In rumelt's work, the final broad test of strategy is its

2 8 6 PART 4 • STRATEGY EVALUATION

n a Weak Econow^/. How*?

Family Dollar Stores Founded in 1959 by the father of CEO Howard Levine, Family Dollar Stores (FDO) is doing great in the ongo- ing recession as cash-strapped consumers hunt for bar- gains. The company's second-quarter 2009 results exceeded expectations: Sales were up 8.7 percent from last year to $2 billion. Pro-forma earnings are expected to be between 59 and 61 cents per share, safely ahead of the consensus estimate of 50 cents. Family Dollar's same-store sales, a key retail metric, were up 6.4 percent the second quarter of 2009. FDO's fiscal 2009 3rd quar- ter earnings increased another 36 percent.

Family Dollar's earnings held up well throughout the global recession, beating estimates in each of the last four quarters. The company was one of three S&P 500 companies to have a rising stock price in 2008. For fiscal 2008, FDO's sales increased from $6.8 billion to $6.9 billion. The company's net income for 2008 was $233 million.

The nation's number two dollar store (behind Dollar General), Family Dollar targets women shopping for a family that earns less than $30,000 a year. Family Dollar

i

operates about 5,600 stores in some 45 states and the District of Columbia. Consumables (food, health and beauty aids, and household products) account for about 60 percent of sales; the stores also sell apparel, shoes, and linens. Family Dollar emphasizes neighborhood stores near its low- and middle-income customers in rural and urban areas. Most merchandise is less than $10.

The best formulated and best implemented strategies become obsolete as a firm's external and internal environments change. It is essential, therefore, that strategists systematically review, evaluate, and control the execution of strategies. This chapter presents a framework that can guide managers' efforts to evaluate strategic-management activities, to make sure they are working, and to make timely changes. Management information systems being used to evaluate strategies are discussed. Guidelines are presented for formulating, imple- menting, and evaluating strategies. Family Dollar Stores evaluates strategies well.

The Nature of Strategy Evaluation The strategic-management process results in decisions that can have significant, long- lasting consequences. Erroneous strategic decisions can inflict severe penalties and can be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to reverse. Most strategists agree, therefore, that strategy evaluation is vital to an organization's well-being; timely evaluations can alert management to problems or potential problems before a situation becomes critical. Strategy evaluation includes three basic activities: (1) examining the underlying bases of a firm's strategy, (2) comparing expected results with actual results, and (3) taking corrective actions to ensure that performance conforms to plans. The strategy-evaluation stage of the strategic-management process is illustrated in Figure 9-1.

CHAPTER 9 • STRATEGY REVIEW, EVALUATION, AND CONTROL 2 8 7

A Comprehensive Strategic-Management Model

Chapter 10: Business Ethics, Social Responsibility, and Environmental Sustainability

Perform External Audit

Chapter 3

Develop Vision and Mission statements Chapter 2

Establish Long-Term Objectfves Chapter S

Perform Internal Audit

Chapter 4

Generate, Evaluate, and Select strategies Chapter 6

Implement Strategies-

Management Issues

Chapter 7

Implement Strategies— Marketing,

Finance, Accounting, R&D,

and MIS Issues Chapter 8

Measure and Evaluate Performance

Chapter 9

T

Chapter 11: Global/International Issues 1 Strategy

Formulation Strategy

Implementation Strategy

Evaluation

Source: Fred R. David, "How Companies Define Their Mission," Long Range Planning 22, no. 3 (June 1988); 40.

Adequate and timely feedback is the cornerstone of effective strategy evaluation. Strategy evaluation can be no better than the infonnation on which it is based. Too much pres sure from top managers may result in lower managers contriving numbers they think will be satisfactory.

Strategy evaluation can be a complex and sensitive undertaking. Too much emphasis on evaluating strategies may be expensive and counterproductive. No one likes to be eval- uated too closely! The more managers attempt to evaluate the behavior of others, the less control they have. Yet too little or no evaluation can create even worse problems. Strategy evaluation is essential to ensure that stated objectives are being achieved.

In many organizations, strategy evaluation is simply an appraisal of how well an organi- zation has performed. Have the firm's assets increased? Has there been an increase in prof- itability? Have sales increased? Have productivity levels increased? Have profit margin, return on investment, and eamings-per-share ratios increased? Some firms argue that their strategy must have been coixect if the answers to these types of questions are affirmative. Well, the strategy or strategies may have been coixect, but this type of reasoning can be misleading because sVtaXegy e\a\\iatvot\m and short-TMi\. Straveg\es oftet\o not affect short-term operating results until it is too late to make needed changes.

2 8 8 PART 4 • STRATEGY EVALUAT\ON

It is impossible to demonstrate conclusively that a particular strategy is optimal or even to guarantee that it will work. One can, however, evaluate it for critical flaws. Richard Rumelt offered four criteria that could be used to evaluate a strategy: consistency, conso- nance, feasibility, and advantage. Described in Table 9-1, consonance and advantage are mostly based on a firm's external assessment, whereas consistency and feasibility are largely based on an internal assessment.

Strategy evaluation is important because organizations face dynamic environments in which key external and internal factors often change quickly and dramatically. Success today is no guarantee of success tomorrow! An organization should never be lulled into complacency with success. Countless firms have thrived one year only to struggle for sur- vival the following year. Organizational trouble can come swiftly, as further evidenced by the examples described in Table 9-2.

Rumelt's Criteria for Evaluating Strategies Consistency A strategy should not present inconsistent goals and policies. Organizational conflict and interdepartmental bickering are often symptoms of managerial disorder, but these problems may also be a sign of strategic inconsistency. Tliree guidelines help determine if organizational problems are due to inconsistencies in strategy: • If managerial problems continue despite changes in personnel and if they lend to be issue-based rather than people-based, then

strategies may be inconsistent. • If success for one organizational department means, or is interpreted to mean, failure for another department, then strategies may

be inconsistent. • If poUcy problems and issues continue to be brought to the top for resolution, then strategies may be inconsistent.

Consonance Consonance refers to the need for strategists to examine sets of trends, as well as individual trends, in evaluating strategies. A strat- egy must represent an adaptive response to the external environment and to the critical changes occurring within it. One difficulty in matching a firm's key internal and external factors in the formulation of strategy is that most trends are the result of interactions among other trends. For example, the day-care explosion came about as a combined result of many trends that included a rise in the average level of education, increased inflation, and an increase in women in the worlcforce. Although single economic or demographic trends might appear steady for many years, there are waves of change going on at the interaction level. Feasibility A strategy must neither overtax available resources nor create unsolvable subproblems. The final broad test of strategy is its feasibility; that is, can the strategy be attempted within the physical, human, and financial resources of the enterprise? The financial resources of a business are the easiest to quantify and are normally the first limitation against which strategy is evaluated. It is sometimes forgotten, however, that innovative approaches to financing are often possible. Devices, such as captive subsidiaries, sale-leaseback arrangements, and tying plant mortgages to long-term contracts, have all been used effectively to help win key positions in suddenly expanding industries. A less quantifiable, but actually more rigid, limitation on strategic choice is that imposed by individual and organizational capabilities. In evaluating a strategy, it is important to examine whether an organization has demonstrated in the past that it possesses the abilities, competencies, skills, and talents needed to can-y out a given strategy.

Advantage A strategy must provide for the creation and/or maintenance of a competitive advantage in a selected area of activity. Competitive advantages normally are the result of superiority in one of three areas: (1) resources, (2) skills, or (3) position. The idea that the positioning of one's resources can enhance their combined effectiveness is familiar to military theorists, chess players, and diplo- mats. Position can also play a crucial role in an organization's strategy. Once gained, a good position is defensible—meaning that it is so costly to capture that rivals are deterred from full-scale attacks. Positional advantage tends to be self-sustaining as long as the key internal and environmental factors that underlie it remain stable. This is why entrenched firms can be almost impossible to unseat, even if their raw skill levels are only average. Although not all positional advantages are associated with size, it is true that larger organizations tend to operate in markets and use procedures that turn theii- size into advantage, while smaller firms seek product/market positions that exploit other types of advantage. The principal characteristic of good position is that it peimits the Grm to obtain advantage from policies that would not similarly benefit rivals without the same position. Therefore, in evaluating strategy, organizations should examine the nature of positional advantages associated with a given strategy.

Source: Adapted from Richard Rumelt, 'The Evaluation of Business Strategy," in W. F. Glueck (ed.), Business Policy and Strategic Management (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1980): 359-367. Used with permission.

CHAPTER 9 • STRATEGY REVIEW, EVALUATION, AND CONTROL 2 8 9

Examples of Organizational Demise

A. Some Large Companies B. Some Large Companies That Experienced a Large That Experienced a Large

Drop in Revenues in Drop in Profits in 2008 vs. 2007 2008 vs. 2007

Molson Coors Brewing - 2 3 % UAL -1,427% Citigroup -29% Sonic Automotive -818% Morgan Stanley -29% Citigroup -865% Goldman Sachs Group -39% CBS -1,036% Fannie Mae - 4 8 % Rite Aid -4,122% Freddie Mac - 7 1 % Pilgrim's Pride -2,224% Weyerhaeuser -32% Centex -1,090% Centex - 4 1 % Harrah's Entertainment -939% Pulte Homes -32% American International Group -1,701% Massachusetts Mutual Life -26% Gannett -730% Allstate -20% OfficeMax -899% American International Group -90% Brunswick -806% Hartford Financial -64% Brightpoint -822% Atria Group - 5 8 % Owens Coming -974%

Strategy evaluation is becoming increasingly difficult with the passage of time, for many reasons. Domestic and world economies were more stable in years past, product hfe cycles were longer, product development cycles were longer, technological advancement was slower, change occurred less frequendy, there were fewer competitors, foreign compa- nies were weak, and there were more regulated industries. Other reasons why strategy evaluation is more difficult today include the following trends:

1. A dramatic increase in the environment's complexity 2. The increasing difficulty of predicring the future with accuracy 3. The increasing number of variables 4. The rapid rate of obsolescence of even the best plans 5. The increase in the number of both domestic and world events affecting

organizadons 6. The decreasing time span for which planning can be done with any degree of

certainty' A fundamental problem facing managers today is how to control employees effec-

tively in light of modern organizadonal demands for greater flexibility, innovafion, creativ- ity, and initiative from employees.^ How can managers today ensure that empowered employees acting in an entrepreneurial manner do not put the well-being of the business at risk? Recall that Kidder, Peabody & Company lost $350 million when one of its traders allegedly booked ficdtious profits; Sears, Roebuck and Company took a $60 million charge against earnings after admitting that its automobile service businesses were performing unnecessary repairs. The costs to companies such as these in terms of damaged reputations, fines, missed opportunities, and diversion of management 's attendon are enormous.

When empowered employees are held accountable for and pressured to achieve specific goals and are given wide latitude in their acdons to achieve them, there can be dysfuncdonal behavior. For example, Nordstrom, the upscale fashion retailer known for outstanding customer service, was subjected to lawsuits and fines when employees underreported hours worked in order to increase their sales per hour—the company's primary performance criterion. Nords t rom's customer service and earnings were enhanced until the misconduct was reported, at which time severe penaldes were levied against the firm.

290 PART 4 • STRATEGY EVALUATION

The Process o f Evaluating Strategies Strategy evaluation is necessai7 for all sizes and kinds of organizations. Strategy evalua- tion should initiate managerial quesrioning of expectadons and assumpdons , should trigger a review of objecdves and values, and should sdmulate creativity in generadng alternatives and formulating criteria of evaluadon.^ Regardless of the size of the organiza- don, a certain amount of management by wandering around at all levels is essential to effective strategy evaluation. Strategy-evaluation activides should be performed on a con- tinuing basis, rather than at the end of specified periods of dme or just after problems occur. Waiting until the end of the year, for example, could result in a firm closing the barn door after the horses have already escaped.

•E-vaVuaung, suav.eg\es on a coni'muous taiV\et than on a petVodvc basis allows bench- marks of progress to be established and more effectively monitored. Some strategies take years to implement; consequently, associated results may not become apparent for years. Successful strategies combine padence with a willingness to promptly take corrective acdons when necessary. There always comes a dme when correcdve actions are needed in an organization! Centuries ago, a writer (perhaps Solomon) made the following observa- tions about change:

There is a time for everything, A time to be bom and a time to die, A time to plant and a time to uproot, A time to kill and a time to heal, A time to tear down and a time to build, A time to weep and a time to laugh, A time to mourn and a time to dance, A time to scatter stones and a time to gather them, A dme to embrace and a dme to refrain, A time to search and a time to give up, A time to keep and a time to throw away, A time to tear and a time to mend, A time to be silent and a time to speak, A time to love and a time to hate, A time for war and a time for peace."*

Managers and employees of the firm should be continually aware of progress being made toward achieving the firm's objectives. As critical success factors change, organi- zational members should be involved in determining appropriate corrective actions. If assumptions and expectations deviate significantiy from forecasts, then the firm should renew strategy-formulation activities, perhaps sooner than planned. In strategy evalua- tion, like strategy formulation and strategy implementation, people make the differ- ence. Through involvement in the process of evaluating strategies, managers and employees become committed to keeping the firm moving steadily toward achieving objecdves.

A Strategy-Evaluation Framework Table 9-3 summarizes strategy-evaluation activities in terms of key questions that should be addressed, alternative answers to those questions, and appropriate actions for an organi- zation to take. Notice that corrective actions are almost always needed except when (1) external and internal factors have not significantiy changed and (2) the firm is progressing satisfactorily toward achieving stated objecdves. Relationships among strategy-evaluation activities are illustrated in Figure 9-2.

Reviewing Bases of As shown in Figure 9-2, reviewing the underlying bases of an organization's strategy cotdd be approached by developing a revised EFE Matrix and IFE Matrix. A revised IFE Matrix should focus on changes in the organization's management, marketing, fmance/accounting,

CHAPTER 9 • STRATEGY REVIEW, EVALUATION, AND CONTROL 2 9 5

No organization can survive as an island; no organization can escape change. Talcing corrective actions is necessary to keep an organization on track toward achieving stated objectives. In his thought-provoking books Future Shock and The Third Wave, Alvin Toffler argued that business environments are becoming so dynamic and complex that they threaten people and organizations with future shock, which occurs when the nature, types, and speed of changes oveipower an individual's or organization's ability and capacity to adapt. Strategy evaluation enhances an organization's ability to adapt successfully to changing circumstances.

Taking corrective actions raises employees ' and managers ' anxieties. Research suggests that participation in strategy-evaluation activities is one of the best ways to over- come individuals' resistance to change. According to Erez and Kanfer, individuals accept change best when they have a cognitive understanding of the changes, a sense of control over the situation, and an awareness that necessary actions are going to be taken to imple- ment the changes.^

Strategy evaluation can lead to strategy-formulation changes, strategy-implementation changes, both formulation and implementation changes, or no changes at all. Strategists cannot escape having to revise strategies and implementation approaches sooner or later. Hussey and Langham offered the following insight on taking corrective actions;

Resistance to change is often emotionally based and not easily overcome by rational argument. Resistance may be based on such feelings as loss of status, imphed criti- cism of present competence, fear of failure in the new situation, annoyance at not being consulted, lack of understanding of the need for change, or insecurity in changing from well-known and fixed methods. It is necessary, therefore, to over- come such resistance by creating situations of participation and full explanation when changes are envisaged.^

Corrective actions should place an organization in a better position to capitalize upon internal strengths; to take advantage of key external opportunities; to avoid, reduce, or mitigate external threats; and to improve internal weaknesses. Corrective actions should have a proper time horizon and an appropriate amount of risk. They should be internally consistent and socially responsible. Perhaps most important, corrective actions strengthen an organization's competitive position in its basic industr>'. Continuous strategy evaluation keeps strategists close to the pulse of an organization and provides information needed for an effective strategic-management system. Carter Bayles described the benefits of strategy evaluation as follows:

Evaluation activities may renew confidence in the current business strategy or point to the need for actions to correct some weaknesses, such as erosion of product supe- riority or technological edge. In many cases, the benefits of strategy evaluation are much more far-reaching, for the outcome of the process may be a fundamentally new strategy that will lead, even in a business that is already turning a respectable profit, to substantially increased earnings. It is this possibility that justifies strategy evalua- tion, for the payoff can be very large.*

The Balanced Scorecard Introduced earlier in the Chapter 5 discussion of objectives, the Balanced Scorecard is an important strategy-evaluation tool. It is a process that allows firms to evaluate strategies from, four perspectives: financial performance, customer knowledge, internal business processes, and learning and growth. The Balanced Scorecard analysis requires that firms seek answers to the following questions and utilize that information, in conjunction with financial measures, to adequately and more effectively evaluate strategies being implemented: 1. How well is the firm condnually improving and creating value along measures

such as innovation, technological leadership, product quality, operational process efficiencies, and so on?

2 9 6 PART 4 • STRATEGY EVALUATION

2. How well is the firm sustaining and even improving upon its core competencies and competitive advantages?

3. How satisfied are the firm's customers? A sample Balanced Scorecard is provided in Table 9-6. Notice that the firm exam-

ines six key issues in evaluating its strategies; (1) Customers, (2) Managers/Employees, (3) Opera t ions /Processes , (4) Communi ty /Soc ia l Responsibi l i ty , (5) Business Ethics/Natural Environment, and (6) Financial. The basic form of a Balanced Scorecard may differ for different organizations. The Balanced Scorecard approach to strategy evaluation aims to balance long-term with short-term concerns, to balance financial with nonfinancial concerns, and to balance internal with external concerns. It can be an excel lent management tool, and it is used successfully today by Chemical Bank, Exxon/Mobil Corporation, CIGNA Property and Casualty Insurance, and numerous other firms. The Balanced Scorecard would be constructed differently, that is, adapted, to particular firms in various industries with the underlying theme or thrust being the same, which is to evaluate the firm's strategies based upon both key quantitafive and qualitative measures.

An Example Balanced Scorecard Area of Objectives Measure or Target Time Expectation Primary Responsibility

Customers 1. 2. 3. 4.

Managers/Employees 1. 2. 3. 4.

Operations/Processes 1. 2. 3. 4.

Community/Social Responsibility 1. 2. 3. 4.

Business Ethics/Natural Environment 1. 2. 3. 4.

Financial 1. 2.

CHAPTER 9 • STRATEGY REVIEW, EVALUATION, AND CONTROL 2 9 9

Contingency Planning A basic premise of good strategic management is that firms plan ways to deal with unfavorable and favorable events before they occur. Too many organizations prepare con- tingency plans just for unfavorable events; this is a mistake, because both minimizing threats and capitalizing on opportunities can improve a firm's competitive position.

Regardless of how carefully strategies are formulated, implemented, and evaluated, unforeseen events, such as strikes, boycotts, natural disasters, arrival of foreign competitors, and goveiTiment actions, can make a strategy obsolete. To minimize the impact of potential threats, organizations should develop contingency plans as part of their strategy-evaluation process. Contingency plans can be defined as alternative plans that can be put into effect if certain key events do not occur as expected. Only high-priority areas require the insurance of contingency plans. Strategists cannot and should not try to cover all bases by planning for all possible contingencies. But in any case, contingency plans should be as simple as possible.

Some contingency plans commonly established by firms include the following; 1. If a major competitor withdraws from particular markets as intelligence reports

indicate, what actions should our firm take? 2. If our sales objectives are not reached, what actions should our firm take to avoid

profit losses? 3. If demand for our new product exceeds plans, what actions should our firm take

to meet the higher demand? 4. If certain disasters occur—such as loss of computer capabilities; a hostile takeover

attempt; loss of patent protection; or destruction of manufacturing facilities because of earthquakes, tornadoes or hurricanes—what actions should our firm take?

5. If a new technological advancement makes our new product obsolete sooner than expected, what actions should our firm take?

Too many organizations discard alternative strategies not selected for implementation although the work devoted to analyzing these options would render valuable information. Alternative strategies not selected for implementation can serve as contingency plans in case the strategy or strategies selected do not work. U.S. companies and governments are increasingly considering nuclear-generated electricity as the most efficient means of power generation. Many contingency plans certainly call for nuclear power rather than for coal- and gas-derived electricity.

When strategy-evaluation activities reveal the need for a major change quickly, an appropriate contingency plan can be executed in a timely way. Contingency plans can pro- mote a strategist's ability to respond quickly to key changes in the internal and external bases of an organization's current strategy. For example, if underiying assumptions about the economy turn out to be wrong and contingency plans are ready, then managers can make appropriate changes promptly.

In some cases, external or internal conditions present unexpected opportunities. When such opportunities occur, contingency plans could allow an organization to quickly capitahze on them. Linneman and Chandran reported that contingency planning gave users, such as DuPont, Dow Chemical, Consolidated Foods, and Emerson Electric, three major benefits: (1) It permitted quick response to change, (2) it prevented panic in crisis situations, and (3) it made managers more adaptable by encouraging them to appreciate just how variable the future can be. They suggested that effective contingency planning involves a seven-step process: 1. Identify both beneficial and unfavorable events that could possibly derail the

strategy or strategies. 2. Specify trigger points. Calculate about when contingent events aie hkely to occur. 3. Assess the rnipact of each contingent event. Estimate the potential benefit or harm

of each contingent event. 4. Develop contingency plans. Be sure that contingency plans are compatible with

cuixent strategy and are econonucally feasible.

3 0 0 PART 4 • STRATEGY EVALUATION

5. Assess the counterimpact of each cotitingency plati. That is, estimate how much each contingency plan will capitalize on or cancel out its associated contingent event. Doing this will quantify the potential value of each contingency plan.

6. Determine early warning signals for key contingent events. Monitor the early warning signals.

7. For contingent events with rehable early warning signals, develop advance action plans to take advantage of the available lead t ime . ' '

Auditing A frequently used tool in strategy evaluation is the audit. Auditing is defmed by the American Accounting Association (AAA) as "a systematic process of objectively obtain- ing and evaluating evidence regarding assertions about economic actions and events to ascertain the degree of coirespondence between these assertions and established criteria, and communicating the results to interested users."^-^

Auditors examine the financial statement of firms to determine whether they have been prepared according to generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) and whether they fairly represent the activities of the firm. Independent auditors use a set of standards called generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS). Public accounting firms often have a consulting arm that provides strategy-evaluation services. The SEC in late 2009 charged General Electric with accounting fraud, specifically for inflating its earnings and revenues in prior years. GE has agreed to pay $50 million to settle the charges. (Students—when preparing projected financial statements as described in Chapter 8, do not inflate the numbers.)

The new era of international financial reporting standards (IFRS) appears unstop- pable, and businesses need to go ahead and get ready to use IFRS. Many U.S. companies now report their finances using both the old generally accepted accounting standards (GAAP) and the new IFRS. "If companies don't prepare, if they don't start three years in advance," warns business professor Donna Street at the University of Dayton, "they're going to be in big trouble." GAAP standards comprised 25,000 pages, whereas IFRS comprises only 5,000 pages, so in that sense IFRS is less cumbersome.

This accounting switch from GAAP to IFRS in the United States is going to cost busi- nesses millions of dollars in fees and upgraded software systems and training. U.S. CPAs need to study global accounting principles intensely, and business schools should go ahead and begin teaching students the new accounting standards.

All companies have the option to use the IFRS procedures in 2011, and then all com- panies are required to use IFRS in 2014, unless that t imetable is changed. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce supports the change, saying it will lead to much more cross-border commerce and will help the United States compete in the world economy. Already the European Union and 113 nations have adopted or soon plan to use international rules, including Austraha, China, India, Mexico, and Canada. So the United States likely will also adopt IFRS rules on schedule, but this switch could unleash a legal and regulatory nightmare. The United States lags the rest of the world in global accounting. But a few U.S. multinational firms already use IFRS for their foreign subsidiaries, such as United Technologies (UT). UT derives more than 60 percent of its revenues from abroad and is already training its entire staff to use IFRS. UT has redone its 2007 through 2009 financial statements in the IFRS format.

Movement to IFRS from GAAP encompasses a company's enthe operations, includ- ing auditing, oversight, cash management, taxes, technology, software, investing, acquir- ing, merging, importing, exporting, pension planning, and partnering. Switching from GAAP to IFRS is also likely to be plagued by gaping differences in business customs, financial regulations, tax laws, politics, and other factors. One critic of the upcoming switch is Chai-les Niemeier of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, who says the switch "has the potential to be a Tower of Babel," costing firms millions when they do not even have thousands to spend.

Applied Sciences

Architecture and Design

Biology

Business & Finance

Chemistry

Computer Science

Geography

Geology

Education

Engineering

English

Environmental science

Spanish

Government

History

Human Resource Management

Information Systems

Law

Literature

Mathematics

Nursing

Physics

Political Science

Psychology

Reading

Science

Social Science

Home

Blog

Archive

Contact

google+twitterfacebook

Copyright © 2019 HomeworkMarket.com