Dan Wood, the creator of Watson writes in his personal blog that he is “saddened” that Sun Microsystems (who acquired Watson) will not be releasing a version of Watson to tie in with the agreed end of support date for the existing version of Watson. He is also disappointed that as a result the functionality of Watson will degrade over time and that he cannot continue to support it beyond 5 October 2004 because of the agreement.

Tough. If Watson was so important to Dan Wood and his commitment to the community was so important to him surely he wouldn’t have let Sun Microsystems have Watson? In any case, surely he got remunerated for it? It’s called business, and whilst Watson may have been an important part of Dan’s professional career, I suspect it’s just a piece of fluff in Sun’s navel. Watson is owned by Sun now and they can do what they like with it. Or choose not to.

The project I’m working on at the moment is a highly complex set of web applications which are intended to bring the majority of a business’ operating processes onto the internet. The prices for products that are sold are based around a significant number of different algorithms and configuration data. Thus it can take time for prices to be worked out.

In order to minimise the initial cost and overall lifecycle cost of the applications, the applications are being developed in PHP and MySQL on a shared server. However, the problem with shared servers is that they prescribe the amount of CPU and elapsed time that can be given over to any one script. So, with a product list of around 1200 items, running one script exceeds those restrictions.

We made a decision when the site was being specified to develop the site around an MVC (Model-View-Controller) architecture. Whilst it’s not unusual for these architectures to be present in web based systems, it’s quite rare to find them in PHP applications. Many PHP MVC architectures slavishly (and fully) mimic architectures available elsewhere (e.g. JSP). These are fairly horrendous to develop and to maintain, since PHP isn’t designed for this, so something more straightforward was required.

Fortunately I discovered Section 4.4 of Sun Microsystem’s book “Designing Enterprise Applications with the J2EE Platform, Second Edition”. This section is quite simply the clearest description of MVC I’ve found – especially since it includes code snippets. Last Christmas I developed some PHP classes for model, view and controller; a supporting class hierarchy for actioning requests and a database table for holding the mapping between action results and views. I don’t claim that it’s flawless, but it does the job well, and hasn’t required any architectural changes since that time.

Going back to the issue of the publishing of prices, I needed something to be able to split the publishing of prices into manageable chunks. Modifying the action that does the publishing involved adding just 30 lines of code. Two minor tweaks elsewhere – a new view for showing progress and a new template that allows the view to invoke the action again (via an HTTP Refresh, thus effecting the splitting of one action into a series of many actions) – and the change is complete.

I’ve written before about my frustration at things that are merely ‘okay’. Organisation is one of these things. I used to be angry at myself for not being organised. That was probably up until I was 10 or 11. After that I was organised. But, it wasn’t until I was about 22 that I became really organised, and it wasn’t until I was 24 that I became a finely tuned organisational person. And in case you’re wondering, for those who’ve seen my office, organised doesn’t mean tidy. Similarly, I’m still trying to find ways to get more organised. The more organised you are, the better you can manage your time, take on responsibilities and delegate effectively. It makes life much easier and improves self-esteem. There are a few simple ways to become organised. I’m just disappointed that few people can do it. But the bottom line is people don’t get trained in such skills. I was never trained — it was just something I wanted to do.

Some cases in point: I’ve known about six project managers in my time. Their level of competence was directly proportional to how organised they were. If you know what you’re supposed to be doing and what you’re subordinates are doing, or more importantly what’s happened, happening and is to happen, you end up being a better manager and indeed a better leader. I’ve known about a hundred engineering staff. I’ve concluded that those who end up being managers (or team leaders) are not necessarily those who are more technically competent, but simply those who know where they’re going and why. I’ve not managed to find any recent university graduate who knows how to manage themself. It’s really very scary. Just think about it for a few moments.

I’ve used all sorts of organisational tools over the past 20 years, both electronic and manual. All used with a view to honing my skills. But, as I’ve alluded to above, none have reached the apex of my expectations. Some are better than others. So, I thought I would document my views on these tools and try to outline what that pinnacle might be.

Filofax

I bought my first Filofax when I left university. Back then they seemed rather expensive. It was my first exposure to a diary, planner and action list. I liked the fact that I could keep records of what needed doing; plan strategically for the next couple of weeks and track what others were doing. However, since I didn’t have many things to do myself — probably one or two different things each day — my diary section was sparse and under used. I also concluded that much of the really useful stuff a Filofax would hold was basically a bunch of hand-designed tables and notes.

The company I worked at made a big deal about keeping A4 sized Log Books (note the capitals). They made another big point that these were the company’s property. I didn’t fancy spending my own money maintaining and using a Filofax which documented my life in the company and which I (arguably) didn’t own. At that time in my life I was a little in awe of this issue, especially when you’ve just gone and signed the Official Secrets Act. So I abandoned my Filofax and used the log book.

I rediscovered my Filofax in about 1998. Want to know why? Read Part 2 when I’ve written it.

Apple’s Newton

I bought the first Apple Newton Message Pad following their announcement in August 1993. This was before they had numbers. The Newton Message Pad featured a variety of personal-organization applications, such as an address book, a calendar, notes, along with communications capabilities such as faxing and email. It featured a pen-based interface which used a word-based, trainable handwriting recognition engine. However, the handwriting recognition was a little dubious and I mostly wrote in freehand.

To this day I’m not sure why I bought one. But, despite its relatively large size, it quickly became a permanent attachment at work. Sure, I got some funny looks wondering into meetings with it, but it served me well. To this day I’ve yet to find an electronic companion (PDA if you wish) that has the usability of the Newton. Everything was so intuitive. It was especially easy to make notes, appointments and to-dos. The problem with handwriting recognition wasn’t that great since there was a on-screen keyboard you could tap on, and many entry fields were made up of pop-down lists that you could pick from. Make the lists up before hand, or as you work, and you have very quick ways of entering data. No other PDA to date has this capability across all of its applications.

Then I went and bought a Message Pad 100. I was also tempted to buy the Message Pad 120 when that was released in October 1994, but I resisted. So I now had two Newtons.

Palm and other animals

On my final job before I went to work in Holland, I met a German guy who managed everything meticulously. He was actually supposed to be working for me, but we never got on. Everything he planned, did, said, and er, didn’t do and didn’t say ended up in his big A5 organiser. I never found out what he was using but I was strangely intrigued.

I ditched my Newtons just after I went to work in Holland. Or rather, I didn’t ditch them. They just got left at home. I was tempted to buy a Casio Cassiopeia. Again, an original first model of the Microsoft Windows CE devices. It was faster than the Newton, with a better display. More importantly it had affordable extensibility and the ability to interface with Windows machines for the seamless transfer of Microsoft Word and Excel documents.

Looking back on this now, I was quite disappointed with the overall usability. To Dos were not as nice as on the Newton. In fact, it was too much like a computer. Think how far these Windows powered devices have come since then. Not very far actually. They still look and behave like computers. Third party applications are still required to get the best out of them. Something that the Newton never needed – or so I thought.

When I went to work in Holland, I met two people who influenced my organisational life. One had an original Palm Pilot and the other had one of these intriguing A5 organisers. Mr Palm Pilot used to demo his device to us whilst we were drinking coffee. I was quite taken with its size and features. Something about it attracted me. It looked and behaved a little bit like the Newtons I loved, albeit in a smaller package. I didn’t buy one.

Oh no. I bought a Psion 5 instead. In fact three of us bought Psion 5’s within a couple of weeks of each other. I bought mine at Schipol Airport in Amsterdam. Yummy. No tax. I liked the Psion a lot. It is the only PDA with built in applications that did everything I needed. There was no need to look to third party solutions. Plus it had a very nifty and usable keyboard. It was relatively small and portable. But the end came when the keyboard starting misbehaving and bits started falling off it. I still have the Psion 5 as I don’t really want to see it go. I just don’t use it anymore.

Next time..

The return of paper and the return of Palm.

As some readers will know, for about the past four months I have had a slight hearing problem in my right ear. Specifically, if I listen to music or watch television the soundstage is slightly skewed towards the left. So things that should be in the centre appear somewhere between my left eye and my nose. It varies according to time of day and what I’m listening to.

Today I saw a consultant at our local hospital, which seems a very nice place indeed. First of all I had a hearing test. The usual ‘press this button if you can hear any sound’-type of test. Then I met with the consultant. And guess what?

My right ear is fine. Um.. that’s right. Er. Right. It’s actually above normal. According to their measurements which go from about 500Hz to 8kHz, they baseline at -20dB. And my right ear is at or above this.

Hearing in my left ear drops off by 10 to 20dB between 4 and 8KHz, but is back to normal at 8KHz.

So why do I hear better with my left ear when listening to music or television? My consultant doesn’t know. But she suspects things may correct themselves and so I’m going back for another hearing test in three months’ time.

According to a government task-force report, the university admissions system should be revised so as to require students to make their selection of university after they have received their A-level results. Quite how this affects Scotland is unknown.

At present university applications use predicted A-level grades, with supplementary information obtained by content on application forms plus interviews. It is proposed that applications and interviews would be retained, but that final decisions would not be taken until the actual A-level results are known. Decisions themselves would be more transparent to applicants.

This all seems quite sensible. Except for a few minor issues. The current system already accepts students who meet the entry requirements. Those who don’t go into a clearing system. The new system would essentially throw everyone into the clearing system. In this case, what happens to those students who did better than they expected? Would they be required to apply to other courses that more closely met their achievements and therefore be turned down by their original first preference? For example, at the time I left school, there was really only one course in the UK I wanted to do – even despite the Oxbridge mentality that drove my school. (Let me think.. Cambridge or Manchester. That’s a toughy.) My UCCA form essentially had four other entries with a variety of grade requirements – so I could be sure that I got a place somewhere. But my mind was set on my first choice, UMIST. When the results came out, whilst my actual grades were somewhat lower than was predicted, I did easily pass the points requirement for the course. Supposing that I had met my predicted grades? Would I have been required to look elsewhere so as to allow other students into UMIST who more closely met the entrance requirements? Furthermore, what happens to students that want to defer a year? Do they then have to apply a year later? What happens in the interim if the entrance requirements have changed?

Alternatively, supposing there’s a bunch of people applying for a course. Some of these exceed the entrance requirements, others only meet the requirements. It stands to reason that those who exceed the requirements should be admitted. They’re arguably better qualified. Indeed there might be many who meet the entrance requirements, yet get rejected because of oversubscription. At least in the current system, if you’re rejected at the time of original application you can look elsewhere, which gives you more time. One way around this maybe is the proposed introduction of national SATS-type test which provides a further discriminant. But then, how does a university make decisions based on this new additional information? And indeed, what’s changed as a result of this new system? All it does is delay the inevitable, requiring all students to panic about finding a place, rather than just those who didn’t meet their predictions.

As part of these proposals the author says that universities might prefer students who would add to diversity of the student body, due to “compelling educational” benefits. So we have positive discrimination for applicants of similar ability but from different social or economic backgrounds. That sounds fine, but what’s wrong with taking in applicants based on the order in which they applied? Likewise what happens to the students who are discriminated against?