Showing posts with label engineering. Show all posts
Showing posts with label engineering. Show all posts

The Algorithm: SpaceX’s Five-Step Process For Better Engineering

Mike's Notes

I like solving impossible problems; everything else is boring.

I will apply this five-step method to Pipi and to Ajabbi's future internal culture. The method could be applied to discovering a cure for breast cancer, lowering housing costs, and building safer ships.

According to Google Search: AI Mode (Gemini).

The "Way": The Five-Step Algorithm

At SpaceX, engineers are trained in a specific "Algorithm" to tackle impossible technical hurdles. The process must be followed in this strict order to avoid the "expert's trap" of perfecting things that shouldn't exist:

    1. Question every requirement: Every requirement must have a specific person’s name attached—not just a department. Even those from "the smart guys" (including Musk himself) must be challenged to make them "less dumb".
    2. Delete any part or process you can: Engineers are encouraged to delete until they are forced to add 10% back; otherwise, they aren't deleting enough.
    3. Simplify and optimise: Only optimise after questioning and deleting. A common mistake is optimising a process that should have been eliminated entirely.
    4. Accelerate cycle time: Increase speed only after the first three steps are complete to ensure you aren't just "digging your own grave" faster.
    5. Automate: Automation is the final step, used only once the design is refined and proven.

The Culture: "Responsible Engineers" (REs)

SpaceX replaces traditional siloed management with a flat structure centred on Responsible Engineers.

    • Total Ownership: An RE owns their component from requirements and design through to manufacturing and flight.
    • Systems Thinking: Every engineer must understand the whole vehicle, not just their subsystem, to ensure local optimisations don't hurt the global mission.
    • Information Velocity: Direct communication is required; anyone can talk to anyone to solve a problem, bypassing hierarchical "chain of command" protocols. 

Resources

References

  • Reference

Repository

  • Home > Ajabbi Research > Library >
  • Home > Handbook > 

Last Updated

28/04/2026

The Algorithm: SpaceX’s Five-Step Process For Better Engineering

By: Garrett Reim, Guy Norris, and Irene Klotz
Aviation Week: 23/08/2024

Based in the Seattle area, Garrett Reim covers the space sector and advanced technologies that are shaping the future of aerospace and defense, including space startups, advanced air mobility and artificial intelligence.

Guy Norris is a Senior Editor for Aviation Week, covering technology and propulsion. He is based in Colorado Springs.

Irene Klotz is Senior Space Editor for Aviation Week, based in Cape Canaveral. Before joining Aviation Week in 2017, Irene spent 25 years as a wire service reporter covering human and robotic spaceflight, commercial space, astronomy, science and technology for Reuters and United Press International.

SpaceX uses 3D printers and a process of relentless refinement to streamline its Raptor engines. In the Raptor 3, plumbing and wiring that had been on the outside were fused into the motor’s metal structure. | Credit: SpaceX

What is behind SpaceX’s success? According to one former top employee, it is something called “The Algorithm.”

Tim Berry, head of manufacturing and quality at blended-wing-body startup JetZero, spent a decade at SpaceX leading the Falcon 9 and Falcon Heavy family of rockets upper-stage production team. Berry also led the Dragon Crew and Cargo integration team and was head of additive manufacturing.

How the Raptor 3 rocket engine was streamlined

“Your requirements are definitely dumb; You have to find a way to make them less dumb.”

The Algorithm was “drilled into our minds,” he said at the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Aviation Forum in Las Vegas in July. “It’s a five-step process for improving the design, making it ultimately easier to manufacture and finding ways to optimize along the way as well.”

Step 1 is: “Challenge the requirements,” Berry said. “Or as our benefactor used to say, ‘Your requirements are definitely dumb; you have to find a way to make them less dumb.’”

Step 2 involves deleting a part or a process step. “Really looking at the full value chain of what you’re working on and eliminating any unnecessary process steps while also finding opportunities to delete parts ultimately yields an overall optimization, whether it’s a reduction in labor or cycle time or anything like that,” he said.

Step 3: “Find additional opportunities to simplify the design or optimize it,” Berry said. “Make it easier to manufacture or eke a few more points of performance out of it.”

Step 4 is all about speed. “Find even more ways to go faster,” Berry explained. “You add more stations; you ramp up the manufacturing.”

And then, finally—Step 5—you automate. “Most people start with Step 5, and they automate a process that never should have existed in the first place,” said Berry. “It’s really important that you work the steps in order.”

After completing Step 5, rinse and repeat. “You’re never satisfied,” Berry said. “You’re constantly going back and finding opportunities to challenge your requirements, deleting more parts, simplifying, optimizing, going faster, and then finally, opportunities to automate, but only once you’ve really boiled down to the baseline process.”

SpaceX CEO Elon Musk is keen on reducing engineering to its basics via first principles thinking. Aristotle invented the first principles method some 2,400 years ago in his Metaphysics, describing it as trying to understand “the first basis from which a thing is known.”

“The normal way that we conduct our lives is we reason by analogy,” Musk explained in a 2012 interview. “We’re doing this because it’s like something else that was done, or it’s like what other people are doing. It’s mentally easier to reason by analogy rather than from first principles. First principles is a physics way of looking at the world, and what that really means is you kind of boil things down to the most fundamental truths.”

Musk often talks about competing SpaceX’s hardware against the laws of nature rather than other products on the market. That philosophy has driven SpaceX employees to simplify the Raptor rocket engine from something that looked “like a Christmas tree with how much stuff is on it” to a more spartan look, Berry said.

In August, SpaceX revealed the drastically streamlined Raptor 3 engine (see photo) and test-fired it. The company ditched a heat shield on the latest iteration of the methane-fueled engine by taking plumbing and wiring that was previously hanging on the outside and fusing it into the motor’s metal structure. To do so, SpaceX heavily relied on 3D printing, Musk wrote on the social media site X.

The sea-level variant of the Raptor 3 weighs 3,362 lb., compared with the 3,594-lb. Raptor 2, while generating 280 tons of force, compared with the current rocket’s 230 tons of force. The total weight of the Raptor 3 plus vehicle commodities and hardware is 3,792 lb. compared with the Raptor 2’s 6,338 lb.

“The amount of work required to simplify the Raptor engine, internalize secondary flow paths and add regenerative cooling for exposed components was staggering,” Musk said. “Getting close to the limit of known physics,” he added in another post.

How YouTube and Adhesive Tape Are Disrupting Assistive Technology

Mike's Notes

Very cool. Making stuff.

Resources

References

  • Reference

Repository

  • Home > Ajabbi Research > Library > Subscriptions > IEEE Spectrum
  • Home > Handbook > 

Last Updated

24/03/2026

How YouTube and Adhesive Tape Are Disrupting Assistive Technology

By: Jason Hahr
IEEE Spectrum: 31/01/2026

Jason Hahr is a 2025 IEEE Spectrum Taenzer Fellow in disability rights and assistive technology journalism.

The “MacGyver” approach lets disabled users reconfigure their tech

One of maker Therese Willkomm's assistive tech hacks involved developing a control panel for GPS map apps—part of her mission to help disabled people find their way through a non-compliant tech world. Therese Willkomm

Assistive technology is expensive, and many people with disabilities live on fixed incomes. Disabled assistive tech users also must contend with equipment that was often designed without any capacity to be repaired or modified. But assistive tech users ultimately need the functionality they need—a wheelchair that isn’t constantly needing to be charged, perhaps, or a hearing aid that doesn’t amplify all background noise equally. Assistive tech “makers,” who can hack and modify existing assistive tech, have always been in high demand.

Therese Willkomm, emeritus professor of occupational therapy at the University of New Hampshire, has written three books cataloging her more than 2,000 assistive technology hacks. Willkomm says she aims to keep her assistive tech hacks costing less than five dollars.

She’s come to be known internationally as the “MacGyver of Assistive Technology” and has presented more than 600 workshops and assistive tech maker days across 42 states and 14 countries.

IEEE Spectrum sat down with Willkomm ahead of her latest assistive tech Maker Day workshop, on Saturday, 31 January, at the Assistive Technology Industry Association (ATIA) conference in Orlando, Florida. Over the course of the conversation, she discussed the evolution of assistive technology over 40 years, the urgent need for affordable communication devices, and why the DIY movement matters now more than ever.

IEEE Spectrum: What got you started in assistive technology?

Therese Willkomm: I grew up in Wisconsin, where my father had a machine shop and worked on dairy and hog farms. At age 10, I started building and making things. A cousin was in a farm accident and needed modifications to his tractor, which introduced me to welding. In college, I enrolled in vocational rehabilitation and learned about rehab engineering—assistive technology wasn’t coined until 1988 with the Technology-Related Assistance Act. In 1979, Gregg Vanderheiden came to the University of Wisconsin-Stout and demonstrated creative things with garage door openers and communication devices. I thought, “Wow, this would be an awesome career path—designing and fabricating devices and worksite adaptations for people with disabilities to go back to work and live independently.” I haven’t looked back.

You’ve created over 2,000 assistive technology solutions. What’s your most memorable one?

Willkomm: A device for castrating pigs with one hand. We figured out a way to design a device that fit on the end of the hog crate that was foot-operated to hold the hind legs of the pig back so the procedure could be done with one hand.

Assistive Technology’s Changing Landscape

How has assistive technology evolved over the decades?

Willkomm: In the 1980s, we fabricated devices from wood and early electronics. I became a [Rehabilitation Engineering and Assistive Technology Society of North America, a.k.a. RESNA] member in 1985. The 1988 Technology-Related Assistance Act was transformational—all 50 states finally got funding to support assistive technology and needs in rural areas. Back in the ‘80s, we were soldering and making battery interrupters and momentary switches for toys, radios, and music. Gregg was doing some things with communication. There were Prentke Romich communication devices. Those were some of the first electronic assistive technologies.

The early 1990s was all about mobile rehab engineering. Senator Bob Dole gave me a $50,000 grant to fund my first mobile unit. That mobile unit had all my welding equipment, all my fabrication equipment, and I could drive farm to farm, set up outside right in front of the tractor, and fabricate whatever needed to be fabricated. Then, around 1997, there were cuts in the school systems. Mobile units became really expensive to operate. We started to look at more efficient ways of providing assistive technology services. With the Tech Act, we had demonstration sites where people would come and try out different devices. But people had to get in a car, drive to a center, get out, find parking, come into the building—a lot of time was being lost.

In the 2000s, more challenges with decreased funding. I discovered that with a Honda Accord and those crates you get from Staples, you could have your whole mobile unit in the trunk of your car because of advances in materials. We could make battery interrupters and momentary switches without ever having to solder. We can make switches in 28 seconds, battery interrupters in 18 seconds. When COVID happened, we had to pivot—do more virtual, ship stuff out to people. We were able to serve more individuals during COVID than prior to COVID because nobody had to travel.

How do you keep costs under five dollars?

Willkomm: I aim for five dollars or less. I get tons of corrugated plastic donated for free, so we spend no money on that. Then there’s Scapa Tape—a very aggressive double-sided foam tape that costs five cents a foot. If you fabricate something and it doesn’t work out, and you have to reposition, you’re out a nickel’s worth of material. Buying Velcro in bulk helps too. Then Instamorph—it is non-toxic, biodegradable. You can reheat it, reform it, in five minutes or less up to six times. I’ve created about 132 different devices just using Instamorph. A lot of things I make out of Instamorph don’t necessarily work. I have a bucket, and I reuse that Instamorph. We can get six, seven devices out of reusable Instamorph. That’s how we keep it under five dollars.

What key legislation impacts assistive technology?

Willkomm: Definitely the Technology-Related Assistance Act. In the school system, however, it only says “Did you consider assistive technology?” So that legislation really needs to be beefed up. The third piece of legislation I worked on was the AgrAbility legislation to fund assistive technology consultations and technical assistance for farmers and ranchers. The latest Technology-Related Assistance Act was reauthorized in 2022. Not a whole lot of changes—it’s still assistive technology device demonstrations and loans, device reuse, training, technical assistance, information and awareness. The other thing is NIDILRR—National Institute on Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research, funded under [the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, a.k.a. HHS]. Funding the rehab engineering centers was pretty significant in advancing the field because these were huge, multimillion-dollar centers dedicated to core areas like communication and employment. Now there’s a new one out on artificial intelligence.

With over 2,000 hacks to improve usability of assistive technologies, veteran DIY maker Therese Willkomm has earned the moniker “the MacGyver of assistive tech.” Therese Willkomm

A Vision for a Better Assistive Tech Future

What deserves more focus in your field?

Willkomm: The supply-and-demand problem. It all comes down to time and money. We have an elderly population that continues to grow, and a disability population that continues to grow—high demand, high need for assistive technology, yet the resources available to meet that need are limited. A few years back, the Christopher & Dana Reeve Foundation had a competition. I submitted a proposal similar to the Blue Apron approach. People don’t have supplies at their house. They can’t buy two inches of tape—they have to buy a whole roll. They can’t buy one foot of corrugated plastic—they’ve got to buy an 18-by-24 sheet or wait till it gets donated.

With my third book, I created solutions with QR codes showing videos on how to make them. I used Christopher Reeve Foundation funding to purchase supplies. With Blue Apron, somebody wants to make dinner and a box arrives with a chicken breast, potato, vegetables, and recipe. I thought, what if we could apply that to assistive technology? Somebody needs something, there’s a solution out there, but they don’t have the money or the time—how can we quickly put it in a box and send it to them? People who attended my workshops didn’t have to spend money on materials or waste time at the store. They’d watch the video and assemble it.

But then there were people who said, “I do not have even five minutes in the school day to stop what I’m doing to make something.” So we found volunteers who said, “Hey, I can make slant boards. I can make switches. I can adapt toys.” You have people who want to build stuff and people who need stuff. If you can deal with the time and money issue, anything’s possible to serve more people and provide more devices.

What’s your biggest vision for the future?

Willkomm: I’m very passionate about communication. December 15 was the passage in 1791 of our First Amendment, freedom of speech. Yet people with communication impairments are denied their basic right of freedom of speech because they don’t have an affordable communication device, or it takes too long to program or learn. I just wish we could get better at designing and fabricating affordable communication devices, so everybody is awarded their First Amendment right. It shouldn’t be something that’s nice to have—it’s something that’s needed to have. When you lose your leg, you’re fitted with a prosthetic device, and insurance covers that. Insurance should also cover communication devices and all the support services needed. With voice recognition and computer-generated voices, there are tremendous opportunities in assistive technology for communication impairments that need to be addressed.

What should IEEE Spectrum readers take away from this conversation?

Willkomm: There’s tremendous need for this skill set—working in conjunction with AI and material sciences and the field of assistive technology and rehab engineering. I’d like people to look at opportunities to volunteer their time and also to pursue careers in the field of specialized rehab engineering.

How are DIY approaches evolving with new technologies?

Willkomm: What we’re seeing at maker fairs is more people doing 3D printing, switch-access controls, and these five-minute approaches. There has to be a healthy balance between what we can do with or without electronics. If we need something programmed with electronics, absolutely—but is there a faster way?

The other thing that’s interesting is skill development. You used to have to go to college for four, six, eight years. With YouTube, you can learn so much on the internet. You can develop skills in things you never thought were possible without a four-year degree. There’s basic electronic stuff you can absolutely learn without taking a course. I think we’re going to have more people out there doing hacks, asking “What if I change it this way?” We don’t need to have a switch.

We need to look at the person’s body and how that body interacts with the electronic device interface so it requires minimal effort—whether it be eye control or motion control. Having devices that predict what you’re going to want next, that are constantly listening, knowing the way you talk. I love the fact that AI looks at all my emails and creates this whole thing like “Here’s how I’d respond.” I’m like, yeah, that’s exactly it. I just hit select, and I don’t have to type it all out. It speeds up communication. We’re living in exciting times right now.

This article was supported by the IEEE Foundation and a John C. Taenzer fellowship grant.

Tying Engineering Metrics to Business Metrics

Mike's Notes

Robust measures of financial health, tied back to engineering work, would be very useful to Ajabbi, a social enterprise that needs to be viable. The default is full transparency unless there is a very good reason not to. The plan is to have Pipi run the measurement process automatically and provide feedback loops.

To do

  • Build these measures into the DevOps Engine.
  • Add items to the workspace dashboard UI

Resources

References

  • Reference

Repository

  • Home > Ajabbi Research > Library >
  • Home > Handbook > 

Last Updated

11/02/2026

Tying Engineering Metrics to Business Metrics

By: Iccha Sethi
Medium: 26/11/2025

Interests include technology, building team culture, books and food. Engineering Leader..

Most engineering organizations I’ve worked in or led have tracked some form of engineering metrics. These range from simple metrics like uptime and incident count to more complex frameworks like DORA. As an engineering leader, you’ve probably been asked, either by someone within or outside of engineering: Why do these metrics matter? or How do they align with our business goals?

This post is aimed at demystifying some of this. We will cover:

  • Key Business Metrics
  • Lagging and Leading engineering metrics and how they connect to the key business metrics

While this isn’t an exhaustive list of engineering metrics, the goal is to provide a practical framework that you can adapt to your context.

Here is a TLDR of it, and let’s break it down along the way:

Key Business Metrics

Below are some key business metrics that most business use:

  • ARR (Annual Recurring Revenue): The total recurring revenue a company expects to receive annually from its customers. (Wall Street Prep)
  • NRR (Net Revenue Retention): A metric that measures the percentage of recurring revenue retained from existing customers over a specific period, accounting for expansions, contractions, and churn. (Planhat)
  • GRR (Gross Revenue Retention): The percentage of recurring revenue retained from existing customers over a specific period, excluding any revenue gained from expansions or upsells. (ChurnZero)
  • CAC (Customer Acquisition Cost): The total cost incurred by a company to acquire a new customer, including marketing and sales expenses. (Cast)

These metrics are lagging indicators, sometimes as lagging as 12 months, where a customer churns at the end of their yearly contract impacting the GRR.

Let us look at some potential Intermediate Outcomes which may impact these key business metrics.

Intermediate Outcomes

High GRR and NRR reflect loyal, satisfied customers who find the product valuable, easy to use (user experience), and reliable (system reliability). These customers are more likely to expand their usage, purchase additional features, and remain long-term advocates for your platform.

Acquiring new customers is generally more expensive than retaining existing ones. Studies indicate that attracting a new customer can cost up to five times more than retaining an existing one. Additionally, the probability of selling to an existing customer ranges between 60–70%, whereas the probability of selling to a new prospect is only 5–20%. These statistics underscore the financial benefits of focusing on customer retention strategies.

To grow the business via ARR and reduce CAC simultaneously, we must prioritize shipping product features quickly (feature velocity) without compromising the factors that sustain GRR and NRR.

Engineering Metrics (Lagging)

There are a number of engineering metrics which are lagging, but in much lesser magnitude of time than GRR/NRR/CAC/ARR. Metrics like uptime, time to detect and recover incidents, performance, support tickets, bugs, and team velocity can be measured over shorter timeframes.

As an engineering leader I have found that they’re most insightful when reviewed monthly and analyzed for trends over 3–6 months. These can be earlier indicators of unhappy customers and can enable the teams to take quick action, before the customer becomes a churn risk. Some examples include:

  • If there is an uptick in support tickets, growing disproportionately to customer base, or team is unable to keep up with support ticket SLAs, it is an indication of potentially higher number of bugs in the product, or an unintuitive user experience, leading to unhappy customers.
  • Increasing number of incidents, or high TTD, TTR along with decrease in Uptime means there are periods of time the product is unavailable or not working as expected again impacting customer trust.
  • Slow web app performance means it takes longer to get tasks done and unideal user experience.
  • Team velocity impacts the ability to ship customer-requested features.

Engineering Metrics (Leading)

Sometimes even months might be too late to come back and fix something. Luckily we have a number of best practices, and a set of metrics related to these best practices when done right have a high correlation to the lagging engineering indicators. These metrics though imperfect in their own ways, generally are a decent real time indicator of potential impact to lagging indicators. Some of these leading indicators include: Test coverage, PR size, Feature flag usage, deployment frequency, lead time for change, etc. Some of these can be reviewed on a per Pull request basis, or even daily. Ideally individual teams, or engineers feel a high sense of ownership for these.

Summary

Tying these all together — short lead time for change, means PRs get quickly into production. This is not only amazing for team and product velocity because we are shipping changes quickly and get to validate them quicker in production, but also allow us to decrease our Time to recover during incidents by applying a fix quickly. With lower impacting incidents, means less unhappy customers which help us maintain our GRR. Similarly with quicker time for features to get in production, means our product has higher value quicker, thereby making it easier to gain new customers and increase our ARR.

I hope this post clarifies the connection between engineering and business metrics. The next time someone asks why code coverage or deployment frequency matters to the business, you’ll have the answer — and a framework to back it up! 😀

ReBaz + Carpentries + RSE Conference

Mike's Notes

Plenty of opportunities in NZ to share research and upskill. I need to learn Python, and this might be a way to do so. I previously used Python with ESRI GIS, but that was 15 years ago.

Pipi 10 will have a Python interface.

Resources

References

  • Reference

Repository

  • Home > Ajabbi Research > Library >
  • Home > Handbook > 

Last Updated

24/10/2025

ReBaz + Carpentries + RSE Conference

By: Mike Peters
On a Sandy Beach: 24/10/2025

Mike is the inventor and architect of Pipi and the founder of Ajabbi.

Research Bazaar

"The annual ResBaz (Research Bazaar) event – an amazing free series of online webinars and workshops that bring together researchers from around the country to develop skills in digital tools and research practices."

The next ResBaz Aotearoa 2026: 29 June - 3 July.

The Carpentries

" ..The Carpentries is a non-profit organisation that teaches foundational coding and data science skills to researchers worldwide. There are numerous courses freely available, including an introduction to Python for library and information workers."

HPC Carpentries

"HPC Carpentry teaches HPC-oriented coding, and data science skills to researchers. We want to work towards bringing High Performance Computing under the Carpentries umbrella."

New Zealand Research Software Engineering Conference

"Within the research sector, there is a growing number of people who combine expertise in programming with an intricate understanding of research. Although this combination of skills is extremely valuable, these people lack a formal place in the academic system. This means there is no easy way to recognise their contribution, to reward them, or to represent their views.  

A community-driven event 

In June 2020, NeSI decided to rebrand its successful Science Coding Conference to be named the NZ Research Software Engineers (RSE) Conference. Motivation for the change is two-fold:

  • to include people from all research communities who work on the cusp of technical and research domains, and
  •  to more fully align with the goals of the Australia / New Zealand RSE community. 

Initiated in the UK, the RSE movement is a global phenomenon with many associations now set up around the world. In line with that global trend, New Zealand’s community of research software users and developers has steadily grown, with more roles and numbers of people at the intersection of software and research." - NZRSE

An Ontology for Engineering Mathematics

Mike's Notes

An Ontology for Engineering Mathematics was published in 1994.

By Thomas R. Gruber and Greg R. Olsen.

The HTML version at ksl-web.stanford.edu has gone. I found a copy on the Wayback Machine.

Resources

References

  • Reference

Repository

  • Home > Ajabbi Research > Library >
  • Home > Handbook > 

Last Updated

17/05/2025

An Ontology for Engineering Mathematics

By: Thomas R. Gruber and Greg R. Olsen
Morgan Kaufmann: 17/07/2024

Thomas R. Gruber and Greg R. Olsen. (1994). An ontology for engineering mathematics. In J. Doyle, P. Torasso, and E. Sandewall (Eds.), Fourth International Conference on Principles of Knowledge Representation and Reasoning, Gustav Stresemann Institut, Bonn, Germany, Morgan Kaufmann, 1994.

Possibly the first refereed publication of an AI ontology, explicitly called out as an ontology.  Defines a formal axiomatization of the mathematics sufficient to represent modern engineering models. The HTML version of this paper is deeply cross indexed and contains the entire ontology in machine and human readable form.

Original abstract: We describe an ontology for mathematical modeling in engineering. The ontology includes conceptual foundations for scalar, vector, and tensor quantities, physical dimensions, units of measure, functions of quantities, and dimensionless quantities. The conceptualization builds on abstract algebra and measurement theory, but is designed explicitly for knowledge sharing purposes. The ontology is being used as a communication language among cooperating engineering agents, and as a foundation for other engineering ontologies. In this paper we describe the conceptualization of the ontology, and show selected axioms from definitions. We describe the design of the ontology and justify the important representation choices. We offer evaluation criteria for such ontologies and demonstrate design techniques for achieving them.

Engineering Newsletters

Mike's Notes

I recently discovered and subscribed to a series of software engineering newsletters written by highly experienced engineers. Most have a website and often reference other engineering websites.

Resources

References

  • Reference

Repository

  • Home > Ajabbi Research > Library > Subscriptions > 
  • Home > Handbook > 

Last Updated

17/05/2025

Engineering Newsletters

By: Mike Peters
On a Sandy Beach: 13/07/2024

Mike is the inventor and architect of Pipi and the founder of Ajabbi.

words