design” or inadvertant?

What has all this redundnacy cost, in extra first costs, to develop/acquire?

What are the probable life-cycle costs for the overlapped content?

What might have been done with those redundant costs?

Are you forcing EVERY client need through the same Process?

Or did you give up long ago and now “just wing it” on every effort?

Is that predictable enough for your situation?

Is your current situation sustainable?

Does Your Content Architecture sync with your Organization and Process Architectures?

Does your New Product Development process, your ADDIE-like process, produce high quality at predictable costs and schedules?

Let’s Improve Performance together, collaboratively, with you and your key stakeholders.

For more about my background – please go here.

# # #

Does it certify performance competence?

If it does – it can be used in so many HR applications.

Performance Tests can be used in many HR applications – unless married to a generic Competency Model.

Performance Tests only work if they are tied to authentic performance, not generalized constructs of performance.

Performance Tests can be designed to be conducted under the most trying of conditions – if that’s what needs to be proven.

Or it can prove ability to perform under ordinary conditions.

A Performance Test should be a component of the APPO of a Lesson Map…

An APPO is an Applications type of Instructional Activity. The others are INFOs and DEMOs.

Performance Tests should be standardized, minimalistic. And…

As Flexible as Feasible – but always as Rigorous as Required.

This 2008 Book addresses both creating Performance Tests, but in putting in the administrative systems and processes needed to govern and operate the system.

There are 3 Performance Tests Types

Using these tests as part of an MCD or IAD effort – and as an IAD focus – is covered in this 2011 book.

Conducting the Analysis for this kind of Performance Improvement intervention is covered in this 2011 book.

What is key is Alignment – to the Stakeholders.

Alignment to the Stakeholders and their control are the keys to success for efforts such as Performance Testing Systems.

# # #

Why Is the Research on Learning Styles Still Being Dismissed by Some Learning Leaders and Practitioners?

I have been battling the notion of “designing instruction for learning styles” in my own quixotic fashion for a couple of decades now. In my attempt to be a good steward of my clients’ shareholders’ equity I wished to help them avoid faddish instructional design practices that have been disproven by empirical research. I first learned back in the 1980s at NSPI (now ISPI) conferences that while self-reported learning style preferences do exist, that designing instruction to accommodate them has no basis.

When I posted yet again on this topic on my blog a couple of months ago and then sent a Tweet out about it—Jane Bozarth, EIC of this magazine, invited me to publish an article. I accepted and decided to reach out to the usual suspects, those in my professional crowd who know the research, for their inputs. As I am but a practitioner attempting to follow what I have learned over the years about the research, I am not steeped in that research and able to cite it, they can.

Go here for the rest of the article.

# # #

When serving your clients – stay away from the shiny objects that YOU lust after.

Simply figure out what performance they want and need – there could be a difference – and then help them figure out how to enable that.

Sometimes it requires RECALL by the performer in order to perform to the requirements. But not always.

Sometimes it could tolerate referencing some information and then performing – and then forgetabout it.

Mobile Learning is most of the time mobile referencing/finding.

All this cool whiz-bang technology should be put to good use. Appropriate use. For the long haul.

EPSS – is now a fairly easy reality. Let’s not screw it up.

Collaborate with your client’s – take them on the journey of discovery – even if you’ve already been down that trail.

Help them discover the possibilities. Help them make their own decisions about the shopping criteria to best meet their needs. Help them prioritize that. They live with the consequences. They live with whatever ROI results.

Focus on Performance. Together. As partners.

Collaborators.

Focus on their organizational performance requirements – and collaborate to enable them.

This book above shows how to conduct such an analysis.

This next book presents a template for analyzing the development needs of managers that can be used to determine the needs of the entire department; and then many departments; then perhaps, all.

For info about these books – please go here.

# # #

Let’s just declare the smart phone as the minimum height of the bar for learning, and a tablet or laptop the other options – with bigger screens. But the minimum is the half screen of some smartphone. Deal with that.

Regular, non-Smart Phones, cell phones that can receive text?  And send text?

Well support that too if that’s where one of your most critical of all target audiences in your Enterprise is at – on the e-everything technology side of things.

But that’s not where it’s at.

Today it’s about being Smart, very Smart, smart phone Smart.

Organize your data systems for access by the Process, by the Owning Department (upward), by the Phase (downward).

Walk the user through the steps of performance and provide guidance and job aids for key decision making. Use video clips. Use large text.

Use audio clips.

Have your Design Team of Master Performers (and other key SMEs) decide what to use when.

That way THAT will be feasible, if only but one of many alternatives in how to deploy/make accessible.

And it will be their approach. They will work to make it work.

And then they will own it.

Have them decide what to enable via formal training, e-learning, readings, peer interviews, on-the-job coaching, etc., etc.

Accessing information and instruction via the Smart Phone – now that’s being smart.

# # #

ERP – Enterprise Resource Planning – the offspring of MRP and MRP II – the logical extension of the MRP II extention from MRP.

MRP – Materials Requires Planning. Focused on improving the quality, quantity and costs of materials from the supply chain through production into finished goods – or getting merchandise purchased to available as stock for sale, if not manufacturing or service industry.

MRP – Manufacturing Requirements Planning – expanded the notion and tool-set beyond simply the materials needed for a process or the many processes that manufacturing, into all requirements.

ERP – Enterprise Requirements Planning - expanded the notion and tool-set beyond simply everything required for manufacturing into all requirements, for all Departments, Functions, Divisions, Etc..

Part of ERP Systems are People Sub-Systems – and the data to facilitate those.

In my perfect world those People data systems would be organized to align to the logical set of these: DEPARTMENTAL Areas of Performance (AoPs).

The intent of that model is to accommodate a Department becoming Process-centric.

This should enable them to plan and manage both the Processes that they own as a Department – that are unique to them, and also the Processes that they don’t own but that they support none-the-less.

The model also enables the use/re-use of common systems and processes, “as is” or “after modification” (if/as approved), such as those processes that might be used in Payroll, or Purchasing, or Sales to verify someone’s identity.

Many or few departments could embrace this common model and begin to uncover all of their shared needs. For enablers including but beyond knowledge and skills.

An Architectural approach to content for an Enterprise Learning Context would reflect the people’s’ job Tasks and the Enterprise’s Processes, and the common enabling awareness, knowledge and skills shared by a few, many or everyone. And may use T&D/L&D as one of many channels to send coordinated messages to improve awareness and knowledge and assist in skills development by local managers.

An Architecture would organize Content for Context.

An architectural approach to a modular curriculum would guide investments in targeted content – not just all content.

Managing what “is to be left to informal means” – and then insuring access and competence is developed to enable informal learning means is key.

Managing what is attended to by formal learning means and what is to be left to informal means – still needs to be enabled with policies, practices, tools, etc. that enable those informal means – which may look very different one department to another, and one cross-functional team to another.

A common view would tag the manufacturer’s user guide instructions for tools used and link it to all of the Processes where it is used.

A Data Architecture is required that accounts for many other “non-Learning & Development” organizations.

You can make this happen.

You can serve your needs to enable the Processes of the Enterprise more Effectively and Efficiently - by enabling unique Processes and standard Processes to co-exist.

The Micro-level and the Mid-level and the Macro-level data-sets need to be rooted at some “thing of value.” That’s why my analysis and design and development efforts are rooted at improvement of the Process, and Processes upstream that themselves enable the Targeted Process or Process-set.

Then there are People Structures, formal and informal that need active, visible roles and responsibilities – that transcend the department – that reach back into the supply chain and forward into the customers’ customers’ needs and your Stakeholders’ Stakeholders needs.

But that’s another Blog Post.

Call or email if you’d like assistance.

We come with references.

Some are here at LinkedIn.

I also do staff development in my methods – and have been doing so since 1984.

# # #

Don’t Multi-Task Before You Multi-Focus!

To order – please go here.

# # #

Used for Instructional Analysis – and Performance Improvement Analysis for my PACT and EPPI methodology-sets respectively.

Once you have established the chunks of Performance – the Areas of Performance – such as ADDIE, or DMAIC themselves represent – you are ready to detail those AoPs on the Performance Model charts.

I don’t use the ADDIE model per se, I use this variant…

The left half of a Performance Model Chart describes ideal performance.

This information includes:

• The Area of Performance (AoP)
• Outputs produced and their measures, per AoP
• Tasks performed, per Output
• Roles and responsibilities, per Task

The information in the right half of a Performance Model captures and articulates actual performance, via a gap analysis.

That Gap Analysis data includes:

• Typical Performance Gaps (where standards for measures at any level are typically not being met by job incumbents)
• Probable Causes, of those Typical Performance Gaps
• Differentiation of those Probable Causes into one or more of three categories of deficiency

• dE: deficiency of environmental support
• dK: deficiency of knowledge and skills
• dI: deficiency of individual attributes and values

For ordering information – please go here.

# # #

I received this message the other day.  

And it was gratifying, to receive such feedback from someone you trust in your professional circles. Someone I had grown to trust. From a distance.

Trust from a Distance.

Who Do You Trust?

And I thought to myself, I don’t know Mike personally, having never met but on the Internet, but this is cool. And then I wondered why that was cool.

Hmm.

I trust that Mike sees the big picture, has a business sense, and has a stellar reputation in his professional circles, and that he is well-known, and favorably well-know – for there is a difference. Like mama said (remember her?):

Your e-acquaintances either average you up, or they average you down. 

I trusted Mike partially because it was my perception that we shared many common professional interests, view points, and along with many others, we seemed to share a preference more for the bottom line results of performance – in a business sense, than for any particular behavior-set, or consulting service, or products (like books) that we sell. More of the end results than for our single contribution to it. A Lot of overlap in our slice of a complex Venn Diagram.

Performance is complex.

It’s Not About Learning

And the % of the variable that is touched by Learning can be debated, has been debated, and Deming would give it around 6% and Rummler 15-20% – so not much Pareto Principle being followed in big time investments there.

So the people online that I trust are never just a one trick pony, with one sparkling thing or idea that they share/promote. And what they share or promote is not so self-promoting, or exclusively self-promoting.

That what they share/they curate – has to have value – to me – where I am looking for 1) some acknowledgement that it’s complex, and 2) here is what I have to offer to the combined efforts with all of the organizational entities representing all of the other parts of the system, the Enterprise’s system and sub-systems.

With never a claim of “this is it.”

Because it cannot be.

Learning isn’t it. HR practices aren’t it. Process Re-Engineering isn’t it. Six Sigma isn’t it. Pay for Performance isn’t it. Better recruiting isn’t it. Less turnover isn’t it. More capital expenditures on robotics isn’t it. A better Business Strategic Plan isn’t it.

So why is it that I trust Mike, an e-acquaintance?  Why will I read his stuff more closely, pay attention to what he thinks is important and “share it” rather than “quick scan and trash” it?

Why do I do that – that trust thing – with Mike – and dozens and dozens of others; but don’t trust and mistrust others?

It not any one thing that I could find in common between all of the people I trust – online – other than their common interest in what is termed nowadays as Evidence Based Practice -EBP. They are not championing things where the data from unbiased research, from independent sources, shows it to be invalid.

And therefore – not EBP.

Or – EBP Not!

Human Performance Technology – HPT stuff – using that or other labels for it should be EVP. There is inconsistency in the language of HPT. It’s a relatively new field (60-80-100 years – take your pick).

But how do people make my list? What are my criteria? 

They were Consistent in their public image, in their writings and presentations, and they were EBP. They were on EBP message. Or messages.

And – are they are preaching and practicing those EBP valid approaches?

Are they sometimes on the side of things dis-proven?   That for me is the Kiss of Death.

For I can no longer trust.

As President Ronald Regan said: Trust. But Verify.

And so I do. We all do, or should.

Shaky sources for what “you know” are shaky foundations for your professional well being.

How “EBP Curation Consistent” is your self-projected online image?

And is THAT consistency – how you wish be known? 

I was thinking about this, in terms of who online do I trust. My Trust in others affects my professional credibility and reputation, however near or far. On the team at work. On the national and international stages of the conferences and publications circuits.

People like Mike curate in a highly, consistent, highly EBP-kind-of-way.

Thank you Mike!

And all you others. For all that you do for EBP – Evidence Based Practices. And for helping others to Perform better!

You can see those who I follow via my Blog Roll, and Friends and Who I Follow lists online – and you can see who I echo, repeat and/or reinforce.

And who and what I question – really a who I challenge about their posted what.

In all of that you can see who I trust. And what EBP I trust in.

Focus on Performance – and Enable that.

# # #

Before they leave – get it from them – and then organize it to reflect the processes of the Enterprise…

You have big future reasons – needs – for doing so.

Organize your data using your version of my Enterprise Architecture:

For more on this model – see my past Blog writings – or this recent book…

For information about this book – please go here.

# # #

From my Lessons in Making Lemonade cartoon strip series…

Just under 200 pages – each. Each – with over 350 8-panel cartoon strips!

For more information please go here – for ordering information for Volume 1 please go here – for ordering information for Volume 2 please go here.

# # #

How often has your professional affinity group, and/or your Crowd, misled you down some intuitive looking/sounding path – that you later discovered was problematic?  You later discovered that what you learned from them was Foo Foo?

It’s not easy getting sound, non-Foo Foo advice.

I have found over the decades – starting in 1979 for me – that I needed to pay very close attention to the advise I got – from all quarters – and unless it came directly from those I learned that really know the RESEARCH – I would have to do a little digging as well.

To assure myself.

Ah, the work of a Curator. It is never done.

Because the last thing YOU want to do is to pass forward some Foo Foo.

Sing it with me – you know the tune – We Won’t Get Foo’d Again (No No!).

With apologies to The Who.

# # #

Or one thing links and/or enables another.

# # #