This deck describes the rise of Task-based social networks--a new kind of social network that will be built upon the Relationship-based social networks that are now forming or have formed across the world. This is part 2 of a 2 part series on Global Ubiquitous Connectivity and its impact on society at large. The first part can be found here on Slideshare or at: http://www.victorcho.info.

1. The Rise of the
Task-Based Social
Networks
(Meant to be read not presented—in full slide mode)
By: Victor Cho
Version 1.0
Updated March 2012
1

2. My offer to you:
3 parts
10 to 20 minutes of your time
At least 3 gold nuggets*
(and if I deliver, you’ll share?)
For the 10 minute version: ignore the voice-over commentary on the bottom (you’ll lose
some context and depth but you’ll get the general gist). For the 20 minute version: read the
voice-over commentary as you go. *A gold nugget is something useful enough to carry with
you moving forward. So let’s get to it.
2

3. First, some necessary foundation…
To
From
Many
BtC BfC BxC
BtB BfB BxB
CxC
There is a sister deck to this one called “Global Connectivity and the New Business World of
Connected Value Flows”. It is available on my blog at http://victorcho.blogspot.com/. In it, I
introduce the BBCC Value-Flow Matrix. Reading it before this deck will definitely give you more
insight--but if you haven’t read it that’s OK. The one key thing you need to understand from
that deck is that CxC (read C many C) stands for experiences that connect customers with
3
other customers.

4. PART I:
THE POWER OF CxC
ENGINES AND THE RISE OF
THE RELATIONSHIP-BASED
SOCIAL NETWORKS
4

5. BtC BfC BxC
BtB BfB BxB
CxC
Let’s play around here for a bit.
In Part I of our story, we are going to go a little deeper into this little but significant quadrant
of the BBCC value-flow matrix: the C many C sector. As I mentioned, it’s the core engine that
drives some of the fastest growing companies in history. In fact of the top ten companies that
reached $1B in sales fastest, five of them had/have CxC engines helping them lift (Capital IQ
circa 2011).
5

6. CxC = Network effects, flywheel
effects, positive feedback loops,
viral, social, <insert terms here>
A flywheel
I think it’s safe to say I don’t need to go into the nuances of why CxC based experiences are
good things when they are working (there is probably a decade+ of commentary on this
subject). But at the highest and obvious level: they can scale incredibly fast and they can
create enduring competitive position (all using other people’s energy).
6

7. Powered by CxC
–
–
–
–
Information aggregators (Wikipedia)
Communication tools (eMail, Instant Messaging)
Product exchanges (eBay, Craiglist, Airbnb)
Relationship-based social networks (Facebook, LinkedIn, etc.)
If you peel the onion on CxC you’ll find a rich host of highly varied business models and
customer experiences where the customer scale is powered primarily by CxC value flows. I
have listed some of the major ones here and there are of course others. But first, let’s drill
down further into the relationship-based social networks.
7

8. Relationship-based social networks
are networks where:
1. The social exchanges
primarily build relationships
2. The connections are
persistent.
Relationships and persistence are the two key terms here. If a network fundamentally relies on
connections between people where the nature of their relationship is important and those
connections are persistent, I would put it into this bucket.
8

9. This is not
Highlander
“There can be
only one…”
For some reason many people believe that relationship-based social networks will coalesce
into a single worldwide winner. I am not in the camp. Because these networks are grounded
in relationships we will continue to evolve into a world where we have unique networks that
solve for our different relationship circles. One or two of these may converge over time—but
there will not be only one. In fact I see four major types today. Let’s walk through each one.
9

10. The 4 relationship-based networks
#1
My personal
network
Facebook
•
I connect to you: because I know you
•
I publish: personal updates, photos, etc.
•
Motivation: staying connected
Of course, we’ll start with the monster. Yes, there are many things that you can do on
Facebook that transcend the above things (and I’ll discuss more about the layers of innovation
that will spawn on top of these networks in a couple of slides). But at the highest level of
value this is the core of the Facebook value proposition.
10

11. The 4 relationship-based networks
#2
My business
network
LinkedIn
•
I connect to you: because I have worked with you
•
I publish: work related updates
•
Motivation: career management
The venn overlap between your business relationships and your personal relationships is
significant but not complete. Therefore a second sphere of networks (or ultimately a single
world-wide network) will emerge that codifies those relationships. Because the primary task
motivations differ I contend these networks will stay separate.
11

12. The 4 relationship-based networks
#3
My follower
network
Twitter
•
I connect to you: to hear your voice
•
I publish: my own voice
•
Motivation: staying informed
Fans and their followers (by far and away the dominant share of traffic going through Twitter
today) have a relationship, albeit less robust than a personal or business connection. In many
ways this sub-class of network creates the illusion of relationship but it’s a relationship
nonetheless.
12

13. The 4 relationship-based networks
#4
My company
network
Yammer
•
I connect to you: because we work at the same place
•
I publish: company relevant updates
•
Motivation: higher work performance
The fourth and final type of relationship-based network, the company network, is in a
relatively new stage of industry formation with lots of players (Yammer, Chatter, etc.). Despite
the early stage I believe the eventual codification of the intra-company connections is
inevitable.
13

14. Relationship-based social networks
My personal
network
Facebook
My business
network
The social
exchanges
build
relationships…
LinkedIn
•
I connect to you: because I know you
•
I connect to you: because I have worked with you
•
I publish: personal updates, photos, etc.
•
I publish: work related updates
•
Motivation: staying connected
•
Motivation: career management
My follower
network
Twitter

My company
network
…and the
connections
are persistent.
Yammer
•
I connect to you: to hear your voice
•
I connect to you: because we work at the same place
•
I publish: my own voice
•
I publish: company relevant updates
•
Motivation: staying informed
•
Motivation: higher work performance
And here’s all of that on a single slide for those of you that might want a cheat-sheet on this
for the future.
14

15. Despite their size, relationshipbased social networks are just
beginning to set the foundation
for what is possible.
Relationship-based social networks are plumbing in many ways (or maybe ‘foundation’ is a
better term). Their impact will be massive but we are at the earliest stages of tapping the
value that will come from them. Let me describe why.
15

16. …requires us to codify:
To optimally
enrich
peoples’
lives …
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Who you are
What you’re doing
Who/What you know
What you can do
Want you need/want
What you have
This might feel like apple-pie and ice-cream but bear with me for a moment (and ignore the
possibility for information abuse). I always think in terms of optimal (what I call “Nirvana”)
future state and then work backwards. For a moment, imagine a world where the collective
set of organizations in the society have codified all of the things on the right for every person
and can act upon it. This make-believe world would be a great place: we (the people) would
always be matched with the best products that solved our needs; we would be offered the
right services exactly when we needed them; we would always know what is happening to the
people we care about; we could be instantly connected to the people we needed to be
connected to, either virtually or physically, at the moment of need… and so much more.
16

17. There’s power in ‘owning’ these
dimensions…
$50B+
market
revenue shift
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Who you are
What you’re doing
Who/What you know
What you can do
What you need/want
What you have
To truly own the codification of any single dimension creates massive opportunity. For
example: why has Search Advertising been so successful? In overly-simplistic terms, the
search industry is codifying #5 real-time. In the past, marketers attempted to match products
and services by crude correlations with #1, #2, and #3. But it’s so much more efficient to
simply go straight to #6 based on people’s self-professed need in the moment. But what does
this have to do with social networks?
17

18. Social networks are starting to
partially codify #1 through #3.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Who you are
What you’re doing
Who/What you know
What you can do
What you need/want
What you have
The various relationship-based social networks are finally beginning to codify these
foundational areas at mass-scale. Because these networks are based on relationships they
are great at codifying who you are, what you’re doing, and who you know (the general
coverage is represented here by the length of the blue bar). They are poor (today) at
determining what you know or what you can do (the focus of the final section of this deck).
And they are very far from being able to hone in on what you need/want relative to search.
18

19. The next frontier is to unlock what
people know and can do…
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Who you are
What you’re doing
Who/What you know
What you can do
What you need/want
What you have
THE NEXT FRONTIER
There has been an explosion of innovation on top of the Facebook platform because for the
first time these underlying and foundational data dimensions are being exposed in an open
way. Parallel innovation will ultimately arise on top of the other dominant relationship-based
networks. It has already happened on top of the key search providers and the ecosystems
they are building around need/want codification. And of course the codification of ‘stuff’
was one of the first to be solved. But as you can see--there is a big gap (and opportunity).
19

20. Part I Summary:
Relationship-based social networks are the
foundational plumbing of many future
experiences, but are still at an early stage.
They will enable tremendous innovation but
they cannot easily solve problems that
transcend relationship.
Make no mistake--the advent, scaling, and ultimate dominance of the various relationshipbased social networks is a tremendous milestone. But in the grand scheme of the change we
are living through today, these networks will be just a bullet (albeit a foundational one). In
the next section of this deck I will describe a future bullet that is equally if not more exciting:
the rise of task-based social networks based on what you know and what you can do.
20

21. PART II:
THE RISE OF
THE TASK-BASED SOCIAL
NETWORKS
21

22. Networks that help me…
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
BUILD RELATIONSHIPS
COMPLETE TASKS
We just lived through (~circa 2006-2011) the initial rise of the relationship-based social
networks. The result of this phase of market evolution is that we are better connected to a
myriad of people (friends, business contacts, fans, co-workers, etc.) than ever before. On the
‘better connected’ spectrum we have taken a quantum step forward. However, on the
‘getting stuff done’ spectrum we are very early stage of improvement. The next wave of
innovation (what I call task-based social networks) will address this gap.
22

23. RELATIONSHIP
BASED
SOCIAL NETWORKS
TASK
BASED
SOCIAL NETWORKS
The social
exchanges
primarily build
relationships
The social
exchanges
help someone
complete a
task
The social
connections
are persistent
VS.
The social
connections
are temporary
We had previously defined the highest level characteristics of the relationship-based social
networks around two simple parameters. Task-based social networks can also be described
with this same framework--but they are fundamentally different in the value they provide.
Tasks based networks are hyper-tuned to solve very specific tasks where the social
connections are temporary.
23

24. Multiple Task-Based Network Types:
Expertise or
specific knowledge
2.
“What I know”
Expertise
Directories
Expertise
Communities
Skills or resources
3.
4.
Resource
directories
Resource
communities
Individuals
Value provided
1.
Groups
“What I can actually
do or provide”
Provided by
Task-based social networks also sub-divide into different types. I have found one of the more
useful distinctions to be the position on the above 2x2 matrix. On the Y axis, what is needed
to solve the task; and on the X axis whether the ideal solution is provided by a single person
or multiple people. I’ll give examples of each block next.
24

25. Type 1: Expertise Directories
1.
Expertise
Directories
What it is:
Networks that connect people to
individuals with specific knowledge
that can solve their problem or answer
their question.
Examples:
• Experts.com
• Liveperson.com
I need help
from
someone
who knows
<<blank>>

I’m the best
person to
help you!

 

 


Expertise directories have been around for a long time (I was personally involved in one of the
first around 1998). They are still in a fairly formative stage because the algorithmic codification
of what you really know (and more importantly how that knowledge actually compares to
others) is a very hard problem to solve--much harder than codifying who you are.
25

26. Type 2: Expertise Communities
2.
Expertise
Communities
What it is:
Networks that connect people to
groups of people where the collective
set of knowledge provides a superior
answer or solution.
Examples:
• Quora.com
• Yahoo Answers
• iVillage communities
I need to
know or
understand
<<blank>>

Together we can
give you a better
answer.

 
 


Expertise communities have also been around for a long time. The key salient dimension here
is that the input of the community or group provides a superior solution (either because the
best answer rises to the top or the group interacts and iterates to make the answer better).
The customer experiences here are still crude vs. what they can be in a Nirvana future.
26

27. Type 3: Resource Directories
3.
Resource
Directories
What it is:
Networks that connect people to
individuals with specific skills or
resources that can solve their
problem.
Examples:
• eLance.com
• Care.com
• Taskrabbit.com
I need help
from
someone
who can do
or provide
<<blank>>



 
 

That’s me.
There are a myriad of targeted resource directories that have reasonable scale and traction
today. This fragmentation is a natural outcome of some fundamental user experience and
business model constraints, which I will describe in Part V.
27

28. Type 4: Resource Communities
4.
Resource
Communities
What it is:
Networks that connect people to
groups of people where the collective
set of skills and resources provides a
superior answer or solution.
Examples:
• Xprize Foundation
• Kaggle.com
• Charitywater.org
• KodakGallery.com
I need to
accomplish
task
<<blank>>

Together we can
help you solve
that problem
better.

 
 


Resource communities deliver their value through single groups or even multiple competing
groups. They provide some of the most exciting areas for future growth and innovation given
we are just starting to scratch the surface of what can be done by collective vs. individual
contribution and collaboration.
28

29. Task-based social networks
1.
Expertise
Directories
Networks that connect people to
individuals with specific knowledge that
can solve their problem or answer their
question.
3.
Resource
Directories
The social
exchanges
help
someone
complete a
task…

2.
Expertise
Communities
Networks that connect people to groups of
people where the collective set of knowledge
provides a superior answer or solution.
…and the
connections
are temporary.
Networks that connect people to
individuals with specific skills or
resources that can solve their problem.
And here’s all of that on another single slide for quick reference.
4.
Resource
Communities
Networks that connect people to groups of
people where the collective set of skills and
resources provides a superior answer or
solution.
29

30. Q: Why Should I care?
A: These networks will allow you
(a.k.a the world) to solve tasks:
FASTER
BETTER
MORE EFFICIENTLY
It’s a great question. I contend that we are at the earliest stages of the rise of task-based
social networks that will fundamentally change how we live, work, get answers, and generally
get things done in life. For me the maturation of these solutions is incredibly exciting and it’s
why this has been and will be my professional focus.
30

31. We are living through a fundamental
shift in how we perform tasks…
Tasks accelerated through
networks
How we complete
tasks today
If you really think about how knowledge and skills are applied to problems today it is horribly
inefficient. The right resources and minds are not optimally matched to the problems or
tasks. Eliminating this inefficiency can provide a massive multiplier to our productivity,
output, and general well-being. I’ll give you a concrete example of this next.
31

32. An example very close to home
(for me):
The evolution of
personal photo-sharing
At this point I think it would be useful to provide you with a more concrete example of what
we’re talking about. I will use the personal photo-sharing market--as it’s a great example not
only of how the relationship-based social networks have changed the game in many areas
but also how task-based social networks can provide unique value above and beyond them.
32

33. Personal photo-sharing has
changed radically:
Stage 1
Stage 2
Stage 3
Pre 2005
2005-2010
2011+
Photo-sharing
before the
relationship-based
social networks
Enter relationshipbased social
networks
Enter task-based
social networks
Personal photo sharing is a great example because pretty much everyone does this on a
week-to-week basis (and everyone is increasingly doing more of it given the proliferation of
camera-phones). So hopefully you’ll be very familiar with the user experiences described as
well as the pain-points that still exist.
33

34. Photo-sharing Stage 1 (pre-2005)



I select you and
send photos only to you
Dominant
methods:
E-mail
CD-ROM
Early photo
sharing
sites
Before the relationship-based social networks, sharing was a very precise one-to-one activity.
I would select the photos I wanted to send and I would get them to you (and precisely you)
via e-mail, CD-ROM, or even 4x6 prints. When the early photo-sharing sites spawned (and
Ofoto was the earliest and biggest) they dominated this model for a brief window of time.
The relevance for any given photo recipient was very high in this model.
34

35. Photo-sharing Stage 2 (2005-2010)








I select a relationshipbased network and
broadcast photos to it
Dominant
methods:
Facebook
As Facebook cemented its lead, photo-sharing moved to a broad broadcast model (I
sometimes call this ‘photo SPAM’) where photos are streamed very broadly to many
recipients who then filter them for relevance. It’s much less work for the sharer but the
relevance for each photo recipient has taken a major hit.
35

36. Photo-sharing Stage 2 (2005-2010)
Relationship-based social networks
took friction out of photo-sharing
BUT
left many gaps related to tasks.
Yes, relationship-based social networks took friction out of personal photo-sharing but there
are still huge gaps in the overall experience. In particular, there are many specific tasks that
people want to perform with their photos that are still hard if not impossible for any
individual to achieve. For example…
36

37. An unsolved and common gap:
Sam’s Wedding
THE CONTEXT
200+ people at a wedding, at least half of them taking
photos. Some get broadcast to Facebook but most
don’t get shared.
THE DESIRE
Let’s collect all the photos from the event and make a
Photo Book using the best shots.
THE TASK GAP
Days or weeks to collect all of the photos and find the
best. Too much work for a single person.
So Sam is actually my cousin and I personally lived through this example several years ago.
This and many important shared events just like it were the driving impetus behind the
release of new functionality at Kodak Gallery in 2011 that addressed this task-gap by tapping
into the power of social groups.
37

38. Solving Sam’s Wedding problem with a
temporary task-based social network
1. A user creates a group album
in a single click via the web or a
mobile device. Users solicit other
users in-the-moment (or after
the event) to join the group and
contribute their photos.
2. A suite of mobile applications
(iPhone, Android, etc.) allow
anyone with a camera-phone to
instantly send images into the
collective photo pool.
Join and
contribute!

 
Group Album
3. Connected camera users can
contribute real-time or stream
the photos into the group album
once they become connected.
4. Standard camera
users contribute after
the event via the web.
5. Everyone has full access to all
images. The collective ranks and
rates the best. One joint photo-book
gets made that all can purchase or
customize for their own.
As you see, this specific solution from Kodak Gallery creates temporary or ‘ad-hoc’ network
where the group and its collective set of skills and resources provide a better result than any
individual could--which if you recall was my definition of task-based social network type #4
(Resource Communities).
38

39. Photo-sharing Stage 3 (2011+)


 

Groups will pool
photos together and add
collective social value
Dominant
methods:
TBD
Various task-based
solution providers
Stage 3 will see a proliferation of solutions similar to what I have just described that will solve
very discrete photo-tasks--leveraging the power of task-based social dynamics. These
solutions may be unique new services or simply extensions layered on top of the
relationship-based networks (I’ll speak more about this layering dynamic shortly). One note:
relevance for all parties in this model reverts back to ‘high’.
39

40. Part II Summary:
Task-based social networks (based on what
you know and what you can do) will be one
of the next major waves of societal
innovation, based primarily on CxC value
flows. And we are at the earliest stages of
their maturation.
In the final section of this deck, I will tread into more dangerous territory and share some
predictions related to the rise of these exciting new social networks.
40

41. PART III:
PREDICTIONS AND
OPPORTUNITIES
41

42. I know this is dangerous but I’ll do
it anyway…
Predictions are dangerous and I was very tempted not to put them into this deck. But
abstraction without action is fairly useless in my mind--so I had to at least put in a handful of
slides that might lead you to real opportunity. Please take this next section with a grain of
salt and view it more as a thought-provoking section vs. a high R-squared exercise.
42

43. 1
key question
answered
pondered
Again, I’ll go back to a question format to close out this deck. I’ll wrap my predictions into a
single question that I have thought about for quite some time. Exploring this question will
take us down several different threads of observation, synthesis, and prediction.
43

44. ?
Q: Why isn’t there a monster in taskbased networks (the Google or Facebook
of task-based social networks) and
will there be one eventually?
OK, so it’s a cheat (it’s really two questions). But it’s a doozy and exploring it forces you to look
at the number of different vectors. The best way to do it is to delve into the market forces that
drive to ‘monsters’ vs. fragmentation (with the help of some classic 60’s movie imagery).
44

45. 1
CxC based value-flow systems tend to
be winner-take-all.
C
(point for monster)
Many of the biggest CxC based experiences are winner-take all over time. These markets often
start with fragmentation but over time scale and momentum shifts into the dominant winner.
For any given task-based market (e.g. finding contractors) I would argue this same dynamic will
hold.
45

46. 2
BUT, there are thousands of unique tasks that
can be better solved with task-based social
networks, some very micro in scale.
(point for fragmentation)
If you look at the breadth of where task-based social networks are beginning to manifest you
see an incredibly long tail of solutions. Many are quite micro in scale and are even embedded
in other experiences (tapping into customers to help answer support questions within Intuit’s
TurboTax online flow is a great example).
46

47. 3
Because tasks-based networks are based
upon the knowledge or capabilities of
people, the major relationship-based
networks have a huge beachhead into tasks.
(point for monster)
To the extent that a dominant relationship-based network identifies key tasks that make sense
to be solved within its walls that network can dominate that task. In this regard, I personally
believe that LinkedIn has massive untapped opportunity (the task monetization potential of
the business network is in many ways greater than any of the other relationship networks). 47

48. 4
BUT, the relationship-based social networks
can only absorb a finite number of tasks
before degrading their core experiences.
(point for fragmentation)
Any major ‘platform’ that deals with a long-tail of offerings (Windows, mobile application
stores, Facebook, etc.) has the ability to absorb core must-have functions (or in this case tasks).
But the ability to scale that is limited. The market generally steady-sates to a platform
supporting a long tail--with a small number of must have functions assimilated.
48

49. 5
The matching algorithms needed to bring
the right expertise or resource to bear
against the right task is challenging and
highly tuned per task network.
(point for fragmentation)
Finding people with expertise is very different from finding people with specific resources or
skills, which is very different from finding people with time, which is very different from finding
people with <<insert X here>>. You get the idea. Matching people to tasks is hard and task
49
specific.

50. 6
Many if not the majority of people will
begin their task search with a major
search engine.
(point for monster)
The major search providers have a significant leg-up in this department. They control the defacto starting point (the search engines) that people use to start their task research
(remember, they control the door to ‘what I want’). A very common flow will be: I start my task
search at a search engine and end-up in a different task-based social network to solve it.
50

51. 7
Finally, the existing monsters have or will
have very deep pockets. Any significant
stand-alone task-based social network
can ultimately be purchased.
(point for monster)
This would result not in a truly home-grown monster (a la Facebook) but more a consolidation
and roll-up of networks over time by an existing monster. Still, it would be a monster at the
end of the day (or rather a diversified one).
51

52. IMPENDING
MONSTER?
or
IMPENDING
FRAGMENTATION?
Answer: a little bit of both
So put it all into a synthesis melting pot and what do you get? For me, it paints a near-term
picture of continued task-based social network fragmentation with some consolidation within
task markets--with search playing a pivotal role in feeding these networks.
52

53. Part III Summary:
Task-based networks will proliferate into a
long-tail of solutions. Within a given task
domain, we should generally see winnertake-all dynamics play-out. Search will
generally be the dominant entry point into
these systems. And the major revenue
generating networks will be consolidated by
existing monsters over time.
Phew. That’s a mouthful but hopefully you are still tracking. And with that, we will wrap this
puppy up.
53

54. THAT’S ALL FOLKS
54

55. The Summary of Summaries:
PART I
The four major relationship-based social
networks, driven by CxC flows, will create a key
foundation for innovation.
PART II
Task-based social networks will fundamentally
change how we accomplish tasks and are also
at early stage.
PART III
Task-based social networks will be a long-tail
phenomenon with ‘monsters’ playing a pivotal
role.
And here, in hyper-condensed form, is all of the preceding content boiled down to just three
bullets. Hopefully they will resonate with you. If so this deck has achieved its goal.
55

56. thank you
A huge
for your time. I
hope you extracted at least three personal
gold nuggets. And if you did, please feel
free to share this deck with others.
Yes, every unique deck will have a different visual for a gold nugget. How long can that last?
56

57. Will there be more stuff like this?
This is the first codification of what will become a series of
thought decks from me. They will come very infrequently (yes
you read that right). You will be able to find them at
http://www.victorcho.info.
If you want to get notified when the next deck gets published
follow me on: www.twitter.com/VictorCho.
If I tweet it’s because there is new, substantive content posted.
If you want to contact me directly for whatever reason
e-mail me at: victor.d.cho@gmail.com.
I would love to hear what your personal nuggets were.
57

58. Two seconds and
two slides about me:
A.K.A. Who am I and
why am I interested in this stuff?
If you have read this far then you might be curious as to who I am. If so, here’s my life story in
2 slides and 20 seconds.
58

59. 1995 focus =
Connected software
2000 focus =
Connected online networks
In 1995 while I was at Microsoft it was clear to me that the Internet would fundamentally
change software forever. I shifted my focus in that direction and took over the global online
marketing for Microsoft’s Consumer Products Division. I have been working on connected
software and Internet services ever since.
59

60. 1995 focus =
Connected software
2000 focus =
Connected online networks
In 2000 my passion further shifted into connected online networks. I have spent the last
eleven years primarily focused in this area as an entrepreneur, advisor, and executive driving
reinvention across a range of categories including: expertise, community, social-search,
photo-sharing, and more. The POV of this and my other decks were formed and evolved
over the last decade as a result of those experiences.
60

61. EOM
61