Month: March 2009

I’m thinking about two things right now:

• How do I focus on finishing the report I’m writing?
• How do I get a client to focus of the issue we are trying to address, while showing empathy and avoiding trying to dominate the conversation? (they keep on rambling off in other directions).

Must go and do that &*()ed report!

A little while ago I wrote about “Minor Miracles“. I followed up with a little more research in the same place and found this from the clergyman I’m interested in:

THE Rev. Joseph Nettleton recently addressed a meeting of scholars on missions in Fiji, and described one of the chiefs who had seventy or eighty wives. The chairman catechised the children, and asked how many wives a man ought to have. ” One, sir,” was the ready answer. ” Now,” said he, ” I always teaoh youto give a Scripture reason for all your answers. Can you give me any text to show that a manought only to have one wife?” There was a long pause, and a little boy stretched out his hand. ” Well, my boy, I thought some one could give a passage of Scripture. What is it !””Please, sir, ‘ No man can serve two masters.’ ”

(The Brisbane Courier, Saturday 23 March 1878, p3)

Now I wouldn’t call that the funniest thing I’ve ever read (or even heard from the pulpit), but there is something touching about reading something like that which is over 130 years old.

By the way, because of an accident in the way the text has been subdivided, the story about Nettleton is attached at the bottom of another unrelated piece called “Down a silver mine”! (the other article is interesting, but nothing to do with my project)

I have an interesting hypnotherapy commission. The client (can hardly call them “patient” in this context) is a creative person who would like to be more successful at bringing the things he conceives to a successful conclusion. I think you might say that he wants to reinforce the “completer finisher” aspect of his personality. This should be an interesting challenge. In particular defining the “goal” in useful terms may be difficult.

Here’s an interesting little challenge I’ve been presented with:

• Imagine someone has found they have two computer systems which do very similar things (how they got into that situation is too long a story to relate here)
• They would like to rationalise this into one system (for the obvious economic reasons)
• Let’s say they assume that they want to keep “System B”, because it seems to have more function
• However they want to understand what they might lose (or have to redevelop) by moving from “System A” to “System B”.
• Neither “System A” nor “System B” have formally documented requirements, but both have long lists of Features (should that be “Feechurs”?)
• Of course, because the systems were created independently, the terminology they use is different.
• And of course the assessment has to be done quickly!

The outline of the method I’ve come up with is:

• Develop a simple model that can be used to describe both systems
• Use the components of the model the classify the high-level features of “System A” (the system we expect to remove)
• Ask the question “why do we have this feature?” this gives us a “Reason or Purpose” (which becomes a proxy Requirement). System1-Feature –> Reason-or-Purpose
• For the Reason-or-Purpose, ask the question “what feature in System 2 addresses this need?”
• This should identify the equivalent features, and any gaps (efficiently?), providing the list of Features is reasonably complete
• Which will then identify whether the move is a good idea and what changes are needed.

It’s still going to be an interesting problem.

My current situation is “betwixt and between”. One task has come to an end a little sooner than anyone involved expected (so I’m looking for other opportunities). Another project is coming to a close. I’m not directly involved, but I’ve been asked to remain available, just in case they want me for something. This is a minor problem, because it means that I should (and will) avoid driving anywhere.
While I’ve been waiting I’ve re-typed and edited a couple of hypnotherapy scripts. The process was good for me because I surprised myself by remembering substantial parts without reading them (the good old unconscious mind doing its stuff). It was also interesting to review the structure of the scripts and notice how the suggestions they convey are built up, repeated and presented in different ways. One demonstrated some interesting use of; past, present and future which I had not noticed before.
And now, having had a brief rest and looked out of the window for a few minutes, I’m going to get on with something else.