As the editor of this book, I worked with a global group of high-level thinkers who are bringing some fresh new ideas into the study of management - and the way we think about management theory. Table of Contents Section I: Applications... more
As the editor of this book, I worked with a global group of high-level thinkers who are bringing some fresh new ideas into the study of management - and the way we think about management theory.
Table of Contents
Section I: Applications in Practice and Theory
Chapter I: Emerging The Evolutionary Corporation in a Sustainable World – Toward a Theory Guided Field of Practice
Alexander Laszlo, Syntony Quest, USA
Kathia C. Laszlo, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico
Chapter II: Leaders, Decisions, and the Neuro-Knowledge System
Alex Bennet, Mountain Quest Institute, USA
David Bennet, Mountain Quest Institute, USA
Chapter III: Exploring The Implications of Complexity Thinking for the Management of Complex Organizations
Kurt A Richardson, ISCE Research, USA
Chapter IV: Decision Integrity and Second Order Cybernetics
Anthony Hodgson, Decision Integrity Limited, UK
Chapter V: A New Approach to a Theory of Management: Manage the Real Complex System, Not Its Model
Donald C. Mikulecky, Virginia Commonwealth University
Center for the Study of Biological Complexity, USA
Section II: Research, Theory, and Metatheory
Chapter VI: Consortial Benchmarking: Applying an Innovative Industry-Academic Collaborative Case Study Approach in Systemic Management Research
Holger Schiele, Jacobs University Bremen, Germany
Stefan Krummaker, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany
Chapter VII: Systemic Paradoxes of Organizational Change: Implementing Advanced Manufacturing Technology
Marianne W. Lewis, University of Cincinnati, USA
Chapter VIII: Metatheorising Transformational Management: a Relational Approach
Mark G. Edwards, University of Western Australia, Australia
Chapter IX: The Structure of Theory and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: What Constitutes an Advance in Theory?
Steven E. Wallis, Foundation for the Advancement of Social
Theory and Fielding Graduate University, USA
Section III: Cybernetics and Organizational Evaluation
Chapter X: The Dynamic Usage of Models (DYSAM) as a Theoretically-Based Phenomenological Tool for Managing Complexity and as a Research Framework
Gianfranco Minati, Polytechnic University of Milan, Italy
Chapter XI: Knowledge Cybernetics, a Metaphor for Post-Normal Science
Maurice I. Yolles, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
Section IV: Multiple Levels and New Perspectives
Chapter XII: The Arrival of the Fittest: Evolution of Novelty from a Cybernetic Perspective
Alexander Riegler, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven and Vrije
Universiteit, Belgium
Chapter XIII: Co-Construction of Learning Objects: Management and Structure
Thomas Hansson, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden
Section V: Metamodeling and Mathematics
Chapter XIV: A System Approach to Describing, Analysing and Control of the Behaviour of Agents in MAS
Frantisek Capkovic, Institute of Informatics, Slovak Republic
Chapter XV: Identification and Response Prediction of Switching Uncertain Dynamic Systems using Interval Analysis
Kyarash Shariari, Laval University, Canada
Chapter XVI: Selection of the Best Subset of Variables in Regression and Time Series Models
Nicholas A. Nechval, University of Latvia, Latvia
Konstantin N. Nechval, Transport and Telecommunication Institute, Latvia
Maris Purgailis, University of Latvia, Latvia
Uldis Rozevskis, University of Latvia, Latvia
Table of Contents
Section I: Applications in Practice and Theory
Chapter I: Emerging The Evolutionary Corporation in a Sustainable World – Toward a Theory Guided Field of Practice
Alexander Laszlo, Syntony Quest, USA
Kathia C. Laszlo, Tecnológico de Monterrey, Mexico
Chapter II: Leaders, Decisions, and the Neuro-Knowledge System
Alex Bennet, Mountain Quest Institute, USA
David Bennet, Mountain Quest Institute, USA
Chapter III: Exploring The Implications of Complexity Thinking for the Management of Complex Organizations
Kurt A Richardson, ISCE Research, USA
Chapter IV: Decision Integrity and Second Order Cybernetics
Anthony Hodgson, Decision Integrity Limited, UK
Chapter V: A New Approach to a Theory of Management: Manage the Real Complex System, Not Its Model
Donald C. Mikulecky, Virginia Commonwealth University
Center for the Study of Biological Complexity, USA
Section II: Research, Theory, and Metatheory
Chapter VI: Consortial Benchmarking: Applying an Innovative Industry-Academic Collaborative Case Study Approach in Systemic Management Research
Holger Schiele, Jacobs University Bremen, Germany
Stefan Krummaker, Leibniz Universität Hannover, Germany
Chapter VII: Systemic Paradoxes of Organizational Change: Implementing Advanced Manufacturing Technology
Marianne W. Lewis, University of Cincinnati, USA
Chapter VIII: Metatheorising Transformational Management: a Relational Approach
Mark G. Edwards, University of Western Australia, Australia
Chapter IX: The Structure of Theory and The Structure of Scientific Revolutions: What Constitutes an Advance in Theory?
Steven E. Wallis, Foundation for the Advancement of Social
Theory and Fielding Graduate University, USA
Section III: Cybernetics and Organizational Evaluation
Chapter X: The Dynamic Usage of Models (DYSAM) as a Theoretically-Based Phenomenological Tool for Managing Complexity and as a Research Framework
Gianfranco Minati, Polytechnic University of Milan, Italy
Chapter XI: Knowledge Cybernetics, a Metaphor for Post-Normal Science
Maurice I. Yolles, Liverpool John Moores University, UK
Section IV: Multiple Levels and New Perspectives
Chapter XII: The Arrival of the Fittest: Evolution of Novelty from a Cybernetic Perspective
Alexander Riegler, Katholieke Universiteit Leuven and Vrije
Universiteit, Belgium
Chapter XIII: Co-Construction of Learning Objects: Management and Structure
Thomas Hansson, Blekinge Institute of Technology, Sweden
Section V: Metamodeling and Mathematics
Chapter XIV: A System Approach to Describing, Analysing and Control of the Behaviour of Agents in MAS
Frantisek Capkovic, Institute of Informatics, Slovak Republic
Chapter XV: Identification and Response Prediction of Switching Uncertain Dynamic Systems using Interval Analysis
Kyarash Shariari, Laval University, Canada
Chapter XVI: Selection of the Best Subset of Variables in Regression and Time Series Models
Nicholas A. Nechval, University of Latvia, Latvia
Konstantin N. Nechval, Transport and Telecommunication Institute, Latvia
Maris Purgailis, University of Latvia, Latvia
Uldis Rozevskis, University of Latvia, Latvia
From Preface: While there will always be unanticipated consequences (particularly over the long term), a deeper understanding of policy may lead to interesting insights into how we might take more consequences into account as we develop... more
From Preface:
While there will always be unanticipated consequences (particularly over the long term), a deeper understanding of policy may lead to interesting insights into how we might take more consequences into account as we develop more effective policy. Policy success means we have an understanding of the world such that our plans are successful and we reach our goals. While there are many successful actions, there are few quantifiable policy successes. In contrast, there are many examples of policy failures. Ecologically, economically, militarily, and politically, we don’t seem to be able to create effective policy.
Recent advances in critical metapolicy suggest new approaches for analysis based on insights from complexity theory. Specifically, that we can quantify the complexity and the co-causal relationship between the propositions within a policy. And, critically, that there is a correlation between the quantifiable structure of a policy and the effectiveness of that policy in practical application. It has been suggested in the literature that we can use methods such as propositional analysis (PA) to determine the effectiveness of a policy prior to implementation based on the policy text. Such an approach would enable scholars to develop more effective policy and provides a new tool for practitioners to choose between competing policies.
In this book, I test that assertion by applying PA to six policies in three comparative case studies. Cases include military policy, economic policy, and international policy. Because of the great difficulty associated with finding policies that were effective (let alone comparable cases), these studies may be seen as somewhat obscure. I certainly invite all readers to join in an effort to find additional cases for more comparisons.
In each case comparison, the quantified structure of the policy is compared with the historical consequences of implementing the policy. Generally, the results of the study support the assertion. I found that policies with higher levels of structure (higher internal integrity and greater complexity) tend to be more effective in practical application. And, conversely, policies of lower complexity and less internal integrity tend to be less effective. Additional insights are also discussed along with implications for future research and application. Some important next steps for this line of research would be to conduct additional case comparative studies as well as larger scale, statistical analyses. The usefulness of this methodology across a range of policy fields suggests that it is generalizable across most, perhaps all, areas of policy interest.
While there will always be unanticipated consequences (particularly over the long term), a deeper understanding of policy may lead to interesting insights into how we might take more consequences into account as we develop more effective policy. Policy success means we have an understanding of the world such that our plans are successful and we reach our goals. While there are many successful actions, there are few quantifiable policy successes. In contrast, there are many examples of policy failures. Ecologically, economically, militarily, and politically, we don’t seem to be able to create effective policy.
Recent advances in critical metapolicy suggest new approaches for analysis based on insights from complexity theory. Specifically, that we can quantify the complexity and the co-causal relationship between the propositions within a policy. And, critically, that there is a correlation between the quantifiable structure of a policy and the effectiveness of that policy in practical application. It has been suggested in the literature that we can use methods such as propositional analysis (PA) to determine the effectiveness of a policy prior to implementation based on the policy text. Such an approach would enable scholars to develop more effective policy and provides a new tool for practitioners to choose between competing policies.
In this book, I test that assertion by applying PA to six policies in three comparative case studies. Cases include military policy, economic policy, and international policy. Because of the great difficulty associated with finding policies that were effective (let alone comparable cases), these studies may be seen as somewhat obscure. I certainly invite all readers to join in an effort to find additional cases for more comparisons.
In each case comparison, the quantified structure of the policy is compared with the historical consequences of implementing the policy. Generally, the results of the study support the assertion. I found that policies with higher levels of structure (higher internal integrity and greater complexity) tend to be more effective in practical application. And, conversely, policies of lower complexity and less internal integrity tend to be less effective. Additional insights are also discussed along with implications for future research and application. Some important next steps for this line of research would be to conduct additional case comparative studies as well as larger scale, statistical analyses. The usefulness of this methodology across a range of policy fields suggests that it is generalizable across most, perhaps all, areas of policy interest.
Systems approaches (including complexity theory, systems thinking, and cybernetics) have been used to gain a better understanding of our world. They have been applied with great vigor to study physical systems, biological systems, and... more
Systems approaches (including complexity theory, systems thinking, and cybernetics) have been used to gain a better understanding of our world. They have been applied with great vigor to study physical systems, biological systems, and social systems. Less effort has been applied to the study of conceptual systems. Where a cognitive system includes the process of cognition, in the brain and/or through social interactions a conceptual system is focused on the concepts that exist within the brain and/or the social system. Past philosophizing and recent empirical research have identified relationships between the structure of conceptual systems and the usefulness of those systems in practical application to enhance understanding, explanation, and effective engagement with physical, biological, and social systems. The emergence of new tools of metatheory and metapolicy analysis suggests new directions for (re) vitalizing our research into conceptual systems. Reflecting on eight underlying assumptions of systems sciences, the present paper investigates how conceptual systems might be understood on an equal footing with other world systems. By understanding conceptual systems as systems, and analyzing them with the same kind of rigor as we apply to study other world systems, we gain a new platform to advance Science Two, accelerate the development of the social sciences, integrate theories within and between disciplines, and develop more effective modes of explanation to solve the problems of the world.
Strategic planning typically involves conducting research and setting objectives. It is a difficult and expensive process with no guarantee of success. Recent research shows that managers with more “structured” knowledge will be more... more
Strategic planning typically involves conducting research and setting objectives. It is a difficult and expensive process with no guarantee of success. Recent research shows that managers with more “structured” knowledge will be more successful. Using Integrative Propositional Analysis (IPA) we can objectively determine the potential usefulness of a Strategic Knowledge Map (SKM). Creating an effective SKM is a precursor to more easily creating a more effective strategic plan. The present game is focused on players co-creating an SKM. Their play is scored in such a way that they will receive more points for creating a more structured map. The resulting map may be easily used in the “real world” to support dialog, decision making, and the creation of specific objectives for strategic plans.
The game is unorthodox. It is not a simulation where play begins with a pre-set “world.” Similarly, the game is not educational in the traditional sense where players attempt to acquire or test knowledge using an existing database. Instead, ASK MATT is a model-building game where knowledge is co-created within the game by the players. Further, the game goes beyond finding “insights;” instead, the results of the game may be directly applied as a guide to real world situations.
In the present paper, we explore the background, difficulties, and opportunities for improving strategic planning and policy planning using strategic knowledge mapping from a systemic perspective. We explain the play of the game, its scoring, anticipated outcomes, our experiences playtesting the game with small groups, plans for playtesting with larger groups, and opportunities for developing a version of the game that may be played online.
The game is unorthodox. It is not a simulation where play begins with a pre-set “world.” Similarly, the game is not educational in the traditional sense where players attempt to acquire or test knowledge using an existing database. Instead, ASK MATT is a model-building game where knowledge is co-created within the game by the players. Further, the game goes beyond finding “insights;” instead, the results of the game may be directly applied as a guide to real world situations.
In the present paper, we explore the background, difficulties, and opportunities for improving strategic planning and policy planning using strategic knowledge mapping from a systemic perspective. We explain the play of the game, its scoring, anticipated outcomes, our experiences playtesting the game with small groups, plans for playtesting with larger groups, and opportunities for developing a version of the game that may be played online.
Historically, it has been impossible to accurately predict the success of a policy. The scientific process of conducting repeatable experiments simply does not apply to social situations. And, the historical practice of amassing data has... more
Historically, it has been impossible to accurately predict the success of a policy. The scientific process of conducting repeatable experiments simply does not apply to social situations. And, the historical practice of amassing data has not proved a reliable way to ensure the success of policy. Recently, we have developed Integrative Propositional Analysis (IPA) to evaluate the internal "logic structure" of policy models. While this approach is orthogonal to the collection of empirical data, the two are complimentary. The new approach is also orthogonal to, yet complimentary with, collaborative approaches to developing policy. IPA provides an objective, non-partisan, approach to evaluating policy. With IPA we can identify policy weaknesses before implementation (allowing improvement of the policy), compare policies (to choose the ones most likely to succeed), create an environment of policy collaboration (to generate synergy-based success), and create a framework for tracking relevant data to rigorously evaluate the policy. This poster session will present, compare, contrast, and integrate multiple policies – showing their structural strengths and weaknesses and clarifying opportunities for improvement through empirical research, collaboration, and evaluation. By visiting this session, participants will learn a new and powerful approach to evaluating policy models that will enable them to become more effective practitioners.
Strategic planning typically involves conducting research and setting objectives. It is a difficult and expensive process with no guarantee of success. Recent research shows that managers with more “structured” knowledge will be more... more
Strategic planning typically involves conducting research and setting objectives. It is a difficult and expensive process with no guarantee of success. Recent research shows that managers with more “structured” knowledge will be more successful. Using Integrative Propositional Analysis (IPA) we can objectively determine the potential usefulness of a Strategic Knowledge Map (SKM). Creating an effective SKM is a precursor to more easily creating a more effective strategic plan. The present game is focused on players co-creating an SKM. Their play is scored in such a way that they will receive more points for creating a more structured map. The resulting map may be easily used in the “real world” to support dialog, decision making, and the creation of specific objectives for strategic plans.
The game is unorthodox. It is not a simulation where play begins with a pre-set “world.” Similarly, the game is not educational in the traditional sense where players attempt to acquire or test knowledge using an existing database. Instead, ASK MATT is a model-building game where knowledge is co-created within the game by the players. Further, the game goes beyond finding “insights;” instead, the results of the game may be directly applied as a guide to real world situations.
In the present paper, we explore the background, difficulties, and opportunities for improving strategic planning and policy planning using strategic knowledge mapping from a systemic perspective. We explain the play of the game, its scoring, anticipated outcomes, our experiences playtesting the game with small groups, plans for playtesting with larger groups, and opportunities for developing a version of the game that may be played online.
The game is unorthodox. It is not a simulation where play begins with a pre-set “world.” Similarly, the game is not educational in the traditional sense where players attempt to acquire or test knowledge using an existing database. Instead, ASK MATT is a model-building game where knowledge is co-created within the game by the players. Further, the game goes beyond finding “insights;” instead, the results of the game may be directly applied as a guide to real world situations.
In the present paper, we explore the background, difficulties, and opportunities for improving strategic planning and policy planning using strategic knowledge mapping from a systemic perspective. We explain the play of the game, its scoring, anticipated outcomes, our experiences playtesting the game with small groups, plans for playtesting with larger groups, and opportunities for developing a version of the game that may be played online.
Strategic planning typically involves conducting research and setting objectives. It is a difficult and expensive process with no guarantee of success. Recent research shows that managers with more “structured” knowledge will be more... more
Strategic planning typically involves conducting research and setting objectives. It is a difficult and expensive process with no guarantee of success. Recent research shows that managers with more “structured” knowledge will be more successful. Using Integrative Propositional Analysis (IPA) we can objectively determine the potential usefulness of a Strategic Knowledge Map (SKM). Creating an effective SKM is a precursor to more easily creating a more effective strategic plan. The present game is focused on players co-creating an SKM. Their play is scored in such a way that they will receive more points for creating a more structured map. The resulting map may be easily used in the “real world” to support dialog, decision making, and the creation of specific objectives for strategic plans.
The game is unorthodox. It is not a simulation where play begins with a pre-set “world.” Similarly, the game is not educational in the traditional sense where players attempt to acquire or test knowledge using an existing database. Instead, ASK MATT is a model-building game where knowledge is co-created within the game by the players. Further, the game goes beyond finding “insights;” instead, the results of the game may be directly applied as a guide to real world situations.
In the present paper, we explore the background, difficulties, and opportunities for improving strategic planning and policy planning using strategic knowledge mapping from a systemic perspective. We explain the play of the game, its scoring, anticipated outcomes, our experiences playtesting the game with small groups, plans for playtesting with larger groups, and opportunities for developing a version of the game that may be played online.
The game is unorthodox. It is not a simulation where play begins with a pre-set “world.” Similarly, the game is not educational in the traditional sense where players attempt to acquire or test knowledge using an existing database. Instead, ASK MATT is a model-building game where knowledge is co-created within the game by the players. Further, the game goes beyond finding “insights;” instead, the results of the game may be directly applied as a guide to real world situations.
In the present paper, we explore the background, difficulties, and opportunities for improving strategic planning and policy planning using strategic knowledge mapping from a systemic perspective. We explain the play of the game, its scoring, anticipated outcomes, our experiences playtesting the game with small groups, plans for playtesting with larger groups, and opportunities for developing a version of the game that may be played online.
In this paper I provide a brief history of the emerging science of conceptual systems, explain some methodologies, their sources of data, and the understandings that they have generated. I will also provide suggestions for extending the... more
In this paper I provide a brief history of the emerging science of conceptual systems, explain some methodologies, their sources of data, and the understandings that they have generated. I will also provide suggestions for extending the science-based research in a variety of directions. Essentially, I am opening a conversation that asks how this line of research might be extended to gain new insights – and eventually develop more useful and generally accepted methods for creating and evaluating theory. This effort will support our ability to generate theory that is more effective in practical application as well as accelerating the development of theory to support advances in other sciences.
This is the very short set of presentation slides from our award winning ABSEL paper.
Abstract: Popper’s well-known arguments describe the need for advancing social theory through a process of falsification. Despite Popper’s call, there has been little change in the academic process of theory development and testing. This... more
Abstract: Popper’s well-known arguments describe the need for advancing social theory through a process of falsification. Despite Popper’s call, there has been little change in the academic process of theory development and testing. This paper builds on Popper’s lesser-known idea of “three worlds” (physical, emotional/conceptual, and theoretical) to investigate the relationship between knowledge, theory, and action. In this paper, I explore his three worlds to identify alternative routes to support the validation of theory. I suggest there are alternative methods for validation, both between, and within, the three worlds and that a combination of validation and falsification methods may be superior to any one method. Integral thinking is also put forward to support the validation process. Rather than repeating the call for full Popperian falsification, this paper recognizes that the current level of social theorizing provides little opportunity for such falsification. Rather than sidestepping the goal of Popperian falsification, the paths suggested here may be seen as providing both validation and falsification as stepping-stones toward the goal of more effective social and organizational theory.
White Paper Series: Case Studies Using IPA to Evaluate Policies of 2016 Presidential Candidates Due to the large number of candidates running for president and the complexity of their policy statements, we present this analysis to help... more
White Paper Series: Case Studies Using IPA to Evaluate Policies of
2016 Presidential Candidates
Due to the large number of candidates running for president and the complexity of their policy statements, we present this analysis to help voters understand, evaluate, and compare those policies to support decision-making and our democratic process.
Lincoln Chafee is a 2016 Democratic Candidate for U.S. President. In this white paper, we present the results of an Integrative Propositional Analysis (IPA) study of his economic policy as presented on his website: http://www.chafee2016.com/policy/
Our goal here is to conduct a scientific, non-partisan evaluation to suggest the potential for success along with opportunities for improvement of that policy. It is not our intent to suggest that the policy might be right or wrong, good or bad (as partisan analyses might claim). Instead, our focus is on whether the policy will have the effects anticipated according to the text provided by the candidate. Another way to explain this is that we looking at the policy as a sense-making device, as a kind of map. Higher scores indicate greater ability to make effective policy decisions. This indicates the policy’s ability to reach its stated goals in much the same was as a road map with more roads and destination provides a more useful tool for planning a business trip or a vacation.
2016 Presidential Candidates
Due to the large number of candidates running for president and the complexity of their policy statements, we present this analysis to help voters understand, evaluate, and compare those policies to support decision-making and our democratic process.
Lincoln Chafee is a 2016 Democratic Candidate for U.S. President. In this white paper, we present the results of an Integrative Propositional Analysis (IPA) study of his economic policy as presented on his website: http://www.chafee2016.com/policy/
Our goal here is to conduct a scientific, non-partisan evaluation to suggest the potential for success along with opportunities for improvement of that policy. It is not our intent to suggest that the policy might be right or wrong, good or bad (as partisan analyses might claim). Instead, our focus is on whether the policy will have the effects anticipated according to the text provided by the candidate. Another way to explain this is that we looking at the policy as a sense-making device, as a kind of map. Higher scores indicate greater ability to make effective policy decisions. This indicates the policy’s ability to reach its stated goals in much the same was as a road map with more roads and destination provides a more useful tool for planning a business trip or a vacation.
- by Steven E Wallis, PhD and +1
- •
- Policy Analysis/Policy Studies, Economic Policy Evaluation, Systems Thinking, Systems thinking, complexity science, emergence and organisational development, the application of knowledge from Quakerism to public policy to achieve social enterprise and sustainable development
Due to the large number of candidates running for president and the complexity of their policy statements, we present this analysis to help voters understand, evaluate, and compare those policies to support decision-making and our... more
Due to the large number of candidates running for president and the complexity of their policy statements, we present this
analysis to help voters understand, evaluate, and compare those policies to support decision-making and our democratic process. Scott Walker is a 2016 Republican Candidate for U.S. President. In this white paper, we present the results of an Integrative Propositional Analysis (IPA) study of his economic policy as presented on his website:
https://www.scottwalker.com/news/whyi%
E2%80%99m-running-president
Our goal here is to conduct a scientific, non-partisan evaluation to suggest the potential for success, along with opportunities for improvement, of that policy. It is not our intent to suggest that the policy might be right or wrong, good or bad (as partisan analyses might claim). Instead, our focus is on whether the policy will have the effects anticipated according
to the text provided by the candidate.
analysis to help voters understand, evaluate, and compare those policies to support decision-making and our democratic process. Scott Walker is a 2016 Republican Candidate for U.S. President. In this white paper, we present the results of an Integrative Propositional Analysis (IPA) study of his economic policy as presented on his website:
https://www.scottwalker.com/news/whyi%
E2%80%99m-running-president
Our goal here is to conduct a scientific, non-partisan evaluation to suggest the potential for success, along with opportunities for improvement, of that policy. It is not our intent to suggest that the policy might be right or wrong, good or bad (as partisan analyses might claim). Instead, our focus is on whether the policy will have the effects anticipated according
to the text provided by the candidate.
Ben Carson is a 2016 Republican Candidate for U.S. President. Due to the large number of candidates running for president and the complexity of their policy statements, we present this analysis to help voters understand, evaluate, and... more
Ben Carson is a 2016 Republican Candidate for U.S. President. Due to the large number of candidates running for president and the complexity of their policy statements, we present this
analysis to help voters understand, evaluate, and compare those policies to support decision-making and our democratic process.
analysis to help voters understand, evaluate, and compare those policies to support decision-making and our democratic process.
63.0 million researchers use this site every month. Ads help cover our server costs.