BUILDING AND MAINTAINING EFFECTIVE RISK DASHBOARDS by Michel Rochette, MBA, FSA

Tuesday, June 17 8:30 – 10:00 a.m. Session 42 Session Sponsor: Joint Risk Management Building and Maintaining Effective Risk Dashboards Moderator: Karen J. DeToro, FSA, MAAA Presenters: Karen J. DeToro, FSA, MAAA; Michel Rochette, FSA Risk dashboards can be an effective way for companies to measure and manage their risk exposures. Ideally, dashboards allow management to identify potential problem areas before an adverse event is realized. In this session, attendees will: x x x

Hear about the measures or “indicators” that companies are incorporating into their risk dashboards Be exposed to best practice presentation formats Understand the challenges companies have faced in building and maintaining risk dashboards

Value Ladder: Employer/Client Coordinator: David T. (Todd) Henderson, FSA, MAAA, CERA

Tuesday, June 17 8:30 – 10:00 a.m. Session 43 Session Sponsor: Product Development Cracking the Code: Insurer Solutions to Baby Boomer Retirement Income Needs Moderator: Brian T. Woolfolk, FSA, MAAA Presenters: John M. Fenton, FSA, MAAA; Francois Gadenne, CFA*; Jeyaraj Vadiveloo, FSA, MAAA Everyone is scrambling to find the panacea that will satisfy the incredible demand for reliable retirement income created as baby boomers begin to retire. Insurance carriers look to refresh traditional SPIA products, create new deferred immediate annuities, longevity insurance, and guaranteed lifetime income options on annuity chassis. At the same time, investment houses are developing their own insured and non-insured income solutions. Which of these products will ultimately command the market? Is there a "better" chassis for lifetime withdrawal benefits? Will SPIAs be a solution? Or will the insurance industry lose out to the investment banks? This session will feature presentations from industry experts discussing current solutions, where product development is headed in this space, and how consumers are responding (or not) to the myriad of choices. The pros and cons of various solutions will be discussed - which will aid you in making the right choice of product offering for your firm and customers. Attendees will be able to: x discuss the different retirement income solutions available x describe the pros and cons of the solutions presented x recommend the product solutions that best fit their organizations capabilities Value Ladder: Market Coordinator: John David Currier, FSA, MAAA

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Life 2008 Spring Meeting June 16-18, 2008 Session 42, Building and Maintaining Effective Risk Dashboards Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com). Moderator David T. (Todd) Henderson, FSA, MAAA, CERA Authors Karen J. DeToro, FSA,MAAA Michel Rochette, FSA

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Building & Maintaining Effective Risk Dashboards

Session 42 Society of Actuaries Spring Meeting Quebec City Tuesday, June 17, 2008 8:30am â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 10:00am

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Building & Maintaining Effective Risk Dashboards Todd Henderson The Western & Southern Financial Group Michel Rochette AON Global Risk Consulting Karen DeToro Deloitte Consulting LLP

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Risk Dashboards z

Tool providing consolidated and timely reporting of risk exposures across an enterprise – – – –

All important exposures, at a glance Drilled down and sliced as necessary Early warnings of emerging exposures Allowing preemptive, remedial action

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Keys To Success z

Algorithmics –

– – –

Integrate market risk, credit risk and asset liability reports in a single dashboard Easily created and configured new reports Rich set of visualization elements Interactive and responsive

Source: www.ermsymposium.org/2007/pdf/handouts/CI/CI5_combo.pdf

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Keys To Success z

ABN Amro/LaSalle Bank – – – –

Comprehensive risk assessment Integrated view of risk, reward and strategy Forward-looking, actionable, risk escalation tool Executive sponsorship

Source: www.ermsymposium.org/2007/pdf/handouts/CI/CI5_combo.pdf

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Keys To Success z

COGNOS – –

– –

Data must be trustworthy The business must be involved in shaping the requirements Content first, then aesthetics Technology and architecture

Source: www.ermsymposium.org/2007/pdf/handouts/CI/CI5_combo.pdf

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Comprehensive View of Risk Corporate

SBU

Credit Market Interest Rate Insurance Operational Business

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Drill Downs & Diagnostics SBU Value AtCorporate Risk = $643 Million

SBU

Credit Market Interest Rate Insurance Operational Business

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Forward Looking z

Credit – –

Credit spread widening Watchlist increases

Market – –

Insurance – –

Value at Risk Volatility

Underwriting errors Pandemic Alerts

Operational –

Capacity measures

Interest Rate –

Volatility

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Actionable Corporate

SBU

Credit Market Interest Rate

Underwriting Limit Breaches = 7

Insurance Operational Business

Chief Underwriter installs system edit prohibiting limit breaches

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Executive Ownership z

Each measure must be owned by a senior manager – –

Ongoing monitoring Remedial action

Business units should be intricately involved in developing requirements – –

Special knowledge Buy-in

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Building & Maintaining Effective Risk Dashboards

Session 42 Society of Actuaries Spring Meeting Quebec City Tuesday, June 17, 2008 8:30am – 10:00am

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Risk Dashboards Society of Actuaries Spring Meeting

Date June 17th, 2008

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

What is a Risk Dashboard? ¬ As part of ERM, Decision Makers need an integrated view of risk across their enterprise. ¬ Provide an approach to see correlation/links within a risk category and between risks. ¬ Forces the organization to adopt a structured process to understand risk and opportunities: – Review outstanding risk issues – Prioritize management actions – Be forward looking in risk management. – Monitor compliance to existing risk policies

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Audiences: Different Needs ¬ Risk has to be communicated to different groups: – Board level: • To allow them to satisfy their fiduciary duties, making sure that management is actually managing risk. • To assess the level of risk in light of the company’s risk appetite. • To provide with a consolidated view of major threats and opportunities that may affect the value of the company to the different stakeholders.

– Management level: • To provide them with a consolidated view of their company’s risks, a horizontal view instead of a silo view. • To allow them to assess the cost/benefit of implementing controls to reduce risk to the company’s desired risk tolerance/appetite.

– Business level: • To allow them to assess the effectiveness of “control” the risks under their jurisdiction.

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Case Study: Sub prime ¬ Sub prime credits were issued in the mortgage department of the retail bank. ¬ Treasury department securitized sub prime credits, created SPVs and sponsored CDOs and the like in line with the new strategic models of banks to issue and sell not hold to maturity as before. ¬ Asset management departments/pension plans of the same banks invested in CDOs. ¬ Retail banks/mutual funds, some owned by the same banks, created new short-term “guaranteed” investment vehicles for retail customers, investing in asset-back securities. ¬ Banks provided liquidity enhancements to SPVs. ¬ Pricing/Valuation models were not stressed tested.

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

How a Dashboard Would Have Helped ¬ A Dashboard should have consolidated the credit exposure for a single FI coming from: – Issuance of the subprime credit – Credit exposure of the SPV. Fis had to consolidate credit exposure back on their balance sheet after August 08 due to Reputational considerations. Ex. Banque Nationale/Desjardins in Quebec, c Citigroup in the US. – Investment by the asset management arm/pension plan.

¬ A Dashboard should have identified the inherent risks of the securitization business: – Operational risk exposure of models used should have been identified. – Liquidity reports of the FI should have taken into consideration the liquidity guarantees offered by banks to SPV. – Market risk reports should have taken into consideration the market risk of position held by the asset management arm/pension plan of Fis. – Potential liabilities/regulatory/compliance issues should have been identified.

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Applications of a Dashboard ¬ Presents risk information consistently across the enterprise. ¬ Consolidate risks across the enterprise including outsourced operations. ¬ Allow enterprise to compare/analyze impact of external/emerging events on firm. ¬ Allow firm to monitor adherence to risk appetite using appropriate risk metrics: VAR, EAR, CashFlow at Risk. ¬ Allow firm to publish consistent information to both internal and external audiences.

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Dashboard: In line with Risk Concerns Reputational Risk (52)

Regulatory Risk (40)

Human Capital Risk (40)

IT RISK (35)

Financial, Market, Credit and Insurance Risk (30)

Crime, security, political, natural hazard, FX, Terrorism, Country Risk (20)

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, 2005 Max Scale: 100 7

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Info: Vulnerability to critical processes

Information on Risk

Measures: Reputational Risk (52)

Regulatory Risk (40)

Physical security breaches Loss events

Human Capital Risk (40)

IT RISK (35)

Fraud incidents Environmental risk

Financial, Market, Credit, FX and Insurance Risk (30)

Operational Risk: Crime, security, political, natural hazard, Terrorism, Country Risk (20)

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, 2005 Max Scale: 100 8

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Info: Assets are impaired/capital at risk

Information on Risk

Measures: Reputational Risk (52)

Regulatory Risk (40)

Default rates Liquidity measures Price risk

Human Capital Risk (40)

ALM risk IT RISK (35)

Financial, Market, Credit, FX and Insurance Risk (30) Operational Risk: Crime, security, political, natural hazard, FX, Terrorism, Country Risk (20)

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, 2005 Max Scale: 100 9

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Info: Malfunction in systems which impede business

Information on Risk Reputational Risk (52)

Regulatory Risk (40)

Human Capital Risk (40)

IT RISK (35) Financial, Market, Credit, FX and Insurance Risk (30)

Measures: System Downtime Information security breaches Business continuity readiness Disaster recovery

Operational Risk: Crime, security, political, natural hazard, FX, Terrorism, Country Risk (20)

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, 2005 Max Scale: 100 10

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Info: Employees unavailable/unwilling to perform functions.

Information on Risk

Measures:

Reputational Risk (52)

Staff Turnover

Regulatory Risk (40)

Key personnel attrition Human Capital Risk (40)

Compensation Competiveness

IT RISK (35)

Financial, Market, Credit, FX and Insurance Risk (30)

Accident rates

Operational Risk: Crime, security, political, natural hazard, FX, Terrorism, Country Risk (20)

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, 2005 Max Scale: 100 11

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Info: Compliance with external/internal regulations

Information on Risk Reputational Risk (52)

Regulatory Risk (40)

Measures: Fines imposed # of investigations

Human Capital Risk (40) IT RISK (35)

Financial, Market, Credit, FX and Insurance Risk (30)

Status of implementation of internal policies New regulations discussions

Operational Risk: Crime, security, political, natural hazard, FX, Terrorism, Country Risk (20)

Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, 2005 Max Scale: 100 12

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Information on Risk Reputational Risk (52)

Info: Impact of previous risks on value of the firm including external factors. Measures:

Regulatory Risk (40)

Chain of events impacts

Human Capital Risk (40)

IT RISK (35)

Impact of new strategic initiatives

Financial, Market, Credit, FX and Insurance Risk (30)

Business risks: Price/volume

Operational Risk: Crime, security, political, natural hazard, FX, Terrorism, Country Risk (20)

competition Source: Economist Intelligence Unit, 2005 Max Scale: 100 13

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

External Requirements: Consistency ¬ Regulatory Standards: – Basel II/Solvency II Pillar III: Info on risk exposure and governance – SEC: information on risks in 10-K

¬ Accounting Standards: – IFRS: Provisions as related to risk events – Brief description of the obligation, timing and uncertainty of outflows and expected reimbursements;

¬ Risk Standards: – COSO ERM II – Standards: ISO 31000/ANZ Australian Standards

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Building and Maintaining Effective Risk Dashboards Implementation Issues Karen DeToro Deloitte Consulting LLP June 17, 2008

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Key Challenges in Implementation The most common challenges in implementing effective risk dashboards occur in the following key areas: Data Issues Integration into Decision Making

-2-

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

042DeToro.ppt

Legal Issues

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Data Issues Data issues can be grouped into 3 general areas:

Controls

Reconciliation to Other Reports

Non-financial data may not be well controlled The processes for gathering data (financial and non-financial) may not be well controlled Variety of data sources may create challenges in reconciling data to published internal and external sources

-3-

042DeToro.ppt

Data Availability

Different data is required to be aggregated in a different way than for other reporting Timeliness of data is critical for supporting key management decisions

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Approaches for Addressing Data Issues Think broadly about universe of needed data at dashboard initiation Create centralized database to hold all key data to facilitate controls and timely automated reporting Build in sufficient flexibility to dashboard processes to be responsive as key risks change over time Implement controls similar to those used for SOX 404; leverage existing controls over data where possible Leverage commonalities with other data flows in organization

-4-

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

042DeToro.ppt

Develop a strong relationship with IT and business units supplying data to better understand the data and build a reliable pipeline for data

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Integration into Decision Making In order to fully support decision making, the dashboard must be: Actionable – Data must be relevant to management – There must be the right level and amount of information targeted to the right audiences

Integrated into a process that drives action – Push v. pull strategies for distributing data

Tied in to incentives

042DeToro.ppt

– Variable compensation must be partially based on performance against risk objectives

-5-

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Legal Implications Companies are concerned about disclosing too much risk information that may be subject to legal discovery Companies’ responses to this issue fall somewhere on a spectrum:

Ideal State Acknowledge the risk Collect data Do the right thing

Middle Road Acknowledge the risk Collect data Do the “wrong” thing

Head in the Sand Do not acknowledge the risk Do not collect data

-6-

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

042DeToro.ppt

Many companies (and their general counsel) presume that the middle road is more dangerous than burying one’s head in the sand

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Ford Motor Company: The Middle Road Done Wrong The situation: 1970’s Ford Pinto The risk: Gas tanks would rupture easily in the event of a rear-end collision The data: The risk became apparent during the design and crash studies of the Ford Pinto Cost of repairing the flaw: $11 per car ($137 million cost)1 Value of the benefit: $200,000 saved per life lost ($49.5 million benefit)2 Internal documents indicated that a cost-benefit analysis did not support fixing the flaw

-7-

042DeToro.ppt

Outcome: Estimates put the impact at over 500 deaths3, and significant financial and reputational damage to Ford

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Major Conglomerate: The Middle Road Done Right The situation: Income tax return for a major US conglomerate The risk: The company pursued a tax accounting policy, despite some concern that it might not be deemed acceptable by the IRS The data: The company documented their rationale for interpreting the tax law as they did, and quantified the impact of their interpretation versus another interpretation commonly in use. This information was clearly documented

-8-

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

042DeToro.ppt

Outcome: The company was taken to court by the IRS. Although the company’s interpretation was ruled to be invalid, fines and penalties were substantially reduced because of the company’s ability to document its rationale

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Taking the Middle Road – Other Lessons Lessons can be learned from the approaches hospitals have taken in dealing with medical errors 1999 Institute of Medicine report: medical errors cost $17B to $29B per year and are the 8th leading cause of death in the US4 Pressure on hospitals to disclose errors so patients can make informed choices about where to obtain care Hospitals have mechanisms in place to disclose adverse medical events as learning opportunities for doctors – Weekly Mortality & Morbidity (“M&M”) conferences

-9-

042DeToro.ppt

– Hospital risk managers

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Taking the Middle Road – Hospitals’ Responses Hospitals have responded to pressures for full disclosure in several ways: Traditional approach was “defend and deny” – No admission of wrongdoing – Cases cited of risk managers and doctors denying knowledge of medical errors to protect colleagues Proposed legislation – IOM proposed mandatory reporting of errors to make health care safer; simultaneously proposed legislation to extend peer-review protections to reports of errors (currently extend to M&M) Improve processes to reduce errors – Medical community adopting similar checks and protocols to the airline industry Apologize and disclose – Discussed in next case study

- 10 -

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

042DeToro.ppt

“With malpractice premiums soaring and a national patients’ rights movement pushing for full disclosure of medical errors, the industry is rethinking the traditional approach known as ‘defend and deny’.”5

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Lexington VA: The Middle Road Refined The situation: Hospitals use weekly Mortality & Morbidity (“M&M”) conferences and other disclosures of adverse events as learning opportunities to teach doctors how to address complications The risk: Admissions of mistakes may be used against doctors in malpractice suits. The data: Lexington VA implemented a mandatory disclosure policy, requiring all doctors to report errors to a committee which then informed the family and offered compensation. Outcome: Instead, after implementation, the average cost of errorrelated payouts was only $15,632, which was in the lowest quarter of the 35 VA hospitals in the country, and Lexington VA is deemed one of the safest VA hospitals in the country.6

042DeToro.ppt

“”Being honest defused situations that would otherwise lead to litigation.”7 - 11 -

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Legal Issues - Summary Companies can live more comfortably with the middle road by: Acting responsibly, prudently and reasonably with the data they gather Disclosing and apologizing when things go wrong Utilizing lessons learned from risk events to move closer to the ideal state by improving processes to limit future adverse events

Middle Road Acknowledge the risk Collect data Do the “wrong” thing

Head in the Sand Do not acknowledge the risk Do not collect data

- 12 -

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

042DeToro.ppt

Ideal State Acknowledge the risk Collect data Do the right thing

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

Bibliography End Notes

Mark Dowie. “Pinto Madness.” Mother Jones. Sept / Oct 1977.

Ibid.

Stephanie Mencimer, “Casualties of Medicine.” Legal Affairs. May / June 2003.

Rachel Zimmerman. “Doctors’ New Tool to Fight Lawsuits: Saying I’m Sorry.” Wall Street Journal. May 18, 2004, page A1.

Ibid.

Stephanie Mencimer, “Casualties of Medicine.” Legal Affairs. May / June 2003.

Sara Nathan and Guillermo X. Garcia. “Ford visit led to settlement.” USA Today. Jan. 9, 2000.

Jane Garbutt et al. “Lost Opportunities: How Physicians Communicate About Medical Errors.” Health Affairs. Vol. 27, No. 1, 2008.

Karen Lundegaard. “Study Raises Roof-Safety Questions.” Safety Issues. Vol. 4, Issue 41, April 2005. - 13 -

042DeToro.ppt

Other Sources

Changed with the DEMO VERSION of CAD-KAS PDF-Editor (http://www.cadkas.com).

SOCIETY OF ACTUARIES

Life 2008 Spring Meeting (June 2008) Session Topic:

Building & Maintaining Effective Risk Dashboards

Value Ladder:

E/C

Overall Rating

Session:

All Sessions

042

Expected Attendance

3,572

Actual Attendance

3,203

This Session

Number of responses

1,324

All Sessions

Return rate (# of resp./actual att.)

41%

75%

Overall rating of this session

3.77

3.79

Provided you with practical technical information

3.92

4.00

Will enable you to make better business decisions

3.82

4.08

Prepared you to impact industry-wide changes

3.66

3.65

Knowledge of Subject

4.27

4.17

Effectiveness of Delivery

3.83

4.41

Knowledge of Subject

4.27

4.13

Effectiveness of Delivery

3.83

3.57

3.88

3.50

4.66

5.10

Learning Experience

Indicate your level of agreement with the following. This session:

3.79 3.77 4.00 3.92 4.08 3.82 3.65 3.66

Presenter Effectiveness1

Karen J. DeToro

Number of participants indicating presenter included commercial promotion in presentation

4.17 4.27 4.41 3.83 1 1

Michel Rochette

Number of participants indicating presenter included commercial promotion in presentation

Moderator Effectiveness 1 : Rate the moderator's skills in managing this session

Rate the level of audience interaction for this session (7=high, 1=low)

4.13 4.27 3.57 3.83 0 1 3.50 3.88 5.10 4.66

The rating scale used: Excellent (5), Very Good (4), Good (3), Fair (2), Poor (1), and N/A (no value).

The rating scale used: Strongly Agree (5), Agree (4), Neither Agree nor Disagree (3), Disagree (2), Strongly Disagree (1), and N/A (no value).

Evaluation Tips to keep in mind when reviewing the responses: Numerical evaluations tend to give you a pretty good feeling for how well the attendees responded to the session as a whole. Scores in the range of 3 to 5 are considered successful programs. Written comments come from people who may have a strong opinion, therefore they tend to be very good or very bad. Repetitive comments that point to the same theme could be an indication of an area you may want to capitalize on in the future or work on for future presentations.

Perception Solutions, Inc.

www.perceptionsolutions.com

7/17/2008

SOCIETY OF ACTUARIES

Life 2008 Spring Meeting (June 2008) Session Evaluation (Participants' Comments) Session 042

Value Ladder

042

E/C

Perception Solutions, Inc.

Overall Comments Regarding This Session It would have been nice to show actual dashboards from their respective companies, as a real life example. Most of the discussion was in generalities. Topics covered were interesting, but not as closely related to session name as hoped.

www.perceptionsolutions.com 7/14/2008

Comments- 1