The Art of Ma Strategy the Art of Ma Series 2012
Strategic planners pride themselves on their rigor. Strategies are supposed to be driven by numbers and extensive analysis and uncontaminated past bias, judgment, or opinion. The larger the spreadsheets, the more than confident an arrangement is in its process. All those numbers, all those analyses, feel scientific, and in the modernistic world, "scientific" equals "good."
Yet if that's the instance, why practise the operations managers in most big and midsize firms dread the annual strategic planning ritual? Why does it consume so much time and take so little impact on visitor deportment? Talk to those managers, and you volition about likely uncover a deeper frustration: the sense that strategic planning does not produce novel strategies. Instead, it perpetuates the status quo.
One common reaction is to become explicitly antiscientific—to throw off the shackles of organized number crunching and resort to off-site "ideation events" or online "jam sessions" intended to promote "out of the box" thinking. These processes may result in radical new ideas, but more probable than not, those ideas cannot be translated into strategic choices that guide productive activity. As one manager put it, "There's a reason nosotros keep those ideas outside the box."
Many managers feel they are doomed to counterbalance the futile rigor of ordinary strategic planning processes against the hit-or-miss creativity of the alternatives. We believe the 2 can be reconciled to produce creative only realistic strategies. The key is to recognize that conventional strategic planning is not really scientific. Yep, the scientific method is marked by rigorous analysis, and conventional strategic planning has plenty of that. But likewise integral to the scientific method are the cosmos of novel hypotheses and the careful generation of custom-tailored tests of those hypotheses—two elements that conventional strategic planning typically lacks. It is as though modern strategic planning decided to be scientific but then chopped off essential elements of science.
The approach we're near to describe adapts the scientific method to the needs of business concern strategy. Triggered by the emergence of a strategic challenge or opportunity, it starts with the formulation of well-articulated hypotheses—what we term possibilities. It so asks what would have to be true most the world for each possibility to be supported. Only and so does information technology unleash analysts to determine which of the possibilities is most likely to succeed. In this style, our arroyo takes the strategy-making process from the simply rigorous (or unrealistically creative) to the truly scientific. (See the exhibit "Seven Steps to Strategy Making.")
Step 1: Move from Bug to Choice
Conventional strategic planning is driven by the calendar and tends to focus on bug, such every bit declining profits or market share. Every bit long as this is the instance, the system will fall into the trap of investigating information related to the issues rather than exploring and testing possible solutions.
A uncomplicated way to get strategists to avoid that trap is to require them to define 2 mutually exclusive options that could resolve the result in question. Once you take framed the problem as a choice—whatsoever pick—your assay and emotions volition focus on what you have to do adjacent, non on describing or analyzing the challenge. The possibilities-based approach therefore begins with the recognition that the organization must brand a selection and that the pick has consequences. For the management squad, this is the proverbial crossing of the Rubicon—the step that starts the strategy-making process.
Too past this author
In the belatedly 1990s, when Procter & Adventure was contemplating condign a major actor in the global beauty care sector, information technology had a big issue: It lacked a credible brand in skin intendance, the largest and almost profitable segment of the sector. All it had was Oil of Olay, a modest, down-market brand with an crumbling consumer base. P&G crossed its Rubicon and laid out ii possibilities: It could attempt to dramatically transform Oil of Olay into a worthy competitor of brands like L'Oréal, Clarins, and La Prairie, or it could spend billions of dollars to purchase a major existing skin intendance brand. This framing helped managers internalize the magnitude of what was at pale. At that point P&G turned from contemplating an issue to facing a serious pick.
Stride ii: Generate Strategic Possibilities
Having recognized that a choice needs to be made, yous can at present plow to the full range of possibilities you should consider. These might be versions of the options already identified. For case, P&Chiliad could try to grow Oil of Olay in its electric current price tier or have it upmarket, or it could seek to purchase the German company that owns Nivea or pry Clinique out of the hands of Estée Lauder. Possibilities might also exist exterior the initial options. For instance, P&Grand could extend its successful cosmetics brand, Cover Girl, into skin care and build a global brand on that platform.
Amalgam strategic possibilities, especially ones that are genuinely new, is the ultimate creative act in business organization. No one in the residuum of the dazzler industry would take imagined P&G's completely reinventing Olay and boldly going head-to-head against leading prestige brands. To generate such artistic options, you need a articulate idea of what constitutes a possibility. You also need an imaginative nonetheless grounded team and a robust procedure for managing contend.
Desired output.
A possibility is substantially a happy story that describes how a firm might succeed. Each story lays out where the company plays in its market place and how it wins there. It should take internally consequent logic, but it need not be proved at this betoken. Every bit long as we can imagine that it could be valid, it makes the cut. Characterizing possibilities as stories that practice non require proof helps people hash out what might be viable but does non yet exist. It is much easier to tell a story near why a possibility could brand sense than to provide data on the odds that information technology will succeed.
A common temptation is to sketch out possibilities only at the highest level. But a motto ("Go global") or a goal ("Be number ane") does not constitute a strategic possibility. We push teams to specify in item the advantage they aim to achieve or leverage, the telescopic beyond which the reward applies, and the activities throughout the value chain that would evangelize the intended advantage across the targeted telescopic. Otherwise it is impossible to unpack the logic underlying a possibility and to bailiwick the possibility to subsequent tests. In the Embrace Girl possibility, the reward would come from Embrace Girl'due south potent brand and existing consumer base of operations combined with Procter & Gamble's R&D and global get-to-market capabilities. The telescopic would be limited to the younger demographic at the centre of the current Embrace Daughter consumer base, and information technology would need to build internationally from North America, where the brand was potent. The key activities would include leveraging Cover Girl's stable of model and celebrity endorsers.
Managers often ask, "How many possibilities should we generate?" The answer varies according to context. Some industries offer few happy stories—at that place are but non a lot of good alternatives. Others, particularly ones in ferment or with numerous client segments, have many potential directions. We find that most teams consider 3 to five possibilities in depth. On ane aspect of this question we are determined: The team must produce more than one possibility. Otherwise it never really started the strategy-making process, because it didn't run into itself as facing a choice. Analyzing a single possibility is not conducive to producing optimal activity—or, in fact, any action at all.
We also insist that the status quo or electric current trajectory be amidst the possibilities considered. This forces the team in later stages to specify what must be truthful for the status quo to exist viable, thereby eliminating the mutual implicit supposition "Worst instance, we tin just go on doing what we're already doing." The status quo is sometimes a path to refuse. By including it amidst the possibilities, a team makes it bailiwick to investigation and potential dubiousness.
The team at P&One thousand surfaced v strategic possibilities in improver to the status quo. I was to carelessness Oil of Olay and acquire a major global pare intendance brand. A second was to keep Oil of Olay positioned where it was, equally an entry-priced, mass-market brand, and to strengthen its appeal to electric current older consumers by leveraging R&D capabilities to improve its wrinkle-reduction performance. A third was to take Oil of Olay into the prestige distribution channel—department stores and specialty beauty shops—as an upscale make. A 4th was to completely reinvent Olay as a prestigelike make that would entreatment more than broadly to younger women (age 35 to fifty) only be sold in traditional mass channels by retail partners willing to create a "masstige" experience, with a special brandish department. A 5th was to extend the Embrace Girl brand to peel care.
The people.
The group tasked with dreaming up strategic possibilities should represent a diversity of specialties, backgrounds, and experiences. Otherwise information technology is hard to generate creative possibilities and to flesh out each ane in sufficient detail. Nosotros find information technology useful to include individuals who did not create, and therefore are non emotionally jump to, the status quo. This unremarkably implies that promising junior executives will participate. We also find that individuals from outside the business firm, preferably outside the manufacture, oftentimes lend the most original ideas. Finally, we believe it's crucial to include operations managers, not only staff members, in the process. This not only deepens applied wisdom but also builds early commitment to and knowledge of the strategy that is ultimately chosen. If you show united states of america a visitor where the planners are different from the doers, nosotros volition show you lot a visitor where what gets done is unlike from what was planned.
Optimal group size varies amidst organizations and their cultures. Companies with a culture of inclusion, for case, should assemble a big group. If y'all become this route, utilize breakout groups to hash out the specific possibilities; a group larger than 8 or 10 people tends to be self-censoring.
It's usually not a skillful idea to have the about senior person serve as the leader; she will take a difficult time convincing the others that she is not playing her usual role as boss. Instead, cull a respected lower-level insider who is non perceived as having a stiff point of view on which class should be chosen. Or tap an outside facilitator who has some experience with the firm.
The rules.
One time selected, the possibility generators must commit themselves to separating their first pace—the creation of possibilities—from the subsequent steps of testing and selecting. Managers with disquisitional minds naturally tend to greet each new idea with a long list of reasons why it won't work. The leader must constantly remind the grouping that ample fourth dimension for skepticism volition come afterward; for now, it must suspend judgment. If anyone persists with a critique, the leader should crave him to reframe it every bit a status and table it for discussion in the side by side footstep. For example, the critique "Customers will never accept differential pricing" becomes the condition "This possibility requires that customers accept differential pricing." It's particularly of import that the leader non shoot down possibilities early. If that happens, it's open season on all possibilities. And removing an option about which a detail team member feels strongly may crusade that person to withdraw from the procedure.
Many management teams effort to generate strategic possibilities in a single off-site brainstorming session. Such sessions are useful, especially if they are held at an unusual location that gets people out of their accustomed routines and habits of mind. Just nosotros have besides seen teams benefit from spreading the possibility-generation process over some time so that individuals take an opportunity to reflect, think creatively, and build on ideas. Information technology is perhaps nigh effective to start by asking each person to spend 30 to 45 minutes sketching out three to five (or more than) stories. The stories practice not need to be detailed; they should truly exist sketches. After this exercise the group (or breakout groups) fleshes out the initial possibilities.
Conventional strategic planning is non actually scientific. Information technology lacks the cosmos of hypotheses and the careful generation of tests.
Possibility generation centers on creativity, and many techniques purport to boost inventiveness. We've found three kinds of probing questions to be particularly useful. Within-out questions commencement with the visitor's assets and capabilities and then reason outward: What does this company practice especially well that parts of the marketplace might value and that might produce a superior wedge between buyer value and costs? Exterior-in questions look for openings in the market: What are the underserved needs, what are the needs that customers find hard to limited, and what gaps have competitors left? Far-outside-in questions apply analogical reasoning: What would it take to be the Google, the Apple, or the Walmart of this market?
You will know that you take a good ready of possibilities for farther work if two things testify to be true. Kickoff, the status quo doesn't await like a bright idea: At least one other possibility intrigues the group enough to brand information technology actually question the existing society. 2d, at to the lowest degree i possibility makes most of the grouping uncomfortable: It is sufficiently far from the status quo that the group questions whether it would be at all doable or safe. If one or both of these don't hold, it is probably time for another round of possibility generation.
The uncomfortable possibility for P&One thousand was the quaternary option described to a higher place. It involved transforming a weak, low-end brand into a more desirable player that could compete with upmarket department shop products and and so creating an entirely new masstige segment that mass retailers would enthusiastically back up.
Footstep 3: Specify the Conditions for Success
The purpose of this step is to specify what must be true for each possibility to exist a terrific choice. Note that this stride is non intended for arguing about what is true. It is not intended to explore or appraise the soundness of the logic behind the various possibilities or to consider data that may or may not back up the logic—that comes later. Any consideration of bear witness at this bespeak detracts from the procedure.
The importance of this distinction cannot be overstated. When the discussion of a possibility centers on what is true, the person most skeptical virtually the possibility attacks it vigorously, hoping to knock it out of contention. The originator defends it, parrying arguments in social club to protect its viability. Tempers rise, statements become more extreme, and relationships are strained. Meanwhile, little of either opponent'south logic is revealed to the other.
If, instead, the dialogue is about what would have to be true, then the skeptic can say, "For me to be confident in this possibility, I would have to know that consumers will cover this sort of offering." That is a very dissimilar sort of argument from "That volition never work!" It helps the proponent sympathize the skeptic'south reservations and develop the proof to overcome them. It too makes the skeptic specify the verbal source of the skepticism rather than consequence a coating denunciation.
We've developed a framework for surfacing the conditions that have to exist true for a possibility to be an bonny strategy (see the showroom "Assessing the Validity of a Strategic Option"). The conditions fall into seven categories relating to the industry, client value, business concern model, and competitors. Begin by conspicuously spelling out the strategic possibility under consideration. Then motion to a 2-phase discussion procedure:
Once you've listed all your options, specify what must exist true for each to succeed. The diagram below provides a framework for surfacing the necessary atmospheric condition; in consequence, y'all are reverse engineering your selection. P&G'south application of the framework to its option for a renamed and repositioned Olay is shown at the end of the sidebar.
The Framework
In club to pursue this option successfully, what conditions would we have to believe existed or could be created?
The Olay "Masstige" Option
The choice nether consideration was to reposition Olay for a younger demographic, with the promise to "fight the seven signs of aging." It would involve partnering with retailers to create a masstige segment—consumers willing to buy a prestigelike product in mass channels. P&Thousand determined that for this option to succeed, these conditions would take to exist or exist created:
Generate a list.
In the start stage of give-and-take, the aim is to enumerate all the weather condition that need to concur true for everyone in the room to be able to honestly say, "I experience confident enough to make this possibility a reality." The conditions should exist expressed as declarative rather than provisional statements—for example, "Channel partners will support united states of america," not "Channel partners would have to back up usa." This helps paint a positive moving picture of the possibility, ane that will be inviting to the grouping if the conditions really hold.
You must make sure that the individual who proposed the possibility nether review does not dominate this conversation. Any condition that is put forrard should be added to the list. The person putting it forrard should simply be asked to explain why that condition would be necessary for him to be confident; he should not exist challenged about the truth of the condition.
When each member of the grouping has had a chance to add conditions to the list, the facilitator should read the listing aloud and ask the group, "If all these conditions were true, would you advocate for and support this option?" If everyone says yeah, it's time to move to the side by side step. If any members say no, they must exist asked, "What additional condition would enable you to answer yes?" This line of questioning should go along until every member replies affirmatively.
Over again, during this stride expressing opinions almost whether or not weather are true should be strictly prohibited. The point is only to ferret out what would have to exist truthful for every member of the group to experience cognitively and emotionally committed to each possibility nether consideration.
It is important to treat the current strategy in this way also. We remember one discussion a number of years ago about the condition quo pick. Toward the end, the president of the company leaped out of his seat and sprinted from the room. When he returned, 10 minutes later, his colleagues asked whether he was OK. He explained that the word had made him see how logically weak the condition quo was. The reason he had raced out was to cancel a multimillion-dollar initiative in support of the status quo—the get/no-go deadline was that very day.
Weed the list.
The previous exercise typically overshoots, and the list of weather crosses the line between "must accept" and "nice to have." Later finishing the list of conditions, the group should take a break and so review the items, asking, "If every condition but this one held true, would you eliminate the possibility or still view it equally viable?" If the answer is the former, the condition is a must-have and should be maintained. If it is the latter, it is a nice-to-have and should be removed.
The goal here is to ensure that the list of conditions is truly a binding set. To this end, once you're finished reviewing, y'all should ask, "If all these weather condition were true, would y'all advocate for and back up this selection?" If any fellow member says no, then the group needs to return to the showtime-phase discussion and add whatever necessary conditions that were initially overlooked or mistakenly removed.
Subsequently arriving at a total gear up of possibilities and ensuring that all must-have weather are attached to each, the grouping needs to bring its options to the executives whose approving volition exist required to ratify the final choice and to whatsoever other colleagues who might stand up in the way. For each possibility, the group needs to ask these people the same questions it asked its members: "If these conditions were shown to hold true, would you cull this possibility? If not, what additional conditions would you include?" The goal is to make sure that the atmospheric condition for each possibility are well specified in the eyes of everyone with a say in the choice— before analysis ensues.
Step 4: Identify the Barriers to Choice
At present it's time to cast a critical heart on the weather. The task is to appraise which ones you believe are least probable to concord true. They volition define the barriers to choosing that possibility.
Brainstorm past asking group members to imagine that they could purchase a guarantee that whatever particular condition will hold true. To which condition would they apply it? The condition they cull is, by inference, the biggest barrier to choosing the possibility under consideration. The next condition to which they would apply a guarantee is the next-biggest barrier, and so on. The platonic output is an ordered list of barriers to each possibility, two or three of which really worry the group. If there is disagreement about the ordering of particular conditions, you should rank them every bit equal.
Pay close attending to the member who is most skeptical that a given condition will hold true; that person represents the greatest obstacle—and, in the instance of a problematic possibility, an extremely valuable obstruction—to the pick and pursuit of the option. Members must be encouraged to heighten, non suppress, their concerns. Even if only ane person is concerned about a given condition, the status must exist kept on the listing. Otherwise he would be within his rights to dismiss the final analysis. If the skepticism of every member is fatigued out and taken seriously, all will feel confident in the process and the outcomes.
When the P&G beauty intendance team reviewed the nine conditions information technology had come up with for the Olay masstige possibility, the members felt confident that six would agree: The potential consumer segment was big plenty to be worth targeting; the segment was at least as structurally attractive as the electric current mass-market place skin care segment; P&G could produce the production at a cost that would allow a somewhat lower price than those of fundamental lower-end prestige players; it was capable of building retailer partnerships (if retailers liked the idea); prestige competitors would non copy the strategy; and mass competitors could not copy the strategy. Notwithstanding, 3 conditions worried the squad, in descending order: that mass-channel consumers would accept a new, significantly higher starting price point; that mass-channel players would be game to create a new masstige segment; and that P&G could join prestigelike make positioning, product packaging, and in-store promotion elements in the mass-retail channel.
Stride 5: Blueprint Tests for the Barrier Conditions
One time you've identified and ordered the key bulwark atmospheric condition, the group must test each one to come across whether it holds true. The test might involve surveying a thousand customers or speaking to a single supplier. It might entail crunching thousands of numbers or avoid any quantifiers at all. The only requirement is that the unabridged grouping believe that the test is valid and can course the ground for rejecting the possibility in question or generating commitment to it.
The fellow member who is near skeptical about a given status should accept the lead in designing and applying the test for it. This person will typically have the highest standard of proof; if she is satisfied that the condition has passed the test, everyone else will exist satisfied. The take chances, of course, is that the skeptic might set an unachievable standard. In practice this does not happen, for two reasons. First, people demonstrate farthermost skepticism largely because they don't feel heard. In a typical buy-in process, concerns are treated as roadblocks to be pushed aside as rapidly as is feasible. The possibilities-based approach ensures that individuals with concerns both experience and actually are heard. Second is the specter of mutually bodacious destruction. Though I may have serious doubts about possibility A, I quite like possibility B. You, on the other hand, have few doubts about possibility A simply have serious qualms about choosing possibility B. I become to set the tests for the barrier conditions for possibility A, but I do then with the knowledge that you will be setting the tests for possibility B. If I set as well high a bar, y'all volition surely do the aforementioned. Being off-white and sensible is, then, the smartest arroyo.
Step 6: Deport the Tests
We typically structure this stride according to what we call "the lazy homo's approach to choice," testing conditions in the reverse social club of the grouping's confidence. That is, the condition the group feels is least likely to concord up is tested commencement. If the group's suspicion is correct, the possibility at hand can be eliminated without any farther testing. If that status passes the test, the status with the next-everyman likelihood of confirmation is tested, and so on. Because testing is often the most expensive and fourth dimension-consuming part of the process, the lazy homo's arroyo can save enormous resources.
At $eighteen.99, consumers were willing to cantankerous over from prestige section and specialty stores to buy Olay in disbelieve, drug, and grocery stores.
Typically, at this step you bring in people from outside the strategy team—consultants or experts in relevant functional or geographic units, who tin help fine-melody and conduct the tests you take prioritized. Information technology is important to ensure that they concentrate solely on testing. You are non asking them to revisit the conditions. In fact, one beauty of the possibilities-based approach is that information technology enables you to focus outside resources that may be costly and time-consuming.
This approach differs profoundly from the process followed by most strategy consultants, who carry a relatively standard suite of analyses in parallel. That generates a lot of (expensive) analysis, much of which turns out to be not essential or even useful in decision making. Furthermore, depth is sacrificed for latitude: Analyses are a mile wide and an inch deep, because the cost of deep analysis across the board would be prohibitive. To generate choice and commitment, we need assay that is an inch wide and a mile deep—targeting the concerns that could prevent the group from choosing an option and exploring those areas thoroughly enough to come across the grouping'due south standard of proof. The possibilities-based approach permits this.
For the P&K beauty care team, the virtually challenging status for the Olay masstige possibility related to pricing. The test of the condition showcased the ability of a truly scientific, hypothesis-driven approach to generate strategies that are both unexpected and successful. Joe Listro, Olay's R&D director, explains how it went. "We started to examination the new Olay product at premium price points of $12.99 to $eighteen.99 and got very different results," he says. "At $12.99, there was a positive response and a reasonably proficient rate of purchase intent. But most who signaled a desire to buy at $12.99 were mass shoppers. Very few section store shoppers were interested at that price point. Basically, we were trading people up from inside the aqueduct. At $15.99, purchase intent dropped dramatically. At $eighteen.99, it went back up again—mode up. So $12.99 was actually good, $fifteen.99 not so good, $eighteen.99 bully."
The team learned that at $18.99, consumers were crossing over from prestige department and specialty stores to buy Olay in disbelieve, drug, and grocery stores. That toll signal sent exactly the right bulletin. For the department store shopper, the product was a bully value only all the same credibly expensive. For the mass shopper, the premium cost signified that the production must be considerably better than annihilation else on the shelf. In contrast, $15.99 was in no-man's state—for a mass shopper, expensive without signaling differentiation, and for a prestige shopper, not expensive enough. These differences were quite fine; had the squad not focused so carefully on building and applying robust tests for multiple price points, the findings might never have emerged.
Information technology is important to empathise that tests cannot eliminate all doubt. Even the all-time-performing possibility will entail some take chances. That is why it is and so crucial to set testable atmospheric condition for the condition quo: The team so clearly sees that the condition quo is non free of risk. Rather than compare the best-performing possibility with a nonexistent risk-free option, the team can compare the risk of the leading option with the risk of the condition quo and achieve a decision in that context.
Footstep 7: Make the Choice
In traditional strategy making, finally choosing a strategy can be hard and acrimonious. The determination makers usually go off-site and effort to frame their binders of much-discussed marketplace research as strategic options. With the stakes high and the logic for each option never conspicuously articulated, such meetings ofttimes stop up as negotiations between powerful executives with potent preconceptions. And one time the meetings are ended, those who are skeptical of the decision begin to undermine it.
With the possibilities-based approach, the choice-making stride becomes simple, even anticlimactic. The group needs only to review the analytical test results and choose the possibility that faces the fewest serious barriers.
Often a strategy chosen in this way is surprisingly assuming and would about probable have been strangled at birth in the traditional process. Consider the Olay case. P&G ended up deciding to launch an upmarket product chosen Olay Total Effects for $18.99. In other words, the brand once dismissed as "Oil for Onetime Ladies" was transformed into a prestigelike product line at a price indicate shut to that of department store brands. And information technology worked. Mass-retail partners loved the product and saw new shoppers buying at new price points in their stores. Beauty magazine editors and dermatologists saw real value in the well-priced, constructive product line.
The masstige strategy succeeded beyond expectations. P&1000 would have been happy with a billion-dollar global skin care brand. Merely in less than a decade the Olay make surpassed $ii.v billion in almanac sales past spawning a series of "boutique" product lines—starting with Total Effects and following with Regenerist, Definity, and Pro-X—that attracted more prestige shoppers and commanded prices somewhen exceeding $50. Laid out neatly on paper, the possibilities-based approach sounds easy. But many managers struggle with it—non because the mechanics are hard, but because the approach requires at least 3 fundamental shifts in mind-set. First, in the early steps, they must avoid request "What should we do?" and instead ask "What might nosotros do?" Managers, especially those who pride themselves on being decisive, jump naturally to the old question and get restless when tackling the latter.
2d, in the middle steps, managers must shift from asking "What exercise I believe?" to request "What would I have to believe?" This requires a managing director to imagine that each possibility, including ones he does non like, is a great idea, and such a heed-set does not come naturally to almost people. It'due south needed, still, to place the right tests for a possibility.
Finally, by focusing a team on pinpointing the critical atmospheric condition and tests, the possibilities-based arroyo forces managers to move away from asking "What is the right answer?" and concentrate instead on "What are the right questions? What specifically must we know in social club to make a good decision?" In our experience, well-nigh managers are better at advancement of their own views than at inquiry, especially well-nigh others' views. The possibilities-based arroyo relies on and fosters a team'due south ability to inquire. And genuine research must prevarication at the heart of any process that aims to be scientific.
A version of this commodity appeared in the September 2012 issue of Harvard Business Review.
jeffersonpand1948.blogspot.com
Source: https://hbr.org/2012/09/bringing-science-to-the-art-of-strategy
0 Response to "The Art of Ma Strategy the Art of Ma Series 2012"
Postar um comentário