A reader writes

Just got this interesting email. My reply follows.

Dominic,
I’m sorry if this email is, in any way (from the subject down to the signature) offensive, bothering, time wasting or anything like that to you. The sole purpose of this email is to better understand some things about your kind of career/profession, which is also mine. Furthermore, I’m not asking for anything besides information — and from your site I infer that you like to share your thoughts, so…
First, let me introduce myself. I’m a consultant working for a multi-national company. My specialty is System Architecture, and while the title is vague, what I actually do is design systems through the use of UML diagrams, a lot of documenting, etc. Usually I spend even more time implementing stuff, from C/C++ to bash shells to C# to COBOL even. I’m very fond of technology, and I chose my career when I was very young — about 10 years old. Back then my desire was to work with videogames (like most children with such love for gadgets and computers, I guess) but since I live in Brazil, I was forced to abandon that path some years ago.
I stumbled upon your website when looking for the maximum theoretical limit for the length of an email address. I needed that piece of information to define an entity in my database, and I wanted a number that was right from theory. When reading the article on the site, however, something struck me as odd. Your profile, on the left portion of the page, read “IT director”. But I was reading a purely technical article! That’s incredible. Here, both at my company and, as far as I can tell, my country, techies doesn’t go too far up companies hierarchies. So I decided that you were not, in fact, what I call “techie”. You are probably more, a guy with both systems expertise and managing skills. Still, such a profile doesn’t make much sense to me.
In my company, after as little as 5 years, you can get a managing position. And when that happens, it’s no longer expected that the worker learns how to implement specific things. In fact, the only thing people seem to be able to do afterwards is learn what a particular technology is capable of. For example, managers here know about SOA, about .Net, about ESBs, about Clouds. They know what they are and how they can help business. However, they don’t know how those stuff works. You, however, seems to know deeply at least about PHP, a good deal about REGEXes, etc. These skills, if not used, are forgotten, so I’m guessing you have a tight connection with technology. I’m sure you don’t look at source codes or solve complex math problems for your analysts, but I think you get in touch with them and probably study deep technology during breaks.
I assumed a lot of stuff up there but, if I’m right about most of it, my question is, how do you do it? How do you balance being a good Technologist with being a manager? Is there some kind of synergy between them? Does your bosses took your tech skills into knowledge as you progressed through your career? Or maybe I’m completly wrong and you don’t manage people, being just the big fish when it comes to technology (highly improbable, but still…)…?
I’m know that, from what I’ve written there’s a good chance that you take me for a fool. These questions have been storming my mind for some months now, and I’ve always wanted to ask someone with more time in the market than myself…
Thanks a lot for reading,
X
Dear X,
I was lucky enough to work in an IT department that valued technical expertise very highly. Even though I ended up as a fairly typical manager (death by PowerPoint) I was still in a community that respected technical skills, especially when they were married to communication skills that did not exclude non-technical people.
Unfortunately all good things come to an end and I am now working solo as a consultant in the Financial Service industry (I will update my web page soon). This work is somewhat stochastic and in my spare time I can indulge my technical skills (not as much as I’d like to though).
I don’t see any reason why you can’t be both a manager and a technician. But to succeed in the competitive world of corporate management you need a certain set of skills (sharp elbows and political nous). It’s a rare person who has both these skills and deep technical skills. This might be because deep technical skills used to come with poor personal hygiene and an introspective personality – I don’t know why, I’m not a psychologist.
Increasingly, technical skills are respected in the real world outside IT. I believe this will lead to “normal” people getting interested in technology (it’s already happening). You will see more managers (and company directors) with a technical background in the future.
Corporations value management skills more highly than technical skills. If you are in a management position then any technical activity is likely to be regarded as a waste of your valuable time. I agree with you this is wrong. I think it’s because today’s managers have no technical background and are suspicious of those who do. Thus, this will also change as more managers with technical skills are promoted.
Keep going with your technical activities. You are clearly a good communicator, so there’s no reason why you shouldn’t do both.
Just some random thoughts,
Regards,
Dominic

World’s best all-rounders

The traditional dilemma with a cricket team is how to get a guinea’s worth of value from a £1 budget. Ideally you’d want seven batsmen and five bowlers. That’s twelve players in an 11-a-side sport. The extra shilling usually comes from a talented individual who can contribute with both bat and ball.

The qualities this special player needs are to score as many runs as a specialist middle-order batsman and also to bowl as effectively as the other four members of the bowling unit. Anything short of this and you have not an all-rounder but an nearly-rounder. A squarer peg for the all-rounder hole.

Who are the players who have filled this role best in test match history? Names like Garry Sobers, Imran Khan, Ian Botham and Keith Miller spring to mind. But how to determine their effectiveness in filling that pivotal role?

Cricinfo’s statistics can give us the raw data. I now have a spreadsheet with all 2574 test match players and their raw figures. How can I use this data to identify the best all-rounders?

Out of 2574 players, 82 never batted long enough to get dismissed and 1053 never took a wicket. This includes 26 players who did neither in their test match career. No wickets and no completed innings: no hopers? Well Stuart Law is one of them so you decide.  Nevertheless, I think we can rule them out as all-rounders straight away. That leaves us with 1466 players who have taken a test match wicket and have a test batting average. Who were the best?

Let’s look at batting averages and bowling averages. You’d expect a test match lower-middle-order batsman to be averaging over 30. You’d also expect them to be taking wickets at less than 35 runs apiece. This gives us 120 all-rounders by this very broad and somewhat arbitrary definition. However the list includes players like Mark Boucher who played as a wicketkeeper-batsman but once took a wicket as an eighth-change bowler against the West Indies as a dull test match petered out into a draw.

So we need some qualifying numbers of runs and wickets to weed out these statistical anomalies. Again I will introduce an arbitrary cut-off of 500 runs and 50 wickets. This leaves us with 29 players who might be selected on the basis of either their batting or bowling alone.

We need a way of ranking these players as all-rounders. We can assess their contribution with the bat and ball by seeing by how much they exceed the qualifying criteria. In other words, how much higher is their batting average than 30. How much lower is their bowling average than 35? But there’s another factor – catching. Catches, as we all know, win matches. As your all-rounder you want a proper batsman, a proper bowler and a fielder who can pluck swallows from the sky.

By the magic of arbitrariness I have assigned an x-factor to each all-rounder. It’s simply a multiplier of their batting average in excess of 30, their bowling average below 35 and their number of catches per 100 matches. And the result:

Player Matches Runs Bat Av Wkts Bowl Av Ct X-factor
GS Sobers (WI) 93 8032 57.78 235 34.03 109 3370
JH Kallis (ICC/SA) 134 10587 54.85 258 31.33 150 3193
AW Greig (Eng) 58 3599 40.43 141 32.2 87 1985
JM Gregory (Aus) 24 1146 36.96 85 31.15 37 1667
TL Goddard (SA) 41 2516 34.46 123 26.22 48 1550
GA Faulkner (SA) 25 1754 40.79 82 26.58 20 1537
BM McMillan (SA) 38 1968 39.36 75 33.82 49 1359
KR Miller (Aus) 55 2958 36.97 170 22.97 38 1313
IT Botham (Eng) 102 5200 33.54 383 28.4 120 1193
Mushtaq Mohammad (Pak) 57 3643 39.17 79 29.22 42 1102
Asif Iqbal (Pak) 58 3575 38.85 53 28.33 36 963
SM Pollock (SA) 108 3781 32.31 421 23.11 72 947
C Kelleway (Aus) 26 1422 37.42 52 32.36 24 929
WW Armstrong (Aus) 50 2863 38.68 87 33.59 44 888
W Rhodes (Eng) 58 2325 30.19 127 26.96 60 851
ER Dexter (Eng) 62 4502 47.89 66 34.93 29 840
ST Jayasuriya (SL) 110 6973 40.07 98 34.34 78 761
FE Woolley (Eng) 64 3283 36.07 83 33.91 64 716
MA Noble (Aus) 42 1997 30.25 121 25 26 635
Imran Khan (Pak) 88 3807 37.69 362 22.81 28 633
GE Gomez (WI) 29 1243 30.31 58 27.41 18 490
JDP Oram (NZ) 33 1780 36.32 60 33.05 15 376
JR Reid (NZ) 58 3428 33.28 85 33.35 43 374
N Kapil Dev (India) 131 5248 31.05 434 29.64 64 313
MH Mankad (India) 44 2109 31.47 162 32.32 33 311
A Flintoff (Eng/ICC) 79 3845 31.77 226 32.78 52 263
CL Cairns (NZ) 62 3320 33.53 218 29.4 14 206
DL Vettori (ICC/NZ) 97 3779 30.72 313 33.61 55 120
IK Pathan (India) 29 1105 31.57 100 32.26 8 119

Fascinating.

Garry Sobers is top, as you might expect. But the evil Jacques Kallis joins him in a top two who are miles ahead of the pack. More than 1000 x-factor points separate them from their nearest rival.

But this list looks good. It’s got all the usual suspects. Andrew Flintoff sneaks in although history will probably be less kind to him than our memories suggest. History’s judgement on Flintoff: a bit better than Daniel Vettori (but not as good a captain).

Notable absences: Richard Hadlee and Trevor Bailey averaged under 30 with the bat. Steve Waugh and Lance Klusener over 35 with the ball. Ravi Shastri averaged over 40 with the ball.

Graeme Swann will join the list when he has another 37 test runs (batting average 35.61, bowling average 29.65). Stuart Broad needs to get his batting average of 28.71 up a bit.

Note to self

No really. Move along there’s nothing to see here.

1. Herb Simon

2. Complex adaptive systems (esp. Nearly Decomposable systems)

3. Netflix mission statement

There’s clearly some academic work supporting the “we hold these truths to be self-evident” tone of the Netflix mission statement slides. Do some reading. Do some writing. This stuff matters.

NB Remember to credit Sean for the Prezi.

Not PBH

If I was writing my first book and there was a well-known fiction author[1] with the same name as me, I might consider changing my pen name.

If I was writing a sports book and there was a existing sports author[2] with the same name as me I would urgently consider changing my pen name.

If I was was writing a book about cricket and I had the same name as a famous cricketer[3], I might consider the game was up and I had better start thinking of pseudonyms right away.

Because what chance is there of finding the new Peter May on Google?

[1] Peter May

[2] Peter May

[3] PBH May

Virgin Trains inexcusable ticket sales policy

I was booking some train tickets for our family Christmas peregrinations just now. Most of the journeys were on Virgin Trains routes so I was on their website. Our last leg was from Leamington Spa to London on Friday 18th December mid-afternoon. This is what the Virgin Trains website offered me:
Virgin Trains ticket prices

Ticket prices from Virgin Trains website for Leamington Spa - London Marylebone

Ticket prices range from £37.90 to £103.50. The shortest jurney time is 1 hour 53 minutes. All the journeys offered to me involve a change of trains at Banbury.

Now I know this route. I did this exact journey twice a day for 10 years. It doesn’t take two hours and you don’t need to change trains. Have a look at what the Chiltern Railways website offered me for the exact same journey on the exact same day:

Chiltern Railways ticket options

Ticket prices for direct trains with Chiltern Railways

I can get a ticket for £5 or £10. The journey is direct and it takes just over 90 mins.

Why is Virgin Trains trying to get me to buy a more expensive ticket for a slower train? Could it be because the Leamington Spa – Banbury leg of their suggested route is on a Virgin Cross-Country service?

Surely not.

I’m surprised this is legal. If in fact it is.

Monty Panesar, Hove to

So let’s say what we know about Monty Panesar so far:

  1. Anybody who’s seen him bowl can see that he’s a marvellously natural bowler. He has a gift for controlling his length and enough of an innate variation in pace to deceive world-class batsmen. He doesn’t turn it much, but half a bat’s width is all you need.
  2. He has taken 126 wickets in 39 Test Matches. That’s  very good. He’s a very good bowler. Ashley Giles, until then England’s main spinner, retired at the young age of 33 within 9 months of Panesar’s debut. The writing was clearly on the wall.
  3. In 2008 England appointed Mushtaq Ahmed as spin bowling coach, to “mentor our leading spin bowlers“.
  4. Since then, Panesar’s career has gone into a steep decline. He lost his England place to Graeme Swann and at the end of the 2009 season Northamptonshire admitted he was a luxury they could no longer afford having taken only 18 first class wickets in the season.

So what’s gone wrong with this gifted cricketer? I’m afraid the clue may be No.3 above.

Panesar’s limiting factor is his lack of guile. His naivety reveals itself in his self-conscious and clumsy fielding and batting. Only with a ball in his hand does he become a creature of grace and beauty. He doesn’t have the imagination to plot the downfall of a batsman like a chess game, he lets the batsman do this himself. And most batsmen will ultimately think themselves out if they can’t score runs and they don’t know why. So his limiting factor is also one of his unique strengths.

Panesar’s lack of ego is a contributing element to this. If he gets hit for a boundary it is not revenge that is uppermost in his mind but a desire to correct the minor fault that caused the lapse. To his credit, his response is not to bowl a flat defensive ball nor a cunning trick delivery but to bowl the same ball again with his natural minor variations. This is what gets good batsmen out.

What he needs is help in understanding this. Help to retain the natural gifts over time and help to see why they are his main weapons.

What do we give him? Mushtaq Ahmed. The other sort of spinner.

Mushy is cunning. He has a wide variety of deliveries, each more perfidious than the last. He is clever and aggressive. He is so not what Monty needs. And now he will have his advice not just with England but with Sussex, Panesar’s new county and Mushtaq’s old one. Here’s the Sussex manager Mark Robinson:

We have got Mushtaq working with us a little bit, who is anything but a technical coach, to preach the love of the game and use of the imagination

And Monty loves him:

I spoke to Mushy who still thinks of Sussex as his county and he was keen to have me at Hove. He said that there was a real family feel to the club and Mike Yardy, who I have toured with, was also very persuasive.

There’s your answer. Monty needs technical help in retaining and exploiting his natural gifts. The last thing he needs is somebody to give him an imagination. Mushy’s input will be entirely towards this destructive goal and not at all with the technical thing.

I see no way back for Monty at this point.

Managing by metric

Somebody sent me a link to a talk by Bill Gates on improving education in schools by monitoring their performance. Here is the link: Bill Gates: Better data mean better schools

“The way I see forward is to use measurement to drive quality,” Gates said.

Really? Most teachers seem to think we over-measure in this country, and that measurement leads to management-by-metric which leads to gaming the system. In other words the school is run so as to provide the best metrics at least cost regardless of the actual needs of the children.

I recently got a consultant appointment at an NHS hospital, but because there wasn’t a slot available in the next four weeks they said they’d call back with an appointment in a few days. This they did and everything is fine. But of course what happened behind the scenes is that they wouldn’t book my appointment in their official system until there was a slot available within four weeks. This allows them to keep their official waiting lists down to four weeks although my appointment was in fact nearly two months after I first called.

They must keep a separate unofficial waiting list somewhere and only transfer patients when the opportunity arises. Twice the work for them and twice the possibility of fuck-ups. And why? Somebody chose a gameable metric to manage them by.

This is OK when it’s me with a minor ailment but I don’t want this sort of culture in my children’s schools.

ps Malcolm has talked about this too: All in the game yo, all in the game

Cycling and infertility

“According to a new study” is a phrase that should set your bullshit alarm ringing. Journalists don’t in general understand either the methodology or conclusions of published studies and instead seize on the most lurid parts of the accompanying press release. So, with that in mind, here we go:

According to a new study, cycling a lot can affect your fertility if you are a man. The latest study to suggest this is reported quite well here: Elite cyclists ‘risk infertility’.

The conclusions are sensible: “the average man cycling to work would be unlikely to suffer fertility problems because of their time in the saddle.” and “40 years ago cycling was much more common but there is no evidence men then were less fertile”. So there’s nothing to worry about, right?

Perhaps. Perhaps not. My first son was conceived with the aid of a lot of expensive medical help (IVF to be precise), the reason: poor sperm motility and morphology. My second son was conceived the regular way. The only difference between the two pregnancies was that I’d stopped cycling after the first sperm tests.

My anecdotal evidence has no scientific weight at all but I would suggest the following things may be true:

  1. 40 years ago saddles were a lot different to now. Lightweight racing saddles give you little room for manoeuvre (men, you know what I mean). A poor posture can lead to numbness and discomfort that lasts most of the day as I have found myself. If this is happening to you then consider the other long-term effects that might also be happening. Sort out your posture.
  2. A short ride over bad roads (e.g. central London) might inflict damage equivalent to many more miles over a triathlon course. I believe that a modest amount of inner-city commuting might be the equivalent of 186 miles a week of triathlon training.
  3. If your fertility is borderline anyway then it might take relatively little additional damage to make it noticeably more difficult to conceive.

The conclusions of the BBC article are sensible but do consider the personal risks to you rather than the general statistical results.

Also: none of the studies I’ve seen have ever investigated the effects of stopping cycling. From my own experience this had a positive effect on my fertility, but that’s not science. Please could somebody do a follow-up and investigate this aspect too?

Annoying journalistic habit note

How come the study talks about training amounts above and below 186 miles? Isn’t this a rather arbitrary figure to use for the study?

Yes, but of course the study was from a more enlightened country that uses OSI units for measuring distance. 186 miles is 300 kikometres. So the study drew the perfectly acceptable conclusion that around 300 kilometres a week was an amount that might contribute to infertility.

Converting this to exactly 186 miles is ridiculous for two reasons:

  1. The original figure is stated to one significant figure. The equivalent imperial distance would be, say, 200 miles a week.
  2. I am relatively aged, and I remember being taught metric units at school. Why oh why do we have to assume that people only understand our grandparents’ units?

Come on, journalists of Britain, most of us are not geriatric or imbeciles.

Keynesian News

The rehabilitation of Keynesian economics that I mentioned here seems to be continuing. The fifth of my publicly-funded infrastructure projects now seems to be falling into place: Olympic Village to be fully funded by taxpayers. Just the Olympic Village for now, but all the developers are in poor financial shape and nobody will be surprised when the government steps in to bail out other areas of the project.

One of the other projects I mentioned was a high-speed rail link to the Midlands and beyond. Interestingly, Network Rail have announced today that they would like to electrify the existing Midland Main Line and finance it themselves. I don’t know what effect this will have on the business case for a new high-speed line – maybe the upgraded existing line will do the job?

Channel hopping

I’ve decided to separate my thoughts on the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008 to another channel: This is not a riot

I think it’s OK to mix up a bit of cricket whimsy in with more technical posts about software development and social media, but religion and politics should probably be somewhere else.

For the record, I believe that the late decision to add the words “a constable” to Section 76 of the Act was a serious error. Most police officers are fair, honest and responsible. A very small minority sometimes aren’t. It is essential that members of the public can produce evidence of police misconduct on the rare occasions when it happens. The Act gives the power to any constable to prevent documentation of his actions and that is wrong.

That’s all I have to say on the subject in this place.

Quick links: This is not a riot | Counter-Terrorism Act 2008

Next Page »


Introduction

This is not a riot

Share me

Add to Technorati Favorites

Dominic's photographs

londonlions

450px-Trafalgar_square_lion

Gilbert

Grays Marina

More Photos

RSS My stubbornly unread reading list

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.