March 26, 2007

"THE PROBLEM WITH BEING AHEAD OF YOUR TIME"

Not too long ago Panasonic's corporate slogan was, "Just slightly ahead of our time." It was catchy and it inferred their products were on the cutting edge of the industry. There was only one problem with this, as Panasonic found out, people feel uncomfortable using products ahead of their time. Consequently, their slogan was changed to, "Ideas for Life." But this essay is not so much about slogans as it is about marketing products ahead of their time. The marketing graveyard is full of fine examples of products that were introduced and considered ahead of their time; for example:

• Sony's Betamax video recorder was introduced in the mid-1970's and was well regarded as a superior and quality product over its competition. The VHS format ultimately unseated the Betamax though, not because of superior quality but primarily due to cheaper costs. In less than ten years Betamax was gone.

• Xerox's Star computer was introduced in 1981. It was also a quality product that was ahead of its time, featuring a Graphical User Interface (GUI) that was copied by Apple, Microsoft, and just about everyone else.

• The GRiD Compass 1101 computer was released in 1982 and is the first true laptop as we understand it today, with a sleek design that included a screen that closed on top of the keyboard, a built-in modem, bubble memory, and it ran on batteries. But the product wasn't cheap and sold for upwards to $10,000 making it prohibitive to purchase for the average business person. Even worse, it didn't support the IBM PC architecture making it incompatible with popular programs of the day.

• IBM has also had its fair share of products that were ahead of its time and met premature deaths; including their Token Ring LAN which was ultimately supplanted by Ethernet. IBM's PS/2 line of computers was introduced in 1987 as a means to recapture the PC market. The PS/2 included a proprietary "Microchannel Architecture" which, although advanced and sophisticated, led to its demise from competitive "open" offerings. And finally, we have IBM's OS/2 operating system which was also introduced in the late 1980's and was the first 32-bit operating system for the PC platform. OS/2 was miles ahead of everything else (and arguably still is). Nonetheless, its strengths became its weaknesses as it was deemed too sophisticated for the average user; this coupled with aggressive marketing by Microsoft and incompetent marketing by IBM led to its doom.

LESSONS LEARNED

What can be learned from these experiences? Three things:

1. A product doesn't have to be superior in order to dominate a market; all that is required is just a little marketing hustle. You have to remember, the consumer believes all products of the same ilk are essentially the same. If it comes down to technologically superior features or cost, the consumer will always take the cheaper product. Advanced features are nice, but the consumer must believe they are warranted and add value to their lives.

2. For broad market acceptance, the product must be built on open standards. This was the hard lesson IBM learned in building its products.

Consumers prefer to be spoon-fed changes with teaspoons. It takes real visionaries to adopt new ideas and, unfortunately, they are few and far between. The consumer wants simple solutions they can easily assimilate. Remember, most people are afraid of major changes of any kind.

Let's also recognize that being first in your field is not easy in that you are ultimately inventing and cultivating your own market place. Inevitably you will make marketing mistakes along the way which copycat competitors will leap on. Further, they will offer inferior products at a greatly reduced price. We have seen this time and again in the I.T. industry alone.

The only true benefit of being the first in your field is that you have the market to yourself, at least for a while. During this period of time you should rake in as much money as possible, refine your product, and expand the market as much as possible. And if you're making money, you can be sure competitors won't be far behind.

"PRIDE"

Our company has learned these lessons the hard way. The "PRIDE" Methodologies for IRM were first introduced in 1971, beginning with our Information Systems Engineering Methodology (ISEM). And by doing so, MBA created the methodology market. I could go on and on as to all of the concepts and innovations we introduced, e.g., first commercial methodology, first to take an engineering/manufacturing approach, first data dictionary, etc., but suffice it to say people said we were years ahead of our time.

The competition wasn't far behind either, as other commercial methodologies were introduced as well as structured programming techniques and data dictionary systems. I could easily argue how "PRIDE" was superior in so many ways, but as I mentioned before, consumers are not really interested. Instead, they selected cheaper alternatives which were implemented badly. Regardless, they thought they had purchased a bargain.

Based on legal advice, we originally sold "PRIDE" as a proprietary product requiring the use of a nondisclosure agreement to be made privy to its contents. This was both good and bad. It was good in the sense it allowed us to protect the product from misappropriation (which was tested in a court of law), but it was bad in the sense we were handcuffed from disseminating information on how it worked. While MBA was restrained from public disclosure our competition propagated their products through the media. So much so, that "PRIDE" faded from public view.

As the first in the industry, we made our money early on and invested a lot of it back into the product in the form of research and development. Consequently, "PRIDE" evolved into a much larger product that now tackles issues such as Enterprise Engineering and Data Base Engineering. Frankly, it became more robust than the average person could assimilate which is one reason why, in 2004, we finally put it in the public domain through the Internet.

As I have written in the past, the market has changed considerably over the last 36 years since "PRIDE" was introduced. The people have changed, the technology has changed, but the problems haven't, e.g.; the backlog of user information requirements has gotten longer, not shorter; systems still lack integration; companies are plagued by redundant information resources; lack of documentation; fire fighting is still the common mode of operating; projects come in late and over budget, etc.

Recently, I was giving a "PRIDE" presentation to a startup company with some rather young analysts and programmers who are not as well versed in the history of the industry as I am. All they knew was basically what their college professors and instructors had taught them. I didn't do anything fancy, I just explained the basic "PRIDE" concepts such as Information Driven Design, Standard System Structure, Layered Documentation, the System/Data Relationship, IRM, etc. I kept it simple and to the point and this perplexed one of the attendees who approached me after the session and said, "I have been attending a lot of seminars and conferences lately on these subjects. I learned more in the last three hours than from all of the sessions I attended over the last five months. Where have you been?"

Naturally, I was flattered by his comments but explained how the industry lost its way over the years and is only now trying to reinvent systems theory. I told him there was really nothing new or magical in developing systems, so long as you demand precise terminology and clarity of concepts. I said, "Don't look for cryptic solutions, there is no panacea. The best solutions are the simple solutions."

As I traveled home I thought about the comments made by the class and considered where "PRIDE" stood in relation to the rest of the industry we created. By staying the course "PRIDE" may not be the best known methodology out there, but it is still light years ahead of the industry. Such is the price of being ahead of your time.

CONCLUSION

As mentioned, "PRIDE" has evolved into a substantial body of work which is one reason why we went public with it. By itself, there is enough material to make a full college curriculum out of it. And hopefully this will happen.

You can find "PRIDE" Methodologies for IRM on the Internet at:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/mba/pride/

But the other reason we put "PRIDE" in the public domain was to establish an open standard thereby overcoming one of the deficiencies I mentioned earlier.

"PRIDE" is still way ahead of itself. It will probably always be so. But as we celebrate our 36th year of business I have come to realize that "PRIDE" is so old, that it is new to those people who were born after it was introduced. As Milt liked to say, "The original and still the best."

OUR BRYCE'S LAW OF THE WEEK therefore is... "Consumers prefer to be spoon-fed changes with teaspoons."

"PRIDE" METHODOLOGIES FOR IRM

Friends, the "PRIDE" Methodologies for Information Resource Management (IRM) is a common sense solution for Enterprise Engineering, Systems Engineering, Data Base Engineering, and Project Management. The methodologies include defined work breakdown structures, deliverables, and review points that promote quality and the production of industrial-strength information systems. Building information resources is a science, not an art form. Our methodologies clearly explain the concepts that govern them, which remarkably, is derived from engineering/manufacturing practices. Now you can get these acclaimed methodologies for free at our corporate web site at: http://www.phmainstreet.com/mba/pride/

MY "PET PEEVE OF THE WEEK" IS "OUR FASCINATION WITH CELEBRITIES"

For the last few weeks the country has been distracted by Anna Nicole Smith's death. I guess its been kind of slow around the news desks. Although I take no joy in her passing, I am bewildered by the media attention to someone who did little more than take off her clothes. I think Joan Rivers would call her a "tramp."

If you go to the news stands, you are bombarded by media trash talking about the dating, marriage, and divorce habits of the rich and famous, particularly Hollywood stars. I guess I'm not particularly interested in who is dating who; nor am I interested in what movie stars are adopting babies in some Godforesaken country. I guess we don't have enough orphans in this country. No, I'm more interested in inflation, the economy, the layoffs in Detroit, and the occupation of Iraq, but I don't think these are very newsworthy stories anymore.

I find it somewhat amusing how the Hollywood stars like to portray themselves as artists, even though their pictures often flop at the box office. In the old days, actors like John Wayne, Humphrey Bogart, Clark Gable, Jimmy Stewart, and Katherine Hepburn said they were making "pictures", not works of art. They just saw it as their job in life, to entertain the public. But today, the actors and actresses seem to think they are making fine art. To me, art is something that Pablo Picasso, Dali, and Leonardo da Vinci made, not what Brad Pitt, Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Cruise, or Tom Hanks makes. Sure, they are capable actors, but definitely not artists. If their movies are art, then so are the funny papers.

To my way of thinking, there are those that make a difference in the world, be it in the workplace, performing research, inventing new ideas, or discovering unchartered waters or space; and then there are those who are suppose to entertain us on our off hours. In the Middle Ages, Kings would appoint "fools" to their court for entertainment. They were only paid a modest wage as their work was amusing, but certainly not more so than the rest of the court. But now the "fools" reign over the kingdom, as opposed to the other way around.

I'm not sure when we elevated the stature of celebrities; but it most likely was in the 20th century as the media grew and matured. Think I'm wrong? Consider this: which gets more attention these days; the Oscar presentations or the Nobel Peace prizes? Hmm, I think we have another instance of the tail wagging the dog.

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

eBOOK: THE BRYCE IS RIGHT!

Folks, be sure to check out our eBook entitled, "The Bryce is Right! Empowering Managers in today's Corporate Culture." This is a frank and candid description of the state of the art in management and includes essays on the problems in management today, along with some pragmatic advice on how to deal with them. Basically, this is a condensed course in management. As such, it is suited for managers, either those aspiring to become a manager or for those who need a refresher course. It will also be of interest to young people entering the work force, and is excellent for college curriculums.

Charles Cole of Lyndhurst, OH, said it is a "Very interesting book. Good work! It reminds me of some of the early works I read by W. Edwards Deming. Too bad the American corporate gurus of his day didn't pay him heed."

And Wolf Hager of Fort Myers, FL, says it is "A very impressive publication which requires careful reading and reminds me somewhat of Peter Drucker."

The price is just $20 plus tax. For more information on our book or to order on-line, see:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/mba/bryce1.htm

We have also produced a new one-day training program of the same name. For more information on both the eBook and course, please visit our web site at:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/mba/bryce1.htm

While there, look for our MS PowerPoint presentation describing both the book and the training program.

AND FINALLY...

I received an e-mail from Jon Harris in New York who wrote me regarding last week's Pet Peeve, "Software Documentation."

Jon writes:

"I know exactly what you mean by lousy documentation. Getting our people to write understandable documentation seems to be an impossibility."

Thanks Jon for your note,

I agree. Most of today's software documentation is written after the program is produced which I think is quite strange. To me, documentation should be a natural byproduct of the development effort. In fact, the final documentation should be ready before the program is complete. But to do so, you have to be structured and disciplined first. I see documentation as a working tool, just as blueprints are used in architecture and engineering. But today's software developers don't think this way. They would rather hack away at the code as opposed to design it in any particular manner. For example, if you listen to the Agile Methodology people, documentation is the last thing they are concerned with; most think it is a complete waste of time. Consequently, they have problems not only in producing useful documentation for the end-user, but also have problems in maintaining and updating their products. As a result, they tend to rewrite their software more than is necessary. Strange. Very strange.

Again, thanks for your e-mail. Keep those cards and letters coming.

MBA is an international management consulting firm specializing in Information Resource Management. We offer training, consulting, and writing services in the areas of Enterprise Engineering, Systems Engineering, Data Base Engineering, Project Management, Methodologies and Repositories. For information, call us at 727/786-4567. For a complete listing of my essays, see the "PRIDE" Special Subject Bulletins section of our corporate web site.

Our corporate web page is at:

http://phmainstreet.com/mba/

Management Visions is a presentation of M. Bryce & Associates, a division of M&JB Investment Company of Palm Harbor, Florida, USA. The program is produced on a weekly basis and updated on Sundays. It is available in versions for RealPlayer, Microsoft Media Player, and MP3 suitable for Podcasting. See our web site for details. You'll find our broadcast listed in several Podcast and Internet Search engines, as well as Apples' iTunes.

If you have any questions or would like to be placed on our e-mailing list to receive notification of future broadcasts, please e-mail it to timb001@phmainstreet.com

For a copy of past broadcasts, please contact me directly.

We accept MP3 files with your voice for possible inclusion in the broadcast.

There is no charge for adding a link to "Management Visions" on your web page, for details and HTML code, see the "Management Visions" web site.

Management Visions accepts advertising. For rates, please contact yours truly directly.

Copyright © 2007 by M&JB Investment Company of Palm Harbor, Florida, USA. All rights reserved. "PRIDE" is the registered trademark of M&JB Investment Company.

This is Tim Bryce reporting.

Since 1971: "Software for the finest computer - the Mind."

END

March 19, 2007

"THE RATIO OF ANALYSTS TO PROGRAMMERS"

In terms of systems development, during the 1960's and early 1970's you were either a Systems Analyst or a Programmer. Period. At the time, there were substantially more analysts than programmers (at least a 2:1 ratio). This was due, in part, to the fact that computing was just coming into its own in the corporate world and there were still people around who could look at systems in its entirety. However, there was a screaming need for people to program computers and, as such, this became the boom years of programming. If you knew COBOL, Fortran, or PL/1 you could just about right your own ticket. Salaries were good, and you could intimidate your employer simply by what you knew (you had to commit something like murder to get fired). The emphasis on programming became so great that authors rushed out voluminous books to increase programmer productivity, hence the birth of the Structured Programming movement of the late 1970's, which was followed shortly thereafter by the CASE movement (Computer Aided Software Engineering).

While programming was growing in stature, Systems Analysis was in sharp decline. Trade groups such as the Association for Systems Management (ASM) saw their membership dwindle to nothing and were forced to close their doors. The last of the old Systems Analysts either retired or were put out to pasture by corporations in the 1980's. New job titles emerged, such as Software Engineer and Analyst/Programmer. This latter title is a bit of a misnomer as the emphasis was on programming and not systems analysis.

Although programming excelled, a noticeable void began to appear in terms of people who could see systems in its totality. Writing a good program is one thing, getting it to interface with other programs to form a whole system is something entirely different. By the turn of the century, the industry started to talk about such things as "Enterprise Architecture," "Business Processes," "Business Rules," "Business Analysis," etc. Further, new conferences, trade groups, and job titles began to emerge. Today, programmers are considered a dime a dozen and the stock of a true analyst is on the rise.

All of this is indicative of the industry trying to reinvent systems theory. In reality there is nothing new here as systems analysis is systems analysis. But as companies implement these concepts and job titles again, they are a bit uncertain as to where they fit in and their relationship to other Information Technology functions.

CHARACTERISTICS

A Systems Analyst goes by many names these days; e.g., Business Analyst, Enterprise Architect, Systems Engineer (my personal preference), etc. Nonetheless, we are talking about a person whose mission is to study the information requirements of a business and design a total system solution to satisfy them. Further, the analyst is responsible for specifying the software requirements and, as such, is considered the intermediary with the programming staff. The personal characteristics of the analyst are considerably different than the programmer. Whereas the programmer tends to be more introverted and focused on technology, the analyst tends to be more business oriented and extroverted. Analysts possess good communications skills (verbal and written) to effectively work with both the end-users and the programming staff. They know how to conduct an interview and make a presentation (salesmanship). In addition, they tend to look at the bigger picture as opposed to just a portion of it, and possess an entrepreneurial spirit.

The analyst understands the business problems of the end-user and is intimate with the operation of the user's department. In other words, the analyst can comfortably walk in the shoes of the end-user. If they are doing their job properly, analysts make excellent candidates to assume responsibility in the management hierarchy. But because analysts were in decline for so many years, this hasn't happened for quite some time. The last time I heard of a systems analyst graduating to a major management position was Dan Boone who was made President and COO of Armco Steel in the late 1970's.

If systems analysis is performed correctly, programmer productivity should improve as analysts should be providing good specifications for application assignments. In the absence of systems analysts, considerable time is lost by the programmer who has to second-guess what the end-user wants. Inevitably, this leads to rewriting software over and over again. Good data and processing specs, as provided by a systems analyst, will improve programmer productivity far better than any programming tool or technique. This means programmers are the beneficiaries of good systems analysis.

This brings up an interesting point, what should be the ratio of Systems Analysts to Programmers in a development organization? Frankly, I believe there should be twice as many analysts than programmers. By concentrating on the upfront work, programming is simplified.

Let me illustrate the point by using the following triangles representing the total amount of effort in a project (as an aside, I picked this up from my customers in Japan who share my opinion):

The triangle on the left represents the traditional approach whereby there is twice the number of programmers to systems analysts. Under this approach, considerably more time is spent producing software to satisfy poorly defined requirements. The Japanese point out the bottom of the triangle is actually bottomless as it means more time is needed to complete a project. Compare it to the triangle on the right where there are twice as many analysts to programmers. Under this scenario, more time is spent analyzing the problem, designing the system, and producing better programming specs. Consequently, the programmers do not have to second-guess what has to be performed and can go about their work more productively.

The problem though is that Systems Analysis is considered to be somewhat of a nebulous concept to management. Programming, on the other hand, is more tangible and easier for people to grasp; you are either writing code and producing a program or you are not. Therefore, the mindset in management is that you are not being productive unless you are coding, hence the inclination to shortcut systems analysis. This is a key reason why Systems Analysis collapsed in the 1980's. And this is why it is necessary to provide training so management appreciates the need for systems analysis. Frankly, I have found management can be very supportive if it is presented to them properly.

CONCLUSION

Whether you call them Systems Analysts, Business Analysts, Systems Engineers, or Enterprise Architects, it is very encouraging to see this vital function being reintroduced to companies. As far as I am concerned, it was inevitable. I guess companies finally figured out you cannot satisfy your systems problems simply by using better programming tools and techniques.

We are also beginning to see the resurgence of related trade groups to replace such groups as the Association for Systems Management (ASM), for example:

The International Institute of Business Analysis

The IIBA appears to be picking up where ASM left off, including certification. Whereas ASM developed and offered the Certified Systems Professional (CSP) certification years ago, IIBA wants to create something similar.

All of this is indicative of how the industry is trying to reinvent systems theory. Whereas such systems work was well known up until the 1980's it was forgotten over the last twenty years due to the emphasis on programming. Fortunately, companies have finally realized the importance of systems work and are trying to get their houses in order. I guess what goes around, comes around.

OUR BRYCE'S LAW OF THE WEEK therefore is... "Good specifications will improve programmer productivity far better than any programming tool or technique."

"PRIDE" METHODOLOGIES FOR IRM

Friends, the "PRIDE" Methodologies for Information Resource Management (IRM) is a common sense solution for Enterprise Engineering, Systems Engineering, Data Base Engineering, and Project Management. The methodologies include defined work breakdown structures, deliverables, and review points that promote quality and the production of industrial-strength information systems. Building information resources is a science, not an art form. Our methodologies clearly explain the concepts that govern them, which remarkably, is derived from engineering/manufacturing practices. Now you can get these acclaimed methodologies for free at our corporate web site at: http://www.phmainstreet.com/mba/pride/

MY "PET PEEVE OF THE WEEK" IS "SOFTWARE DOCUMENTATION"

I've been researching Internet shopping carts and gateways to merchant accounts lately and, believe me, there are a lot of them out there these days. Not long ago you heard me complain about the lack of standards in web page design, but now I want to address the horrible state of software documentation. Back in the 1960's and 1970's, when you purchased a software package, you were lucky to get any documentation with it, mostly just source code. But frankly, I don't think we're any better off today than we were 30 - 40 years ago.

The shopping cart I've been working with is one of the most popular products out there (I won't mention the name), and it has a lot of functionality from a programming point of view, but it is a pain in the ass in terms of being able to tailor it to our needs. Oh, the facilities exist to tailor it, but the documentation is severely lacking. Consequently, you have to spend a lot of time searching for answers and experimenting to get what you want. The vendor claims the screens of the product are very intuitive and easy to use. Well, for basic shopping, maybe they're right, but if you need to adapt it to suit your specific needs, it is one of the most cumbersome products I've ever seen.

First, understand this, just because you deliver a product with a PDF file doesn't mean you have fulfilled your obligations as a vendor. The documentation we received is unstructured and difficult to wade through, regardless if you know how to search through a PDF file. Search will only help you if there is something useful for you to find. For example, there is nothing in the software's screens or documentation to explain the various field entries in terms of what should be entered, default and valid entries, its physical limitations, and how the fields are used. No, you are left to figure this out for yourself. And, to me, this is the Number One cause for slow startups in the use of shopping carts.

I believe the people who write the documentation are the same people who programmed the product, which is not a good thing, since most programmers know nothing about how to effectively communicate with human beings, only with computers. Consequently, I believe merchants are only using a fraction of the shopping cart's capabilities.

You would think by now software vendors would have their act together in terms of producing decent documentation. Think again.

Such is my Pet Peeve of the Week.

eBOOK: THE BRYCE IS RIGHT!

Folks, be sure to check out our eBook entitled, "The Bryce is Right! Empowering Managers in today's Corporate Culture." This is a frank and candid description of the state of the art in management and includes essays on the problems in management today, along with some pragmatic advice on how to deal with them. Basically, this is a condensed course in management. As such, it is suited for managers, either those aspiring to become a manager or for those who need a refresher course. It will also be of interest to young people entering the work force, and is excellent for college curriculums.

Charles Cole of Lyndhurst, OH, said it is a "Very interesting book. Good work! It reminds me of some of the early works I read by W. Edwards Deming. Too bad the American corporate gurus of his day didn't pay him heed."

And Wolf Hager of Fort Myers, FL, says it is "A very impressive publication which requires careful reading and reminds me somewhat of Peter Drucker."

The price is just $20 plus tax. For more information on our book or to order on-line, see:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/mba/bryce1.htm

We have also produced a new one-day training program of the same name. For more information on both the eBook and course, please visit our web site at:

http://www.phmainstreet.com/mba/bryce1.htm

While there, look for our MS PowerPoint presentation describing both the book and the training program.

AND FINALLY...

I received an e-mail from Jeff Fabor in Cincinnati who wrote me regarding last week's essay, "Parkinson's Law in I.T."

Jeff writes:

"Your comments on Parkinson't Law makes a lot of sense, but is there anything we can do as a consumer?"

Thanks Jeff for your note,

Good question. We've seen technology grow in leaps and bounds just in this century alone. But perhaps it is changing too fast. Too often I have seen products delivered prematurely with a lot of bugs in it. Vendors would rather have the consumer shake out their product for them as opposed to thoroughly testing it themselves. This disturbs me greatly, which is why I no longer beta-test software anymore; nor am I in a mad rush to upgrade software. Vendors such as MS don't exactly have a good track record in terms of delivering quality products on their initial release. Consequently, I now take a "wait and see" attitude. Most people like to rush out and get the latest updates in fear of "falling behind" or so they can proclaim they are "state of the art." As for me, I would rather look carefully before I leap. State of the art is whatever I want it to be, not what someone else wants it to be.

Again, thanks for your e-mail. Keep those cards and letters coming.

MBA is an international management consulting firm specializing in Information Resource Management. We offer training, consulting, and writing services in the areas of Enterprise Engineering, Systems Engineering, Data Base Engineering, Project Management, Methodologies and Repositories. For information, call us at 727/786-4567. For a complete listing of my essays, see the "PRIDE" Special Subject Bulletins section of our corporate web site.

Our corporate web page is at:

http://phmainstreet.com/mba/

Management Visions is a presentation of M. Bryce & Associates, a division of M&JB Investment Company of Palm Harbor, Florida, USA. The program is produced on a weekly basis and updated on Sundays. It is available in versions for RealPlayer, Microsoft Media Player, and MP3 suitable for Podcasting. See our web site for details. You'll find our broadcast listed in several Podcast and Internet Search engines, as well as Apples' iTunes.

If you have any questions or would like to be placed on our e-mailing list to receive notification of future broadcasts, please e-mail it to timb001@phmainstreet.com

For a copy of past broadcasts, please contact me directly.

We accept MP3 files with your voice for possible inclusion in the broadcast.

There is no charge for adding a link to "Management Visions" on your web page, for details and HTML code, see the "Management Visions" web site.

Management Visions accepts advertising. For rates, please contact yours truly directly.

Copyright © 2007 by M&JB Investment Company of Palm Harbor, Florida, USA. All rights reserved. "PRIDE" is the registered trademark of M&JB Investment Company.

This is Tim Bryce reporting.

Since 1971: "Software for the finest computer - the Mind."

END