Destination Development in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia - Comments and observations from a remote passionate professional

As a seasoned executive, over 20 years in C-level and board assignments, in developing places (destinations, resorts, commercial real estate, hospitality, sport, leisure and lifestyle venues, mixed use, public realm) and relevant asset management on 4 continents, from greenfield strategy to viable visitor experience, leveraged assets and sustainable healthy business operations, I follow up on the developments in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia with great professional interest.

The Vision 2030 is bold, powerful and fascinating and makes perfect sense. I admire "thinking big" anyway. Being literally born into the tourism industry and breastfed with its conditions, it is good to see, tourism plays a vital role within this vision. Tourism in a broader sense is the worlds largest industry and holds complex opportunities for many stake holder along an extensive and divers value chain.

However, with some Middle East working background, a few aspects seem to be worth commenting. As a KSA insider (which I am not), you may agree or disagree. I do not claim, my observations are of general relevance. This would be pure arrogance. My intention is to stimulate reflection and to deliver food for thoughts. This is based on personal remote observations, informal information from people currently working in KSA and the digestion according to solid personal professional experience and latest scientific research. Here, I mean scientific findings from tourism destinations with a longer history, where they had to deal with threats and challenges, the contemporary commercial tourism in the Arab world has no track record of exposure yet, e. g. development pattern in product or destination life cycle and their consequences, dependencies on certain target groups or volatile source markets and their seasonal pattern, the problem of so called “cold beds” due to residential unit sales in resort areas and the various implications of real estate soap bubbles. Also, destination governance and leadership are complex issues with a history of evolution and different development pattern. I have been involved in projects in the Arabic world (outside KSA) where some of these aspects were crucial and decision makers did not want to bother looking into scientific based evidence or experience from other parts of the world. So, I know first-hand, there is relevance and it can eventually become disastrous along the way.

Dubai is starting to feel the consequences in some of these developments now. Dubai′s urban development is certainly an outstanding success story of visionary leadership and execution in recent mankind. Yet, apart from the above-mentioned consequences, as a tourism destination, look at the share of repeat visitors in global comparison or take away one of the world′s biggest airline hubs. You do not want to think this scenario to the end.

For the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, developing tourism destinations as greenfield projects represent great opportunities, especially with this wealth of spectacular landscapes and cultural heritage, today still unknown to a great extend for the international traveller. However, as seen many times all over the world, it is walking a thin line between generating a sustainable and healthy prospering economic sector or burning money in creating “white elephants”, which no one wants to happen.

So, motivated by remote observations and informal insider information, I feel free to share some thoughts intending to help to do things right from the beginning. Vision, strategy and projects are promising, yet, delivery and market acceptance is still to come. I am not that overbearing to think, professionals working in this field in Saudi Arabia do not know all this. I am just assuming not everybody is aware of these things as not everybody has been confronted with them before. Beyond that, there is nothing wrong in stimulating thoughts and professional discussions. Therefore, I feel free to come up with a series of thesis, which people might find logical and others may find difficult to digest.

1.      Destination development strategy and execution go far beyond property development

 Although, I constantly see it should be stressed more often, I avoid to dig into “what is a strategy” too deep. Instead, I recommend to read (among others) Freek Vermeulens article in Harvard Business Review (08/2017): “Many Strategies Fail Because They′re Not Actually Strategies”. Even if the concept of strategy is taken seriously and professionally, government entities tend to outsource the strategy development to strategy consultants (“If McKinsey or BCG don′t know, who else would be better for doing this” … a good point, but the profile of McKinsey, BCG and their competitors in destination development strategy is still poor, unless you judge a book by the cover). Having worked for a leading strategy consulting firm myself, these companies know what they are doing, but normally they are gone when things get serious. The prerequisite of an emerging destination development strategy is ownership of the people who have to make it happen and who hopefully have more experience in destination development than the consultants, even they may be less educated or experienced in decent analysis and strategy definition. Without ownership, from top-management to the ranks, a strategy document is worth nothing. The ideal situation is to have a person at the helm who has a successful track record and experience in both. With strategy in this context, I mean how to develop a greenfield area to generate sustainable business, return on investment, jobs for people and competitive edge positioning, taking the natural resources into consideration. I ignore the good and bad examples of artificial, purely manmade tourism destinations (their lifecycle is definitely shorter, if they have one at all), I rather focus on these destinations who take advantage of their setting and their scenery, landscape, natural environment and the activation of all that. On a global horizon, there are destinations in this regard with proof of evidence to provide a comfortable living for their investors, entrepreneurs and people for over a hundred years, including ups and downs as part of the lifecycle mechanism.

The place of my recent long term assignment and still my current residential hang-out, St. Moritz in Switzerland, has a tradition in upscale recreational hospitality for over 200 years and still is an unrivalled global synonym for high-end mountain resorts and luxury. There is no other resort place, where the little airstrip has up to 180 starts and landings of private jets, per day in peak season. Consequently, in over 200 years of sustainable commercial tourism, the place has compiled tremendous collective experience and know how from past threats, challenges and mistakes. When being involved there professionally for a longer period, you cannot avoid to absorb some of this wisdome and take it with you. Maybe that′s why my current Chinese clients and investors like to say: "We want Swiss quality - at Chinese speed". They know, I am actually not Swiss, I just live there occasionally, but they love their storytelling too much to let go.

 Another misconception in developing destinations, especially in remote areas, is to believe solitaire “iconic” properties are key to attract tourism. Well, there may be different perceptions of what is "iconic". To me it is inspirational design, timeless. There are only a few contemporary examples of that on a global scale and The Eiffel Tower, Burj Khalifa, CCTV Building, Sydney Opera House, the tent-roof in Munich Olympic Parc might be a (personal) selection. They are in cities for a reason. In nature, the Matterhorn in Switzerland is iconic so are the Lofoten in Norway or Machu Picchu. No point in competing with buildings at the village the wrong way when the landscape is iconic. I assume Saudi Arabia has these treasures, too. So give them the perfect stage without spoiling it and people want to come, see and experience. "Iconic" does not stand for being swanky or kitsch as this is rather repulsive (although these examples exist, in the Arabic world and elsewhere too of course, but I won′t mention names. I know a few around the corner who are not doing well at all in business, even everyone knows their image). In sightseeing driven city tourism, iconic buildings surely contribute to momentum, in recreational tourism their impact is much lower. “Iconic” features are good and valuable to visualize the destination in a symbol. You need iconic symbols for social and general media and better recognition, to be known and to get onto the map. In city tourism manmade spectacular “iconic” buildings have a more substantial contribution to tourism attractiveness. In recreational areas, it is slightly different due to other criteria of sought visitor experience which determine the destination of choice. So, destination development in greenfield remote areas is more than the creation of iconic properties. It can be part of it as the architectural quality is part of the product and the experience, but it is not the key driver. The activation of natural resources is and the destination has to tell it′s own story. Eventually, a destination strategy generates a well curated themed story the destination tells the visitors, but it has to be authentic, a unique story visitors take back home and tell others. A profiled destination is its own brand and not the space for branches or copies. Be aware of the fact, science and competencies in building places and infrastructure (planning, development, construction, egineering etc.) have a much longer history than findings, insights, consequences and experiences in holistic destination development (to my knowledge, there is scientific research in this specific field only for a handful of decades), therefore the views of thinking in terms of bricks and mortar (instead of seeing a destination as a holistic package of diversified experiences and expectations from the potential visitors perspective) are often dominating and the existence of the socalled "white elephant" phenomena in many places is the sad proof of it. So, please excuse my almost missionary attempts working against that (although failed destination development missions keep my business going as well).

2.      From greenfield to a viable visitor experience and sustainable tourism development

Of course, iconic architecture and an ongoing series of fancy events and offerings help to play the piano of promotion and are keeping the media presence alive. Consequently, this is also supportive in sharpening profile. We tourism people all like this and it ís ego boosting to have in the portfolio, but we just should not get confused over priorities and the heart of the matter. However, by all means, destination development goes far beyond thinking in terms of bricks and mortar. "Software" of services and organizational capabilities, activities, atmosphere, attitude, moods etc. are just as important. So is to know the expectations of your future visitor. The two most important factors of success in economically sustainable tourism areas, in addition to a clear and substantial value preposition to make people go there, are simply defined (a bit more complicated to leverage though).

a)      Retain visitors or visitors with positive advocacy

Apart from all the investment in top infrastructure, maintenance, ongoing improvement and the costs to have a stable high-profile service level, the marketing costs of bringing one person to the destination for once are also substantial. If these visitors depart without the commitment of coming back or at least the willingness to tell others to go there, the destination will not survive economically and there is plenty of global evidence to prove that thesis. The "word of mouth", especially considering social networks, is the powerful sword that determines whether a destination will live or die. No marketing budget will be able to change that. As in any business: making noise is part of the game, but really delivering the promise is key.

b)     Visitor experience along the customer journey is key

We have touched the value of iconic architecture a while ago. There is some benefit to it, no doubts. Especially for city tourism. However, for recreational areas, people go there to find recreation or to do certain activities. The success of their trip is measured on the experience in this regard. If the destination fails to deliver, iconic buildings won′t rescue it (in terms of 2.a). They are the cherry on the cream on the cake, not the cake and not even the cream, as long as there is no additional contribution to the visitor experience.

In general, the visitor experience needs to be best in class for the targeted markets in a global competitive set. If you overlook one single touch point along the customer journey, you can be in trouble already. For example, look at the trip advisor reviews for some of the most spectacular hotels on the planet. In one, a very famous fancy luxury hotel, for a certain period of time, the reviews were focusing on bad quality of scrambled eggs for breakfast. That ruins everything. In mountain areas or nature recreation, where I have worked most of my life, people judge the quality and signage of your trails and the availability of good quality gear (bikes or other rentals, guides), alive gathering places for the evening or areas with great atmosphere to stroll around outside hotels … If they get lost on a hiking trail due to poor or confusing signage or a badly maintained bridge or cannot find atmosphere and gathering places outside their hotels, even the most iconic architecture in the valley cannot compensate that. Guess what they will be talking about at home or in their social networks?

Visitor experience along the customer journey for a mix of target groups determines, whether a destination survives and makes money in the long run. This story board can be decently planned. Let′s face it: that is not the core competence of architects and construction managers. They all rely on a comprehensive briefing in this regard.

There are 3 dimensions of visitor experience planning along each touchpoint of the customer journey:

a)      Hard infrastructure: defining masterplanning, traffic and transport, getting there and around, visitor flow, hospitality, activities, venues

b)     Service design: defining offerings, organizational development, make or buy, educational level of staff and recruitment requirements

c)      Digital: defining first contact and awareness prior to arrival, conversion of interest into bookings, various aspects during the stay, in particular in smart destinations, upselling opportunities, seamless navigation, chatbots, CRM, marketing automatization, VR and AR experiences, digital performance infrastructure (5G, public WLAN Hot Spots etc.) and also advocacy and retention after departure

For further interest in this aspect, you may want to look up my slideshare contribution (https://www.slideshare.net/RichardAdam6/richard-adam-destination-development-3-dimensions-of-visitor-experience-with-a-focus-on-digital-082019)

To make this complex preparation valuable, in consequence, you need to know your targeted interest groups, relevant domestic and international source markets as well as best practise competitors according your destination development strategy. As they say, the bait is out there to attract fish, not to decorate the fishing rod.

To become more practical again, from a KSA perspectives, e.g. in Nov. 2018 the development of Wadi Al Disah was announced. The area has a profile in nature protection, ecological sustainability and a great potential for target groups interested in environmental or sustainability issues, archaeology, wildlife and mountain scenery and adventurous or sportive activities, also with potential for family recreation and mountainside activity seekers, interest groups I am familiar in dealing with on an international scope. According to available press releases, this project seems a perfect addition and supportive for complementing the positioning of other development projects like Red Sea, Amaala, Qiddiya, Al Ula or Neom. The strategic question is whether the initiators want to become Wadi Al Disah THE brand for upscale nature and mountaineering activities and recreation in this part of the world or another glossy Disney like copycat, that could be anywhere in the world. International tourism is driven by authenticity, experience and uniqueness in profile and character. Seen from the distance, it would be risky with questionable feasibility, not to leverage this potential in a best in class mountain resort and instead moving towards an artificially themed showcase. Again, the key issue is how you can activate the natural surroundings and mountain scenery in a global best practise manner of things to do and see in combination with a contemporary yet authentic experience of Arabian heritage and upscale resort atmosphere, as this is the first motivation to go there. Different to beach destinations, this needs a more complex activity infrastructure, service level and high maintenance throughout the year. Nature preservation areas also have certain rules what you can do and what you cannot do, but again, that creates additional opportunities. Also, different target groups have different seasonal patterns and different demands (from university students, young sport activists to families interested in more luxury). A resort lives from variety, being alive all year round. In order to make the service level economically feasible, you have to generate critical mass almost 365 days a year, therefore cater for different needs all year as well, otherwise – here I know what I am talking about – there is nothing more desperate than empty cable cars or service “currently not available”. That′s the beginning of the end. High service level and experience offerings require critical mass of visitors at all times, otherwise you initiate a downwards spiral.

To make this of value for investors, you need to extend the stay with additional offerings, which meet the visitors′ needs to have something to do in the evening including coffee shops and hang-outs, attractive retail variety, scenic walks, a corniche, atmospheric gathering places to stroll outside their hotels, family entertainment related to landscape, a venue for cultural or entertainment performance, all facing a fabulous sunset, car free and delivering contemporary Arabian heritage. Furthermore, don’t forget mountain rescue and medical etc. and what it needs to attract and retain a permanent qualified work force. This and a lot more is the homework to sort out first before you think about architecture and iconic properties. There are roadmaps for relevant professional development and the architectural pitches have their place further up the road.

When I let my personal creative or conceptual senses go floating with regards to Wadi Al Disah, Sedona in Arizona comes to my mind. However, with the opportunity of generous strategic greenfield master-planning and the addition of another natural element, I can clearly imagine something the world has not seen yet, with the maximum of "Instagram" factor. I am confident, the international market would embrace this concept as well as foreign investors. You might call it "iconic" or spectacular and still giving the landscape the center of attention. Yet, in case the operational and service excellence can be provided at top level as well, this would be best in class of nature recreation and scenic spots on the internationl "must see" list. But this is my "private vision" caused by an exceptional lucky moment of inspiration and I will be watching out for the results of the assumed armada of consultants probably already hired for working on that, whether their output comes even close.

 Another aspect of decreasing value is the intention to secure established international hotel brands. Hotel brands certainly signal quality, some even prestige and can help to bring the place into international distribution channels. However, the hotel landscape has changed. Today hotel owners and investors can pay serious amounts of money to the big system providers with their asset light strategies (I do not call them hotel groups anymore) with little in return. Minor Corp. in Thailand has just sued Marriott for providing too little value in exchange for their royalties. Non surprising, Marriott today has 30 hotel labels in their portfolio and over recent years they were more interested in growth than in providing customer experience enhancement. The ongoing consolidation of hotel system providers has not lead to an improvement evolution in hotel services and relevant experiences, it has lead to an inflation of uniformed "deja vue" concepts. As an international traveller, you do not travel to find the same uniformed hotel concept which you have around the corner. I do not think the other big players, Accor, Hilton, IHC to name the best known, are any better as their business model has become the same: asset light, selling franchise and management services and a label called brand. Thinking in terms of economy of scale works for them, a destination benefits from economy of scope. Just “rebrand” a Waldorf-Astoria (Hilton) to become a Ritz-Carlton (Marriott) or vice versa. It will primarily be a labelling exercise without guests noticing the difference in quality. So much to the value of labels.

If I was able to make it clear, that the visitor experience is key in the customer journey to make a destination prosperous, then hotel operators have to be selected accordingly which means with focus on experience value instead of known labels. Some of the label inflations are not even widely known or do indicate a promise. There is a similarity also in other entertainment brands. We know, the company who operates entertainment parks in Dubai is currently having a hard time as the domestic market does not seem to generate enough volume. But why should British, German, Danish or Americans come to Dubai to visit Legoland if they have it at home? Best practise in customer experience also means being unique or close to unique. Uniqueness requires intellectual property and not paste and copy.

3.      Briefings, Consultants, Recruiters and specific experience

 Currently, there seems to be gold rush period for consultants in tourism development or other disciplines in KSA. There is nothing wrong with that. I occasionally hire consultants, was working for a global strategy consultancy myself and still have consultancy assignments every now and then (although I prefer to make things happen as well). For a successful client-consultant relationship, the consultant needs to know what the client expects (so contracting consultants means leadership from the client and not vice versa) and the awareness where additional experience or special competence is needed. The consultant should really have the relevant proven competence to deliver and not just claiming it. That′s where the problem starts. Furthermore, many consultants are used as alibis. I have been involved in a destination development project in the Middle East where “the strategy was made by …. XYZ” (a household name in strategy consulting for sure). Well, every time we were touching strategic issues or questions, the person in charge was defending himself, that the strategy was “made by xyz”. There was a big folder on the shelf carrying the consultancy′s logo. Nobody was to look into it and nobody ever found out whether the folder had any pages in it.

Another example: Over a year ago, I was contacted by an executive search consultant for an executive role with one of the so called giga project developments in KSA. I had an initial interest until I saw the job description. It was about destination development or what they thought destination development is all about, but the author of the job description obviously has never been involved in that kind of mission and consequently the job description was completely unprofessional. On top, I was expected to have an initial interview with the consultant who wrote it. No way! Talking to a senior HR-person of the project, he agreed with my views and analysis but “there′s nothing I can do at the moment”. It wasn`t his idea. Hey, if the top executive, the consultants and HR are not aligned strategically in professional criteria and none of them was involved in a similar mission before, there is something wrong in the system. So, this was a red flag. Apart from that, the job was too junior and strategically had a sincere lack of logic although the vision of the project is fantastic. But to really deliver a vision is a different story. I turned it down to follow up any further, remembering Steve Jobs once saying “It doesn't make sense to hire smart people and then tell them what to do. We hire smart people so they can tell us what to do”. Unfortunately, it is this particular giga project, which – I know through the grapevine and from easy to spot indicators – is not coming off the ground and flying according to plan, while for others impressive progress is communicated weekly.

I am sorry to say that the strangest recruiting or interviewing experience I had in my seasoned professional life, was also caused by a KSA entity several years ago. For fairness sake, it was actually ruined by some Western consultants who were involved, for reasons or competencies I could not figure out, but someone must have hired them. Definately, they were not supportive for the reputation of the project and the organization, but clearly protecting their interest to stay in business with the organization. Even the executive recruiter, who talked me into spending my free weekend to travel from Switzerland to the Gulf and back for discussing the opportunity first hand, was catching his breath in the room. I better don′t go into details, but it was a weird experience, the perfect showcase of how not to do. The take away in learning should be, that some recruiting or interviewing processes may work for people desperately looking for a job or for junior staff. Experienced or sharp people conclude, bad practise or misrepresentation in recruiting and interviewing might be caused by bad management of the entire organization ... and walk away. For the ones who now get upset in saying "We know that!": Why does it happen in companies all over the world, every day? The touch point analysis of the "customer journey" is also applicable here. If the recruiting and interviewing process "touch point" is actually a "pain point", you will not succeed in hiring top players. Whether a candidate goes onboard or not, the experience has to be of professional nature. Coincidence or not, I have never heard or read about that particular project or the organization again, although I had an eye on it out of curiosity. So, I can still trust in what my antennas are telling me.

Not so long ago, I had another encounter with an external recruiter pretending to work for a big investment organization in Saudi Arabia. Unfortunately, instead of going into the subject, the project and the competencies needed for the role, he was more interested in shallow storytelling and buzz words, so as he would not really know, what he is talking about. When I asked, whether he is officially and exclusively mandated for this, there was silence. Companies should have an interest, that recruiting activities don′t get out of hand. Misrepresentation looks as bad as unprofessional conduct. Even it is tempting to let various recruiters search for the same roles on a contingency, succcesss based agreement, it is not good for the company′s reputation, because different people might call the same persons, which seems fairly miscoordinated.

Recruiting of (top) executives is often built on labels and stereotypes, buzz words or glossy names in the CV, not on the full package needed to deliver, not on actual personal footprints of candidates and their track record of mastering real threats and challenges. To a certain extend, I understand the outsourcing of recruitment, but making things easier not necessarily means making them better, too. Shortlisting often becomes superficial and a matter of a quick fixe. Executives, who have been through difficulties are worth a lot more then opportunists. They are prepared to go the extra mile in making a destination or a business stand out and not just being "me too". When people had this one lucky punch and think to be the greatest, the have stopped being good. Companies should not fall for that. Generally, you will not meet a strong person with an easy past. For some candidates, it is a job to make a living and they walk away when things get tough, for others it is a mission and a calling and they get going when the going gets tough. It usually shows in the final results. You better find out before hiring.

Think about this contradiction: Companies moan about the "war for talents" or spend money on employer branding. At the same time, they leave the initial screening of applications even for senior positions to internal or external recruiters, more often than less fresh graduates with no or little grasp of the job they are recruiting for or they even have ATS machines doing that. If they don′t find the handful of buzz words they are looking for, they reject without even talking to people … and throw potential into the bin. Does that make sense?Contrary to common recruitment practise, I have developed my own views and criteria over the years. Specific technical experience or detailed know how, people can compensate within a short period of time. However, can-do-attitude, entrepreneurial spirit and ambitions, analytical and strategic grasp, endurance, loyalty, reliability, honesty, integrity, team spirit, positive mind set, problem solving skills, ability to identify and articulate core issues and priorities, potential, they either have it or not, but that makes the real difference. Unfortunatelly, initial screening in recruitment is not based on these aspects, purely on specific experience, slightly scratching the surface. When people make the difference, as many companies claim for them, why don′t they invest time in talking to them. Instead they hide behind shallow processes and externalize responsibility. When hiring key people, I want to talk to as many potential candidates as possible. Suddenly their ranking based on the CVs is changing. That is time consuming, for sure, but it pays off. Instead, I save time questioning the relevance or value of endless meetings, where participants behave in a sense of "everything was said already, but not from me yet!"

4. There is no shortage in Power Point Charts, Execution matters

In destination development, governance and leadership, there are basically two models: The so-called community based model in tourism destinations with a longer history and with a long organic development pattern over decades (mostly in Europe). The other model is the corporate model, where investors develop and operate greenfield tourism destination and centrally manage the assets and services (mostly found in North America and increasingly in China). The later has certain advantages in maintaining customer experience due to better control and for being more strategically stringent. KSA has great opportunities to establish corporate destination development and operation models. Some of them like Qiddiya or the Red Sea Development seem to be in good shape and emerging already. For further and new destinations, I feel free to advise to listen more to people with a substantial track record of relevant international executive experience in successful (and the take aways from less successful) developments, ideally having been through development loops more then once, then to consultants who do not have this kind of experience of specific executive responsibility and accountability. The world has no lack of power point charts, but there is a lack in execution. When it comes to actual delivery, people who have done it before are more helpful and less risky then people who just have a perception of how it might work. Experienced executives know, there are ups and downs in development pattern, so they are used to hang in there, can stand the heat and tell you, what you should hear and not just what you want to hear for the purpose of cashing a cheque. It may not be real "rocket science" to initiate tourism if there are adequate budgets, but it needs insights in global developments, the good and the bad ones, the failures and traps, to avoid undesired side effects and consequences and to secure sustainability. Also, there is a big difference in developing city tourism, beach tourism, heritage tourism, MICE, sport, health or other special interest tourism or mountain tourism as the customer satisfaction level depends on different parameters and the challenges or pitfalls are very different as well. Everybody may have a view of tourism development, but the world′s biggest industry is diversified, specialized, increasingly professionell and brings new competitors to the market every week. Little space for experiments considering what is at stake. If you are facing a knee surgery, you do not want your dentist to deal with it.

So well, motivated by a recent discussion regarding destination development in KSA, I felt the need to express a few things which came to my mind due to certain impressions. I thought one page would do. It has become more and I could still go on. If you find this of value or interest, feel free to share. If not, feel free to reach out to me and let me know. I don′t mind controversial debates. Although I am a seasoned fellow with a passion and track record of accomplishments in destination development in different challenging environments and cultures, I still do not want a day in my life to go by without a learning effect.

? Richard Adam

For strategic or conceptual advise in destination development or execution, don′t hesitate to reach out to me via LinkedIn messenger directly.

Brief Bio Richard Adam

Seasoned international C-level executive and board member in asset management and investment, destination-, resort-, leisure venue-, public realm, commercial real estate development and place-making from a 360-degree perspective, from greenfield strategy to delivering viable visitor experience and retention, with working experience on 4 continents and a series of accomplishments in delivery of complete development cycles, distressed and challenging restructuring or recovery missions, 20 years reporting at board level. Digital advocate, media trained, well-proven public speaker, endlessly curious.

Link to other recently published article on hospitality development

Link to author′s slideshare site

Link to author′s LinkedIn profile