3

Simplify the Operating Model

Disciplined time management allows your organization to get more done more efficiently. There’s less wheel-spinning, less yield loss, fewer wasted hours. But what if the work should never have been done in the first place? What if far fewer people could be planning, performing, and approving the necessary tasks?

At many companies, the principal source of organizational drag is the sheer complexity of the organization and the resulting bloat of business units, functions, and task forces. Sasol, the South Africa–based energy and chemicals company, recently transformed its organization to reduce drag, but before it began, it had 46 business units and functions reporting to the Group Executive Committee, 210 subsidiary companies, 72 legal entities (in South Africa alone), and 49 separate corporate committees. In such a situation, it’s hard for anyone to know who’s doing what, who’s responsible for what, and whether people are working in an optimal way to add value for customers. Productivity suffers accordingly.

But Sasol is hardly alone. Complexity and bloat of this sort crop up throughout the corporate world. You may recognize the symptoms in your own organization:

  • Slow decisions. Every major decision seems to involve numerous stakeholders, and they all must have their say. So decisions take forever. At another large natural-resources company, hiring a new general manager for a mine required the involvement of three human resources professionals, four regional leaders, and two executives from corporate. Getting all these people to agree on a new hire typically took months. In the meantime, positions sat open and promising candidates were snapped up by faster-moving competitors.
  • A culture of “swirl.” People review data that no one cares about. They write reports that no one reads. They prepare presentations that never lead to a decision. Before long, a culture of “swirl” develops, in which every new issue generates additional work and cost without producing results. If you were to draw this toxic culture on paper, it would look something like the swirl in figure 3-1.
  • Administrative costs out of control. General and administrative expense as a percentage of sales creeps upward. The increase is concentrated in management and support functions. Sasol found that its cash fixed costs had risen an average of four percentage points a year more than inflation from 2007 to 2012, even though production was essentially flat. The ranks of management had swelled about twice as much as overall head-count growth.

FIGURE 3-1

A culture of swirl

Complex organizations are often paralyzed by bureaucratic “swirl” and lose focus on what matters.

Source: Bain Brief. “Four Paths to a Focused Organization”

Many companies have time-honored methods of attacking this kind of cost creep and organizational bloat. First, they issue a directive: no merit increases this year. Next comes the hiring freeze. Then there’s a change in the 401(k) match or other benefit reductions. Finally, management issues a mandate to cut staff across the board. If all these measures don’t achieve the desired effects—and they rarely do—the executive team decides to mount a comprehensive cost-reduction effort, often including restructuring the organization. Yet the organizational drag doesn’t go away. “We have a cost containment project or restructuring every couple of years,” complained the managing director of a Sasol business unit. “But we’re not learning from our experiences.”

Drag doesn’t go away because this approach is misguided. If you take out people but don’t take out the work, the people inevitably creep back in. Likewise, if you take out work but don’t take out people, the work will come back, too. The real source of organizational drag is unnecessary tasks, murky accountabilities, and the complexity that produces them. So you have to tackle organizational complexity at its root in order to unleash productive power.

Let’s look at the dimensions of this problem, and at what to do about each one.

Revenge of the nodes

Organizational complexity is often misunderstood. It’s viewed as a temporary affliction, something that infects an organization like an illness. In reality it is a natural outcome of growth. As companies expand, they inevitably add product lines and business units. They open up new channels, geographic regions, and customer segments. They merge and acquire. Each of these moves creates a new organizational element, and every new element has to intersect and interact with every other element. These intersections—we call them nodes—are the fundamental source of complexity in most companies.

To see why this is so, imagine a simple business with two product lines and five functions. Every time leaders make a decision spanning products and functions, it requires eleven interactions—one between each of the two product organizations and each of the five functions, and one between the product organizations themselves. Now imagine that the company wants to get closer to the customer and adds just two customer units to its organization. The number of interactions for cross-business decisions doesn’t rise by just two, from eleven to thirteen; instead it rises by fifteen, from eleven to twenty-six (see figure 3-2). Organizational complexity more than doubles, fed by a geometric increase in the number of nodes.1

FIGURE 3-2

Nodes increase geometrically

A simple product function matrix has only 11 “nodes” of interaction, but adding just 2 units on a third dimension creates 26 nodes—more than double the complexity.

Source: Bain & Company

This isn’t a theoretical issue—it’s a real one. At the University of California, Berkeley, every academic department had its own HR, IT, finance, and administrative staff, creating countless nodes for major administrative decisions. A major energy company found itself in a similar predicament: it had created many general managers over the years in hopes of encouraging executives to think like owners—and each of these new GMs expected to have his or her own HR staff, IT department, finance department, quality department, and so on. In this case, the number of nodes had skyrocketed from eight hundred to twelve thousand over a ten-year period.

Each node that is added can (and usually does) lead to more interactions. Some of these interactions are valuable, of course. But others are less so: their purpose may be no more than to agree on data, to manage new stakeholders, or to prepare for the next meeting. As the number of nodes proliferates, so does the number of interactions it takes to get work done. In a 2015 study, the research and advisory firm CEB found that more than 60 percent of employees now must interact with ten or more people every day to do their job; 30 percent must interact with twenty or more. These percentages have increased consistently over the last five years. CEB also found that between 35 percent and 40 percent of managers “are so overloaded [by collaboration] that it’s actually impossible for them to get work done effectively,” according to researcher Brian Kropp.2

To assess the spread of complexity in your own company, create a “nodal map” of the organization’s critical decisions. Take a limited set of cross-company decisions—say, mergers and acquisitions, new product launches, new market entry, large capital programs, and the like. These should be decisions that have a big impact on the company’s value and are made periodically. Now describe the number of organizations that need to be involved in making these decisions (for example, manufacturing, marketing, finance, and human resources); how they are involved (generating data, reviewing analysis); and how they interact (such as through committees or governance meetings). Carefully map the precise number of interactions or decision nodes required to make and execute just one significant decision.

The findings from this simple exercise can be eye-opening. At one large company, the advertising group had to run every proposed campaign through all of the company’s business units, its product groups, and the corporate marketing group, perhaps ten nodes in all. If a campaign encountered any kind of objection during this approval process—a common event in advertising—team members would have to go back through all the nodes again. So the number of possible interactions was far greater even than the number of nodes. At another company, leaders examined the number of reports created to support major R&D investments. They found that each function, business, and customer group created its own presentation to advocate for its own pet projects. Each of these reports required hours to gather the necessary information and analyze it. Lengthy appendixes accompanied most of the presentations. Yet senior leaders never reviewed the vast majority—more than 60 percent.

In our experience, mapping nodal complexity for a select number of critical decisions creates a burning platform, a sense of urgency about the need for change. Once leaders see the complexity involved in making and executing critical decisions, most want to take immediate action to simplify the organization.

Spans and layers: never the whole solution

Faced with growing complexity, many companies rely on a time-honored fix: call in the consultants to study the number of managerial layers in the organization and each manager’s span of control. The point, usually, is to assess whether the organization would work better (or at least as well) with broader spans of control and fewer managerial layers. If it could, it would have fewer supervisors and, thus, lower costs. Companies often apply rough benchmarks, such as the “rule of eight”—meaning that no manager should have fewer than eight direct reports. Then they restructure everything that doesn’t fit these benchmarks.3

The logic behind a spans-and-layers approach is powerful: unnecessary supervisors do create work and don’t increase efficiency, thus lowering an organization’s productivity. Indeed, companies often underestimate how expensive all those supervisors really are. Not long ago, we studied the cost of adding a manager or executive and found a kind of multiplier effect. When you hire a manager, he or she typically generates enough work to keep somebody else busy as well. Senior executives—senior vice presidents and executive vice presidents—are even more costly. These high-priced folks typically require support from a caravan of assistants and chiefs of staff. This support staff generates a lot more work for other people, too. The extra burden comes to 4.2 full-time equivalents per hire, including the executive’s own time (see figure 3-3).4

So spans-and-layers changes that eliminate unnecessary supervisors can be helpful. But they’re helpful only if they are done right. The rule of eight, for instance, is rarely applicable. Highly repetitive transactional work can typically support a broad span of control, involving perhaps fifteen or more people under one supervisor. Specialized work requires closer supervision and thus a narrower span, often fewer than five. The task is not simply to delayer but to tailor the supervisory structure to the job at hand.

FIGURE 3-3

The true cost of your next manager

As managers move up the hierarchy, their need for support staff grows. Here’s how much time this takes up for everyone involved.

Source: Michael C. Mankins, “The True Cost of Hiring Yet Another Manager,” Harvard Business Review, June 2014.

It’s also important to identify issues that don’t show up in most spans-and-layers analyses. A large defense contractor, for instance, was facing close scrutiny of its defense program, with the government strongly pressuring the company to reduce costs. Analysis showed that the company had a reasonable number of layers and that its spans of control were actually broader than benchmarks. A closer look, however, revealed that, while many managers had a significant number of direct reports—some as many as fourteen—only one or two of those direct reports were “line” managers who had others working under them. The others (up to twelve each) were “staff” who helped prepare documentation, focused on processes and approvals, and so on. While these huge staffs worked on issues in the background, other big groups were tasked with trying to get today’s work out today. As an example, a single complex engineering change involved 125 people and more than 700 interactions. No wonder things were bogging down, yet everyone believed that they were doing the best they could to ensure a quality product, and that the organization was “lean,” relative to benchmarks.

The real limitation of spans-and-layers changes, however, is that they don’t address the root cause of complexity. If there are too many nodes, decisions will always be slow and costs will continue to creep upward. If a piece of work doesn’t need to be done, it makes no difference whether it is done in a unit with an average span of two, six, or twenty-six. Eliminating supervisors and changing the span of control doesn’t get rid of that work. And unless the work is taken out, the people required to do it—and the corresponding costs—will shortly reappear.

So the essential task—one that stymies too many companies—is to eliminate unnecessary nodes and unnecessary work. Here’s how to go about it.

Clarify your operating model

Every big company has an operating model, either explicit or implicit. The operating model is the link between strategy and execution. It outlines the company’s high-level structure—by product line, by geographical region or country, by function, by customer, and so on. It defines decision rights and accountabilities. It also serves as a blueprint for how the company will organize resources to accomplish its critical tasks. The model thus encompasses a host of essential decisions, including:

  • What the shape and size of each business will be
  • Where the boundaries are between each line of business
  • How people work together within and across these boundaries
  • How the corporate center will add value to the business units
  • What norms and behaviors the company wants to encourage

The number and types of people you need, and the organizational shape those people work in (as depicted by spans and layers), are outputs; they reflect your choices of operating model.

The graphic in figure 3-4 lays out the simplified elements of an operating model and explains how each contributes to the work completed in an organization. Structure determines the potential number of nodes. Accountabilities determine which nodes are activated or deactivated through assignment of responsibility, authority, and resourcing. Governance determines the frequency and nature of interactions across nodes. And ways of working shape how efficiently and effectively people execute these interactions. To take work out of an organization—and to make it stay out—a company must systematically address each element of the operating model.5

FIGURE 3-4

Simplify the operating model to eliminate work

Source: Bain & Company

1. Simplify the structure

A complex operating model invariably leads to a complex structure and too many decision nodes. Yet that’s the trap many big companies are caught in: their operating models are needlessly complex. Rather than choose a dominant dimension for decision making, for example, they adopt a variety of overlapping structures or intricate matrix organizations with different (and potentially conflicting) dotted-line accountabilities. Holding your company’s operating model up to the light offers the opportunity both to simplify it and to make sure that it reflects your company’s strategy.

That’s essentially what Sasol did. The largest energy and chemical company in South Africa, it was prestigious, prosperous, and financially successful. But the company’s leaders had two critical concerns. One was the steady increase in cash fixed costs that we mentioned earlier, well above the rate of inflation. The second was the company’s remarkable level of organizational complexity, with all those business units, functions, and committees. Both of these concerns had been masked by oil prices, but the company would be vulnerable if prices declined. “We had created multiple BUs over the years to drive growth,” explained one executive. But, “while we had been very successful in growing the business, this had also created multiple silos in the organization; we were very much busy doing business with ourselves rather than being fully focused on the market and sustained profitability.” Many Sasol managers, for example, felt they were spending far too much time in meetings discussing issues such as transfer pricing and interface complexities. Moreover, getting a decision on major issues could take weeks, because the decisions were tied up in one or another committee. If the market environment suddenly changed, executives worried, how quickly would Sasol be able to respond?

So Sasol rebuilt its operating model to focus on each part of the value chain—buy, make, and sell—grouping its businesses into upstream, operations, and sales and marketing divisions. It created one overall profit-and-loss statement, with activities grouped to optimize company margins. It reduced the number of business units and functions by more than one-third, so that it was spending less time “doing business with ourselves.” It cut the number of South African legal entities through which it conducted its business from 72 to 35, with further plans to reduce to below 20 entities. (That move alone significantly reduced the workload for the company’s finance, legal, and administrative functions.) And it streamlined its corporate committees, reducing the number of committees from 49 to 13 and lowering the number of participants in each one. Complementing these structural moves was a concentrated focus on just three essential behaviors: buying into a common game plan, trusting everyone to deliver on agreed-on accountabilities, and acting in the best interests of the Sasol Group rather than one’s own unit. The company’s top managers signed a document pledging to live up to these standards—a symbolic act that reflected the CEO’s commitment cascading throughout the organization.

The effects were felt up and down the company. “The impact [of these moves] on leadership was tremendous,” said one executive. Many hours were saved: “We are spending 60 percent-plus less time in internal and governance meetings than we used to, and we are able to use the freed-up time to focus on managing the business.” Decisions are made quicker: when oil prices dropped, Sasol was the first in its industry to go to market with a comprehensive response plan. And the company is far more efficient than before: the growth rate of cash fixed costs dropped from four percentage points above inflation to eight points below.6

2. Zero-base the nodes

But even companies with a robust structure can find themselves performing redundant or unnecessary work. One company might have businesses organized around both products and countries. Each of these units will feel responsible for sales; each will compile its own data; and each will launch its own initiatives, not necessarily coordinated with one another. Another company might have a global finance function supplemented by regional finance offices. Chances are that both will compile similar reports, and that the information in one won’t necessarily match information in the other.

It’s helpful in this context to zero-base the nodes, much as you would zero-base a budget. If you were creating the organization from scratch, what would it look like? Which nodes are essential, and which could you eliminate? We have a simple axiom for simplifying an organization’s nodal structure.

Do less, do it better, do it only once, and do it in the right place. If you have a global finance organization, for instance, it’s unlikely that you’ll need both a regional finance organization and country-by-country finance organizations. To be sure, there may be good reasons for occasional duplication. You may need to structure a compliance function by country to take legal differences into account while a global compliance office ensures that multinational operations stay within worldwide guidelines. But the point is to reduce duplication wherever possible.

A node usually involves a manager (though not every manager represents a node) and a set of decision rights. Decision rights need to be spelled out, as we discuss later in the chapter. But not all nodes are created equal. The intersection of a large product or service line with a major geographical region is likely to involve a lot of revenue. A senior executive who is accountable for major decisions and who likely has P&L responsibility will manage it. By contrast, the intersection of a regional business unit with a smaller geographic area (such as a country) will probably involve only a junior manager with limited decision rights and no P&L. “Heavier” nodes—those that involve more work and greater complexity—should be addressed first. And business value, such as the amount of revenue involved, should be a key factor in deciding where to keep, add, or eliminate nodes.

A tech company we worked with recently is a case in point. Before our work, the organization was structured along a three-dimensional matrix—geography, industry vertical, and product or service line. Each of these three dimensions had a P&L, and all the P&L leaders believed that they should control all of the resources required to manage the performance of their particular unit. In effect, every node in the company’s three-dimensional matrix was treated as if it had equal weight, and each interacted with HR, finance, IT, and other support functions. After careful consideration, the company’s leaders determined that the geographic dimension of the matrix was most essential to executing the company’s strategy. From then on, geographic leaders were held accountable for profit and loss, service lines were responsible for costs and quality, and industries were reframed as centers of excellence, with no P&L accountability and minimal investment authority. By zero-basing the nodes required to execute the company’s strategy, the business reduced the number of nodes by more than 25 percent. This node reduction has paved the way for increased productivity.

3. Deactivate nodes when they are no longer adding value

Companies know how to do things. They innovate, expand, launch initiatives, and, of course, they add nodes. They have elaborate processes for all these moves; every January, they create the “to do” priorities for the year. What they don’t usually know is how to stop doing things. There are few if any processes for killing unsuccessful initiatives and eliminating unnecessary parts of the organization. Perhaps a company creates “centers of excellence,” for example. Later, if the centers have turned out to be dysfunctional or just superfluous, they nevertheless live on because there is no process for terminating them. For example, one utility we worked with some time ago had spent several years overhauling its enterprise resource planning (ERP) system. Twelve months after completion of the project, the steering committee still met for two hours a week to “review progress.” Not surprisingly, there was very little progress to review, but the meeting still consumed valuable time. Except in a crisis, companies rarely have a list of “stop” priorities. One of the most powerful steps any executive can take is to simply say, “Stop!”

In addition to ending unnecessary initiatives—particularly those that are complete—there are two other cease-and-desist orders that can be valuable. One is to eliminate multiple sources of data. Whenever different units of a company generate reports, the chances are good that the reports won’t wholly agree with one another, and that someone will therefore be given the job of reconciling them. A company can avoid that unnecessary work by establishing a “single source of truth” for all its decisions. The other is to determine which functions are essential to your strategy and invest disproportionately in those, rather than spreading investment dollars across the board. “Leadership set the tone in focusing activity on what adds value for the business,” says a Sasol executive. “An adjective we started to use very often was ‘fit for purpose’ instead of trying to be ‘world class’ or ‘best practice’ everywhere.”

4. Minimize the number of interactions between the nodes

Nodes are just people, and the more people you have to interact with, the more time you are likely to spend in unnecessary interactions. Aligning the structures of different groups enables you to reduce and simplify the interactions required to perform key functions. Dell offers a great example. Like many technology companies, Dell has multiple parties involved in selling its products to commercial customers. An account executive manages the relationship with each customer. Once a specific product need is identified, he or she will call on product specialists and engineers to tailor Dell’s offer to best meet the customer’s need. Historically, Dell organized its account executives by industry vertical—health care, web tech, and so on. But the company’s product specialists and engineers were organized by product and then by geographic region, not by vertical. To make sales of the same product solution to the same type of customer (say, a health-care organization), an individual account executive would have to work with one group of specialists in the Northwest, another group in the Southwest, and so on—many different interactions to make the same kind of sale.

So Dell took measures to reduce the number of interactions. It aligned the structure of its account executives with that of its product specialists and engineers by shifting its account executive organization to a geographic structure. As a result, the number of product specialists and engineers an individual account executive needed to interact with was reduced substantially, from eleven individuals to an average of five. That meant less wasted time learning how to work with a new group of people and higher levels of sales productivity.

A second way of simplifying the nodal structure is to spell out decision rights so that they are crystal clear. Much interaction between nodes, after all, is politicking. People want to protect their turf. They want a voice in decisions. When decision rights are spelled out and agreed on, much of that back-and-forthing disappears. So the tasks here are to unpack the process of making and executing key decisions, and then to ensure that everyone understands his or her role.

Bain has a decision-rights tool called RAPID that can help; it’s a loose acronym for the five key roles in preparing for a decision, making it, and then seeing it through to action:

  • R is for recommend. The individual or team that “has the R” is responsible for gathering data, assessing alternative courses of action, and coming up with a recommendation.
  • I is for input. The “R” team consults with people who have relevant expertise, asking for their input. The “I” folks do not have a veto, and they do not have responsibility for the recommendation.
  • A is for agree. People with “A” responsibilities—often in legal or compliance—must sign off on the alternatives that are being considered before they are evaluated and a recommendation is presented to the decision maker.
  • D is for decide. At most companies, for most critical decisions, one individual should “have the D” and take responsibility for the decision.
  • P is for perform. The team with “P” responsibilities has the job of executing the decision in a timely fashion.7

Companies typically go through a full RAPID exercise—assigning explicit decision roles—only for critical decisions, those that carry a lot of value. Of course, the “critical decision” category is broader than sometimes imagined. It includes not only big, one-off decisions like major capital investments but also day-to-day decisions that add up to a lot of value over time. But veteran RAPID users find that there’s a spillover effect as well. Once accustomed to defining decision rights for major decisions, managers tend to use the thinking and the language in their everyday jobs (“You have the D for this one, Bob”). The tool thus helps clarify decision roles throughout the organization.

Woodside, the Australian oil and gas company, is again illustrative. The company had been operating with a matrix structure for many years. Although the matrix was designed to foster greater collaboration across the company, decision authority and accountability were murky. As a result, the time spent coordinating across functions and business units increased dramatically, adding costs. In 2012, Woodside’s leadership explicitly defined a set of operating principles that spelled out responsibilities, authority, and accountability for the business units, the functions, and the corporate center. A broad training program helped ensure that the company’s top leaders understood the new principles and the implications for their units. A small network of navigators was established to help remove roadblocks and accelerate decision making across the company.

The impact of these changes has been profound. Given clarity on who is accountable for important decisions, executives at Woodside have streamlined how those decisions are made, liberating time. A significant portion of that time is now spent in efforts to improve execution and identify new growth opportunities for the company.

Well-defined decision roles help keep the complexity out. That’s important, because nodes have a way of reinserting themselves into a company’s operations. There’s no mystery about this: the vice president for product engineering feels he should have a say in how the product is marketed, and the vice president of marketing feels she needs to be consulted about which features are to be included in the latest model. These nodal interactions can lead to contention unless the roles are clear.

5. Shrink the pyramid, don’t just flatten it

We return now to spans and layers, which are still an essential element of an organization’s structure and may need to be addressed. A company that has simplified its nodal complexity has opportunities that weren’t there before. It can actually shrink the organizational pyramid rather than just flattening it by broadening spans and eliminating layers.

Shrinking the pyramid starts from a couple of simple observations. One is that an organization with a span of eight isn’t any better than an organization with a span of two if the organization shouldn’t exist at all. The real challenge isn’t to restructure existing units; it’s to identify the minimum number of units required to accomplish the essential work of the company. A second observation is that many companies, like the defense contractor mentioned earlier, have a disproportionate number of “watchers” as opposed to “doers.” Executives are some distance away from front-line responsibilities. They tend to bring their posses of watchers to meetings so that the whole team can be fully informed, produce whatever data the meeting requires, and follow up on any loose ends afterward.

A company that sets out to shrink the pyramid goes about things with a different mindset. It essentially starts with a clean sheet for the entire structure, determining the minimum number of people required to make and execute the necessary decisions. It assumes that managers will be player-coaches, actively involved in getting work done, rather than distant bosses. It eliminates people whose only value is reviewing and approving—in effect, taking out much of that kind of work. The effect of this approach is to greatly reduce the number of managerial layers. And even though it may actually decrease the average span of control, it makes for much more efficient and effective operation.

There’s no pat formula about what the organization should look like because companies participate in industries with substantially different competitive dynamics. Anheuser-Busch InBev (AB InBev) operates in a relatively mature category where cost management is key to value creation and competitive success. It operates with several fewer layers than most companies and with modest spans of control, thus ensuring that everyone is a doer and no one is a bureaucratic manager. As a result, the overall organization is remarkably lean. The company says to its managers, in effect, you are responsible for these people but you won’t have time to micromanage them because you will have a lot on your own plate. Google, which operates in a rapidly growing and dynamic marketplace, has a different organizational model but achieves a similar outcome in terms of how managers interact with teams. At Google, most work is done by autonomous teams, and each manager has a very broad span of control. Google says to its managers, in effect, your job is not to supervise the individuals who are nominally reporting to you; your job is to help the teams succeed. You will have too many direct reports to micromanage them. Both models start with a clean sheet, resulting in a structure that is no larger than it needs to be to execute each company’s strategy efficiently and effectively.

___________

Organizational drag is a crippling illness. The company suffering from it wastes time, performs unnecessary tasks, and operates inefficiently. Curing the organization of this illness requires the kind of careful, sustained time management and complexity-reduction measures that we have described here and in the previous chapter. But creating a true high-performance organization involves much more than merely getting rid of drag. It means attracting, cultivating, and deploying great talent. It means engaging and inspiring people so that the organization can draw on their enthusiasm and creativity. And it means building a culture in which employees see the organization as theirs—as something they care about and want to help succeed. We now turn to these tasks in part two.

THREE WAYS TO SIMPLIFY YOUR OPERATING MODEL

  1. Count up the nodes. Executives often find themselves surprised by the number of nodes, or intersections, in their organizations. That’s why big decisions take so much time; each one has to wend its way through many nodes.
  2. Hold your operating model up to the light. Look at structure, accountabilities, governance, and ways of working. Nearly every company can simplify its operating model on each of these dimensions.
  3. Think about spans and layers in this context. Conventional spans-and-layers analyses often don’t accomplish much, because spans and layers are really an output of your operating model.
..................Content has been hidden....................

You can't read the all page of ebook, please click here login for view all page.
Reset
3.17.74.55