“The key points are that the PMO should be driven by the needs of the business; that effective leadership is critical to PMO success; that businesses need to establish and continuously evolve a PMO architecture and that the PMO must get to a position where it is viewed as a value-added, purpose-driven business unit.

This means (like all projects, in fact) that there have to be clear objectives for the PMO. The right tools  and techniques need to be available for flexible use at an appropriate level. Support from senior management is essential for the PMO’s success and development. A key aspect of this is to be more focused on business processes and outward-facing, rather than inward.

In the Trinity PMO, we’ve been placing strong emphasis on requirements, stakeholders, communications, business process and change rather than “just” systems delivery. Accordingly, our emphasis is on business benefit and on an approach that is both flexible and scalable depending on the size and demands of different projects.

To do this, it’s important to have a flexible framework that enables different tools and techniques to be brought to bear on different problems as they arise. While this is based on a vision of where we are trying to get to, it has to be very practical with clear and coherent documentation of processes;  training available; adequate staffing (a particular challenge right now) and ongoing assessment of performance.

The idea of having PMO champions in different areas of the business is a very interesting one that we can see benefit from in Trinity.

To be viewed as a value-add, purpose-driven business unit, the PMO has to ensure that projects are delivering better across the organisation (time, cost, quality, scope, customer satisfaction.) The PMO also has to undergo constant and continuous improvement, both in a formal as well as in an informal sense.”

Jim’s points are very relevant to what we are doing in the PMO in Trinity and we hope to include them as part of a self-assessment checklist of our performance and contribution to the college in the future. While we have made significant progress on developing the PMO, we realise that we have more to do and that there will always be challenges to be overcome, not least due to financial, time and resource constraints.

What lessons have you learned from the work of your PMO in your organisation? Are any of the lessons shared here relevant to your organisation? Please leave a comment and let me know.

If you found this post interesting, you might also like:

• Planning for Success: The Basics of Good Project Management
• Will We Ever Learn?
• Why Organisations Don’t Learn From Project Failure

Receive new articles from johnlawlor.ie by subscribing to my RSS Feed or by email subscription. You can also share this post by using one or more of the buttons at the top and bottom of the post. Thanks for visiting!

About Jim Cumiskey

Jim is a certified PMP and has worked in over 150 organisations for thirty years as a developer, analyst, trainer, project manager and programme manager in both the public and private sectors.

As consumers, many of us use cloud services every day; examples are Gmail and Hotmail for email; Amazon Cloud Drive and Dropbox for file storage; Google Docs, Docs.com and Microsoft Skydrive for document processing; Twitter, Facebook, Google+ and LinkedIn for social networking, etc. Many of us tend to use these and other services with little thought being given to security, data protection, privacy, identity theft, ownership of data, etc. When considered from a corporate or business perspective, these issues are significantly more important and take on many complex legal aspects. Yet, in a corporate and, indeed, an educational environment, there is significant pressure to enable these services in the business context, since end users and familiar with them from personal use.

Pursuing another interest of mine this evening – Internet Radio – I came across C-SPAN Radio and just happened to stumble upon the live proceedings of the US Committee on Homeland Security Subcommittee on Cybersecurity, Infrastructure Protection, and Security Technologies, on 6 October 2011, discussing the issue of the security implications of cloud computing. The Committee was addressed by very influential people in the area of information technology, information security, education and regulation:

• The Honorable Richard Spires, 
Chief Information Officer
, U.S. Department of Homeland Security
• Dr. David McClure, Ph.D., 
Associate Administrator
, Office of Citizen Services and Innovative Technologies, 
U.S. General Services Administration
• Mr. Greg Wilshusen, 
Director of Information Security Issues
, Government Accountability Office
• Mr. James W. Sheaffer, 
President
, North American Public Sector
, Computer Sciences Corporation
• Mr. Timothy Brown
, Senior Vice President and Chief Architect for Security, 
CA Technologies
• Mr. James R. Bottum
, Vice Provost for Computing & Information Technology
 and Chief Information Officer
, Clemson University
• Mr. John Curran
, Chief Executive Officer
, American Registry of Internet Numbers

Each contributor submitted a paper to the Subcommittee and they are all available on the Subcommittee’s website. So if you are looking for what the current areas of concern are in relation to security and cloud computing, why not pick up the papers and listen back to the oral testimony.

Links to the papers (PDF)

• Richard Spires
• David McClure
• Greg Wilshusen
• James W. Sheaffer
• Timothy Brown
• James R. Bottum
• John Curran

What is your organisation doing about security and cloud computing? Do you have a cloud computing policy or are your end users simply using cloud services without regard to existing policy or legislation? Please leave a comment and let me know.

If you found this post interesting, you might also like:

• Data Loss by PA Consulting
• Laptop Theft and Data Loss By Irish Health Service Executive
• More Laptops Stolen – And This Time It’s Personal

Receive new articles from johnlawlor.ie by subscribing to my RSS Feed or by email subscription. You can also share this post by using one or more of the buttons at the top and bottom of the post. Thanks for visiting!

1. On the web every idea should compete on an equal footing. No idea should get a free pass because it comes from a senior executive.
2. What should matter is an individual’s contribution, not their credentials. People should be judged on what they contribute, now on what school they went to or what their last job was.
3. On the web, hierarchies are built bottom up, not top down. People will have leadership positions because others want to follow them, not because someone said, “you are the leader”.

These are excellent observations and should teach us some of the ways in which Social Media can play a significant role in organisations of the future. How organisations respond to these challenges – and, of course, to the opportunities they present – could have a big impact on their success or failure.

What is your opinion on Social Media and their effects on organisations? Do you agree with Gary or are you inclined to agree with a contrary comment left in response to this video? Do you use Social Media to give ideas a fair airing and to encourage collaboration? Is old-fashioned hierarchy more important than leadership? Or maybe you are sceptical about the whole idea of Social Media and their effects on organisations (a naive position, in my opinion). Please leave a comment and let me know.

You can check out this video and much more interesting information at the Management Innovation eXchange. If you are not following this forum, you are definitely missing out on some great management thinking.

If you liked this post, you might also like:

Social Media Revolution? What’s Your View?

Social Networking – Irish Above Average

Social Media: Creating Collaborative Conversations

Receive new articles from  johnlawlor.ie by subscribing to my RSS Feed or by email subscription. You can also share this post by using one or more of the buttons at the top and bottom of the post. Thanks for visiting!

Recent research commissioned by Mimecast, a UK-based email management company, highlights the risks that organisations face from their employees using non-corporate IT to circumvent controls. Carried out by Loudhouse Research, based in London, England, the research found that knowledgeable employees, familiar with social media and frustrated with corporate controls, are compromising corporate data and intellectual property.

Employees have become dissatisfied with the constraints of corporate email rules and mailbox size limitations. To get around these problems, more and more employees are adopting “a slapdash attitude to company intellectual property (IP)” and use personal email accounts to store corporate information on public servers, outside the control of the organisation. The research found that 85% of under 25s admitted that they send work-related emails or documents to or from personal email accounts.

The “Generation Gmail” research also found that:

• 36% of incoming email to work inboxes is not work related;
• Over 300 work-related emails are sent per person via personal accounts each year;
• Typically around half of these emails contain attachments, meaning that the average employee under 25 will send approximately three emails a week containing corporate IP and potentially sensitive information outside of their corporate environment, and
• Generation Gmail is particularly predisposed to personal email; 52 per cent rated it as better than work email in terms of mailbox size, compared to just 29 per cent of over 55s.

Working in an academic environment, I am very familiar with these challenges and with many more as well. Younger and well-educated people have come to expect that corporate IT services should be as good as what they can get for free on the Internet and they are impatient when this is not the case. However, it is difficult for organisations to respond either quickly enough or with a similar range of technologies to satisfy the expectations of employees and – in academia – students, researchers and academics.

How can corporate IT respond to these challenges? Are policies and procedures enough? What controls should or can be put in place to ensure that corporate information and IP are safeguarded? Is this even possible in the age of the iPhone, 3G, netbooks, tablets, high-capacity storage and other wireless devices?

It seems to me that the response to these challenges must be  try to give users what they expect, no matter how difficult this might seem. Perhaps corporate IT can never be as fast as the giants of the Internet like Facebook, Microsoft and Google but it should look for ways, nevertheless, to provide what it can. This could mean developing a Social Media strategy that identifies how you will provide the communications, collaboration and information sharing technologies that people now expect. Where can you use third parties to deliver services? What partners might you work with? Can you use Facebook or Yammer to enable sharing and collaboration? What about Blogger, Tumblr, Posterous, WordPress or Typepad for blogging? Are your policies, procedures, controls and security constraints still appropriate for the current environment and expectations of users?

We grapple with these issues every day in Trinity College and, to be truthful, we are probably always going to lag behind our users, because that is the nature of the organisation and it reflects the modern experience of technology innovation. Nevertheless, we have tried to meet expectations where we can. We have adopted Google Mail and Google Docs for our students; we are trialling Yammer as a collaboration platform for the college; we recently completed the rollout of internally-hosted Microsoft Exchange for staff; we are implementing SharePoint 2010 as an enterprise collaboration platform; we offer podcasting services and publish material with iTunes and iTunesU; we are about to release WordPress as a blogging platform for all users; and we use Microsoft Enterprise Project Management for project collaboration. We are also working on defining our needs for XaaS and Cloud Computing.

It is a start, and we know we have a long way to go. But if we can meet the expectations of our users, perhaps we can discourage them from using other technologies that might put the enterprise at risk.

What do you think? Are you dealing with these problems as well? Are you giving your users the technologies they want? What solutions have you found and how have you implemented them? This is a challenge that no organisation can avoid, so how are you approaching it? Please leave a comment and let me know your views.

Finally, Mimecast’s Chief Scientist, Nathaniel Borenstein and Cloud Strategist, Justin Pirie; and CEO of First Base Technologies ISACA, Peter Wood will host a webinar at 10 a.m. GMT on 8 March 2011 with the title ‘Generation Gmail: Is business email at risk?’. You can take part in the seminar at http://mediazone.brighttalk.com/event/infosecurity/79cc30c735-4820-intro?TID=MC.

And very lastly, if you would like to talk to me about the use of Social Media in your organisation, please feel free to contact me.

If you liked this post, you might also like:

Would You Like to Get to Inbox Zero?

Social Media Revolution? What’s Your View?

Receive new articles from johnlawlor.ie by subscribing to my RSS Feed or by email subscription. You can also share this post by using one or more of the buttons at the top and bottom of the post. Thanks for visiting!

Check out Merlin Mann’s 2007 video (courtesy of Google Tech Talks) on getting to “Inbox Zero” by using David Allen’s “Getting Things Done” (GTD) approach. So, can this method work for you? How do you manage your email inbox? Please leave a comment and let me know.

If you liked this post, you might also like:

Is “Generation Gmail” Really Putting Businesses at Risk?

Social Media Revolution? What’s Your View?

Receive new articles from johnlawlor.ie by subscribing to my RSS Feed or by email subscription. You can also share this post by using one or more of the buttons at the top and bottom of the post. Thanks for visiting!

Trinity College Dublin has just opened an exhibition in the Long Room of its Old Library entitled ‘Ireland in Turmoil: the 1641 Depositions’ concerning this bloody period in Irish history. The President of Ireland, Mary McAleese opened the exhibition. Also attending was Lord Bannside (formerly Dr. Ian Paisley). A website concerning the period has also been launched. It is a free resource and contains the transcribed and digitised 1641 Depositions, which are witness testimonies of the violent massacres of the 1641 Irish Rebellion. The project was a joint undertaking between Trinity College Dublin, the University of Aberdeen and the University of Cambridge.

The online publication of the 1641 Depositions was funded by the Irish Research Council of the Humanities and Social Sciences (IRCHSS), Trinity College Dublin and the Arts and Humanities Research Council (AHRC)  in the UK. The exhibition ‘Ireland in Turmoil: The 1641 Depositions’ runs until April 3rd 2011 in the Long Room, Old Library, Trinity College Dublin. I’ve spent some hours on the website already and discovered some fascinating information and harrowing tales. I recommend it to readers.

Links:

University of Aberdeen News Release

University of Cambridge News Release

If you liked this post, you might also like:

Social Networking – Irish Above Average

Social Media: Creating Collaborative Conversations

Social Media Revolution? What’s Your View?

Receive new articles from  johnlawlor.ie by subscribing to my RSS Feed or by email subscription. You can also share this post by using one or more of the buttons at the top and bottom of the post. Thanks for visiting!

In a blog post and related LinkedIn question back in March, I asked the question, “Why do organisations not learn from project failure?” I gained some wonderful insights from the dialogue that ensued and will share those gems of wisdom in this short series of articles.

While some answers dealt directly with the question posed, others concentrated more on the reasons for project failure, per se. Two key issues were identified that related directly to the question:

1. Inability or unwillingness to acknowledge failure and
2. Inability or unwillingness to learn from failure.

Acknowledging failure

Several correspondents stated that organisations that would not, or were culturally unable to, acknowledge failure could not learn the lessons of failure. Organisations and the people in them often fail to recognise their own negative behaviours and, because of this, are unable to own up to the project failure. Many organisations can also tend not to correct or challenge negative behaviour and, too often, fail to reward or recognise positive behaviour.

It was also argued that some organisations simply refuse to acknowledge failure at all because it is politically incorrect, culturally unacceptable or otherwise an unpalatable prospect. Admitting defeat is not the done thing. Most education, training and textbooks tend to focus on success rather than failure, so the latter is harder to accept, together with the adverse connotations that accompany failure.

Those who are perceived to have failed on a project are often encouraged – or feel the need – to leave the organisation. When this happens, the organisation loses an opportunity to build upon the embedded and hard-won experience of the project manager and team. Rather than punish people, organisations need maturity so that they can accept failure and learn lessons from it.

Finally, the need for “truth telling” was raised. Many organisations are unable to hear the truth and instead look to attribute blame, find scapegoats or cover up a failure. What is needed is the ability in the organisation to listen to the truth, acknowledge it and take appropriate action to avoid failure or mitigate its effects in the future.

Learning from failure (and success)

It has been said that, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it”. Correspondents argued that, in some cases, this might be due – in the case of projects – to hubris, organisational immaturity, politics, culture, thinking it will be different this time, or simply choosing to ignore the past.

Building on the theme of “truth telling”, a correspondent referred to the difficulty of actually capturing knowledge from individuals for group use. For many years, organisations have tried to “commoditise” knowledge but continue to fail at the endeavour. A reason for this is the difficulty of capturing and organising practical, real-world experience and tacit knowledge. Entering lessons learned in computerised repositories is not enough: there is a need for people to share practical experience and to learn from each other by observing, doing, trial and error. This practical approach can be facilitated by “story telling” as a means for organisations to learn. Although this approach does not appear to have penetrated the world of project management yet, it could be a worthwhile technique for learning and transferring knowledge to others.

Whatever the approach, many correspondents argue that organisations need a process for capturing and implementing lessons learned from project failure and success. In too many cases, however, such processes do not exist. The suggested benefits from having a clear process for capturing lessons learned included quicker delivery of projects, less costly projects, reduced resource requirement and increased quality. Where an organisations embeds these learning disciplines it has a greater chance of learning from the past and doing better in the future.

Organisations often tend not to learn from previous failure because they blame external factors instead of recognising their inability to deal with these factors. Examples given were changing requirements, scope change and changes in the business environment. Change is inevitable and – as projects are mostly about achieving change – to blame change itself for failure misses the point. Even when organisations actually have “lessons learned” processes, they can occasionally fail to pick up on these when new projects are started, thinking that circumstances were different the last time, or that it was all someone else’s fault.

Not everyone agreed with the concept of learning organisations, with some arguing that there was no such thing or that all learning occurred at an individual level only. I don’t really have a strong personal view on this, but I tend to believe that an organisation that tries to capture knowledge – in whatever form and by whatever means (including story and truth telling) – has a better chance of improving performance over time.

What’s your view?

What is your opinion on acknowledging and learning the lessons from project failure? Do you or your organisation accept failure when it occurs and deal with it in a positive and constructive manner? Do you blame the team, the project manager, external factors? Do you look for scapegoats? Do you learn lessons or continually relive the past? Do you use story telling and truth telling as a way of sharing knowledge and changing the future? Or don’t you believe in the idea of learning organisations at all?

I welcome all relevant opinions, so please leave a comment and let me know.

Further reading

I am grateful for three book recommendations received from a correspondent:

“The Knowing-Doing Gap” by Jeffrey Pfeffer and Robert Sutton. I’ve read this excellent book and subscribe to Bob Sutton’s wonderful blog, Work Matters.

“The Next Common Sense” by Michael Lissack and Johan Roos, which I am reading at the moment.

“How the Way We Talk Can Change The Way We Work” by Robert Kegan and Lisa Laskow Lahey, which I intend to read next.

Footnote:

Replies to my question came from New York; San Francisco; Mexico; Brazil; England; Ireland; Denmark; France; Australia; Boston; Santa Barbara; Chennai, India; Denver; Kota, India; Mumbai, India; Holland, and Ahmadābād, India. In this age of Internet and Social Media, time and distance really are becoming irrelevant and it is clear that Social Media and the Internet can foster and support collaborative working across the globe.

My sincerest thanks to all who replied to my question; I hope my first blog post in this short series does justice to their contributions.

If you liked this post, you might also like:

Planning For Success: The Basics Of Good Project Management

Will We Ever Learn?

Deploying Microsoft Project and Project Server in Trinity College

Receive new articles from  johnlawlor.ie by subscribing to my RSS Feed or by email subscription. You can also share this post by using one or more of the buttons at the top and bottom of the post. Thanks for visiting!

Age seems to be the biggest socio-demographic factor distinguishing those who use social networking websites. Among those who use social networking websites every day, 15-24 years olds and students are most prevalent, whilst among those who would never use a social networking website the most prevalent are over 40 year olds and the retired.

40% of Irish users stated that they are worried about misuse of personal data on social networking sites, with 51% not worried and 9% not knowing whether they were worried or not! Once again, age and related demographics showed differences, with older people, self-employed and managers being more prevalent among those worried about misuse of personal data. Among those not worried, more prevalent were young people, students and the unemployed. 34% of Irish who don’t use social networking sites stated that they were worried about misuse of personal data.

Concerns about data privacy are growing across Europe when compared to a similar survey in 2006, with Ireland showing the greatest increase of all countries. 87% of Irish respondents would wish to be informed if their personal data was lost, stolen or altered in any way. This is a 21% increase on the 2006 survey. Across Europe, 84% of users would want to know, an increase of 6% on the 2006 survey. The results for Ireland suggest increasing awareness and concern about data privacy issues, which is to be welcomed. This might be as a result of several well-publicised cases of privacy breaches in Ireland in recent years, some of which I wrote about previously (Bord Gais Eireann, Health Service Executive, PA Consulting).

The survey covers many other topics, some of which I will return to shortly in future posts. The complete survey report, a summary report and individual country graphs, in PDF format, are available here:

Final report (54.5 Mb)

Summary (15 Mb)

Irish graphs (2 Mb)

Are you among the 39% of Irish people who visit social networks? How frequently do you visit social network sites? Are you worried about the privacy of your personal data on social networking sites? Please leave a comment and let me know.

If you liked this post, you might also like:

Gary Hamel’s Interesting Take on Social Media in Organisations

Social Media Revolution? What’s Your View?

Social Media: Creating Collaborative Conversations

Receive new articles from  johnlawlor.ie by subscribing to my RSS Feed or by email subscription. You can also share this post by using one or more of the buttons at the top and bottom of the post. Thanks for visiting!

It is shocking to learn that some 35,000 people died and 1.5 million were injured in about 1.5 million accidents on European roads in 2009. That’s almost 100 killed every day of the year and over 4,100 injured! Furthermore, the cost of this road carnage to the EU economy amounts to a staggering €160 billion per year. Any system, therefore, that can help to reduce these horrifying statistics, save lives and reduce injury has to be welcomed.

The eCall system is like a “black box” that activates when a vehicle airbag activates or when there is a sudden severe impact in the vehicle. It can also be activated manually so that, if a driver witnesses an accident, an emergency call can be made. Once activated, the system calls the local emergency service and creates both a voice and an automatic data link. The automatic data link sends the exact location of the accident (using GPS co-ordinates), the type of vehicle, direction of travel, and other relevant information for the rescue services. The voice link enables the occupant, if he or she is capable of doing so, to communicate directly with the emergency operator and provide further information about the accident.

According to the EU, the eCall system should enable emergency services to cut accident response times by 50% in rural areas and by 40% in urban areas. This improved response capability could save up to 2,500 lives a year and mitigate the severity of tens of thousands of accidents. It also has the potential to save some €20 billion annually if the system were fitted in all cars in the EU.

Despite the fact that the system is almost ready to roll, there are a number of barriers to be overcome before it can be successfully deployed across Europe. The first step is to fit all new cars with the eCall system. Next, telecoms operators must be able to identify calls from the eCall system and transmit the automatic data to the nearest emergency centre. Finally, emergency centres must be capable of receiving and processing the automatic data from the vehicle. Not all emergency centres can do this at present.

To overcome these barriers, the EU is taking steps to raise awareness of the eCall system and to fund pre-deployment projects. It is also considering implementing regulatory measures to require that the system is fitted in all new cars; that telecom operators can transmit emergency calls and data to emergence centres and that emergency centres are upgraded to handle eCall efficiently. The EU is also running a public consultation process until 19 September 2010 to collect the opinions of stakeholders and EU citizens on the issue. This is in the form of a short online survey that only takes minutes to complete (it only took me three minutes), so why not have your say?

20 EU member states and three non-EU states have formally supported the eCall system and signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU); four are getting ready to sign and Ireland has stated support for eCall’s mandatory introduction but has not yet signed the MoU. In addition, over 100 other organisations are also committed to eCall’s introduction. These include car manufacturers BMW, DAF, Daimler, Fiat, General Motors, MAN, Porsche, Peugeot-Citreon, Renault, Scania, Volkswagen and Volvo. Other signatories include insurance companies; electronics companies; local authorities, and telephone operators. No Irish organisations are represented among the signatories.

There is some information available on the Irish Department of Transport website outlining Ireland’s position. The Department notes that, in November 2009, a study for the European Commission (PDF 4.2 Mb) indicated that eCall has a greater potential to save lives and reduce serious injuries if deployed on a mandatory as opposed to a voluntary basis. In late 2009, the Department undertook a stakeholder consultation with specialist interests in Ireland including the Road Safety Authority.  The consultation resulted in a clear preference for a more proactive approach at EU level (MS Word) on eCall.  At the EU Transport Council in December 2009, the Minister outlined the results of the stakeholder consultation on eCall, namely that there was support for its mandatory introduction in all road vehicles.

What do you think about eCall? Would you like to see such a system implemented in Europe? Should Ireland sign the MoU and get our telecoms operators and other stakeholders involved? Are there potential privacy concerns with such an in-vehicle telematics system and related technologies? Are privacy concerns mitigated by the benefits of the system? Please leave a comment and let me know.

Further information on eCall is available through these links:

Fact Sheet (PDF); eCall Video (Windows Media); eCall Toolbox; eCall FAQ (PDF)

If you liked this post, you might also like:

European Commission Announces 1.2 Billion Euros for ICT Research in Europe

Social Networking – Irish Above Average

Receive new articles from  johnlawlor.ie by subscribing to my RSS Feed or by email subscription. You can also share this post by using one or more of the buttons at the top and bottom of the post. Thanks for visiting!

The projects will include a number of Public Private Partnerships:

The future Internet
ICT for energy efficient buildings
ICT for the fully electric vehicle
ICT for factories of the future.

These four projects have a combined budget of 220 million euros. Details of other budget provisions are available here (PDF).

All documentation is available through the links above. The deadline for submission of proposals is 2 December 2010.

The research funding is part of Europe’s Digital Agenda (launched in May 2010) and is the first significant increase for EU ICT research in more than 10 years. The digital agenda has seven priority areas:

1. Creating a digital Single Market
2. Greater interoperability
3. Boosting Internet trust and security
4. Much faster Internet access
5. More investment in research and development
6. Enhancing digital literacy skills and inclusion and
7. Applying information and communications technologies to address challenges facing society like climate change and the ageing population.

Further details on the Digital Agenda and the seven priority action areas are available here.

The Commission expects that SMEs will benefit from the work programmes funded from the research funding, which will be welcome in the current economic climate.

There are many opportuities for funding available on the EU Information Society website, which is always worth keeping an eye on. Let’s hope the research under these calls is successful and leads to an improvement in the lives of European citizens. We still have a long way to go to catch up on our American and Asian competitors.

If you liked this post, you might also like:

eCall In-Vehicle System Could Save 2,500 Lives Each Year

Society’s Grand Challenges: What Is The Role of Science and Technology?

Receive new articles from  johnlawlor.ie by subscribing to my RSS Feed or by email subscription. You can also share this post by using one or more of the buttons at the top and bottom of the post. Thanks for visiting!