Certainly, here's a prioritized list of Play titles for the "Strategic Technology Lifecycle Management" Playbook:
- Technology Health Assessment: Evaluating the current state of technologies in use.
- Legacy System Impact Analysis: Understanding the broader implications of outdated technologies.
- Application Dependency Mapping: Identifying inter-dependencies to prioritize replacements.
- Cost-Benefit Analysis for Technology Replacement: Assessing the financial implications of upgrades versus continued maintenance.
- Stakeholder Engagement and Communication Strategy: Ensuring organization-wide understanding and buy-in.
- Compliance and Mandate Review: Identifying regulatory and internal mandates driving technology decisions.
- Strategic Technology Replacement Roadmap: A phased approach to retiring and replacing technologies.
- Application Migration and Modernization Strategy: Ensuring smooth transitions to updated technologies.
- Risk Management during Transition: Mitigating potential pitfalls during the transition phase.
- Training and Skill Development Framework: Ensuring the workforce is equipped to handle new technologies.
- Post-Implementation Review and Feedback Loop: Analyzing the success of the transition and gathering insights for future endeavors.
These titles are designed to provide a comprehensive approach to the challenges posed in the scenario, from initial assessment to post-implementation review.
When evaluating systems in the AppVentory, considering various angles or perspectives is crucial to get a comprehensive understanding of the applications' significance, vulnerabilities, and strategic importance to the organization.
Here are some angles to consider:
-
Business Criticality:
- How essential is the application to the core business functions?
- What would be the impact of the application becoming unavailable?
-
Usage Metrics:
- How frequently is the application used?
- What's the user count and pattern (peak vs. off-peak)?
-
Technological Obsolescence:
- How outdated is the technology stack of the application?
- Is there still vendor support for the technology used?
-
Cost of Maintenance:
- What is the total cost of ownership (TCO) of the application?
- How do maintenance costs compare with potential replacement costs?
-
Integration Complexity:
- How is the application interconnected with other systems?
- Are there any proprietary or outdated integration methods in use?
-
Compliance and Security:
- Does the application meet the current security and compliance standards?
- Are there any known vulnerabilities associated with the technology stack?
-
Performance Metrics:
- How does the application perform under load?
- Are there frequent performance-related issues or downtimes?
-
Scalability Concerns:
- Can the application handle the anticipated growth in user count or data volume?
- Are there architectural limitations to scaling the application?
-
Vendor Dependency:
- Is the application tied to a specific vendor or proprietary solution?
- What's the vendor's roadmap for the product, and does it align with the organization's needs?
-
Customization and Flexibility:
- How much has the application been customized?
- Is it feasible to upgrade or migrate given the level of customization?
-
Data Integrity and Quality:
- How reliable and clean is the data within the application?
- Are there data redundancies or inconsistencies?
-
Future Business Needs Alignment:
- Does the application align with the projected business strategy and needs?
- Is there a foreseeable phase-out or replacement in the strategic roadmap?
By analyzing the applications in the AppVentory from these angles, an organization can make informed decisions regarding maintenance, upgrade, replacement, or retirement of each application.
Absolutely, in large organizations especially, beyond the tangible metrics and processes, the human element is often the most intricate and influential. Decisions can't be made in a vacuum; they need to factor in organizational
culture, dynamics, emotions, politics, and other softer elements. Here are some psychological and leadership angles to consider when evaluating systems in the AppVentory:
-
Organizational Politics:
- Are there power structures or influential figures tied to specific applications or technologies?
- How might retiring or changing a system affect these dynamics?
-
Job Security Concerns:
- Is there a perception that retiring a certain technology might lead to layoffs or diminish the value of certain skillsets?
- How can these concerns be addressed proactively?
-
Resistance to Change:
- Are there teams or individuals particularly attached to specific systems due to familiarity and comfort?
- How can change be introduced in a way that's gradual, inclusive, and minimizes fear?
-
Knowledge Silos:
- Are there applications that only a few individuals know how to maintain or operate?
- What strategies can be used to encourage knowledge sharing and reduce dependency on specific individuals?
-
Pride and Ownership:
- Do teams have a strong sense of pride and ownership over certain systems they've built or maintained?
- How can you involve these teams in the decision-making process and ensure their contributions are acknowledged?
-
Legacy and Sentimentality:
- Are there systems that hold a "legacy" status in the organization, kept alive due to their historical significance rather than current utility?
- How can you honor the past while making space for the future?
-
Inter-departmental Dynamics:
- Are there inter-departmental rivalries or past grievances that might affect decision-making around certain applications?
- How can collaboration be fostered, and previous disputes resolved?
-
Training and Upskilling:
- How open are employees to learning new technologies or systems?
- What training and upskilling opportunities can be provided to ease transitions?
-
Leadership Vision and Alignment:
- Is there clear communication from leadership about the strategic direction and the role of technology in achieving it?
- How can leaders be role models in embracing change and setting the tone for the rest of the organization?
-
Communication and Transparency:
- How are decisions about technology retirement or adoption communicated across the organization?
- Is there transparency in the decision-making process, ensuring all concerns are heard and addressed?
-
Cultural Compatibility:
- Does the technology change align with the organization's culture and values?
- How can technology decisions enhance, rather than disrupt, the organizational culture?
Factoring in these softer elements requires a combination of emotional intelligence, strategic foresight, and adept leadership. Navigating them successfully can lead to smoother transitions, higher buy-in from teams, and more
effective technology decisions.
Ensuring the adoption and compliance of a playbook in an organization, especially a large and complex one, requires a multifaceted approach that addresses both the tangible and intangible aspects of organizational dynamics. Here are
some strategies and unique angles to consider:
-
Leadership Buy-in:
- Ensure that top management not only endorses but actively champions the playbook.
- Their visible commitment can set the tone for the entire organization.
-
Incorporate into Onboarding:
- Integrate the playbook into the onboarding process for new employees.
- This sets the expectation from the start that the playbook is central to how things are done.
-
Regular Training Sessions:
- Offer training sessions that dive deep into different plays, ensuring that everyone knows how and when to use them.
- Consider using real-world case studies from within the organization as examples.
-
Feedback Mechanisms:
- Create channels for employees to provide feedback on the playbook, ensuring it remains dynamic and relevant.
- This can also help in identifying potential roadblocks or areas of resistance.
-
Embed in Processes:
- Integrate the plays into daily work processes and workflows. For instance, certain project management tools can be set up to align with the steps outlined in specific plays.
-
Incentivize Adoption:
- Recognize and reward teams and individuals who exemplify the use of the playbook.
- Consider both tangible (bonuses, promotions) and intangible (recognition, awards) incentives.
-
Regular Audits and Reviews:
- Conduct periodic checks to see how closely teams are following the playbook.
- Use these reviews not as punitive measures, but as opportunities for feedback and improvement.
-
Tailored Communication:
- Recognize that one size doesn't fit all. Customize the communication of the playbook's value to different departments or teams, showing them the specific benefits relevant to their function.
-
Integration with Technology:
- Where possible, use technology (like automation tools) to guide or enforce the processes recommended in the playbook.
-
Cultural Integration:
- Make the playbook's adoption part of the organization's culture by linking it to the company's values and mission.
- Share stories and testimonials where following the playbook led to success.
-
Change Agents or Champions:
- Identify and train enthusiastic individuals from various departments to be champions of the playbook.
- These individuals can act as internal influencers, promoting adoption within their respective spheres.
-
Iterative Improvement:
- The playbook shouldn't be static. Regularly update it based on new learnings, industry trends, and feedback.
- This ensures it remains relevant and valuable.
-
External Benchmarking:
- Show teams how the playbook's guidelines align with best practices in the industry or how competitor organizations might be using similar strategies.
- This can serve as both motivation and validation.
-
Internal Marketing:
- Don't just launch the playbook and hope for the best. Have an internal marketing strategy to continuously highlight its benefits, share success stories, and keep it top of mind.
-
Clear Consequences:
- While positive reinforcement is crucial, there should also be clarity about the consequences of non-compliance. This shouldn't be purely punitive but can involve additional training or review sessions.
Remember, the key is to make the playbook feel like a beneficial tool rather than an imposed set of rules. When people see its value and feel involved in its evolution, adoption and compliance will naturally follow.
Of course, oversight on my part. Budgetary considerations are certainly important, especially in large organizations. Let's categorize the strategies for ensuring adoption and compliance:
1. Leadership and Management:
- Leadership Buy-in
- Clear Consequences
- Regular Audits and Reviews
2. Organizational Culture and Engagement:
- Incorporate into Onboarding
- Feedback Mechanisms
- Cultural Integration
- Change Agents or Champions
- Internal Marketing
- Incentivize Adoption
- Share stories and testimonials
3. Training and Education:
- Regular Training Sessions
- Tailored Communication
4. Process Integration:
- Embed in Processes
- Iterative Improvement
5. Technological Leverage:
- Integration with Technology
6. External Considerations:
7. Budgetary and Financial Incentives:
- Link budget approvals or financial incentives to compliance and adoption metrics.
- Offer departments or projects budgetary bonuses or flexibility for strong adherence to the playbook.
- Demonstrate cost savings or efficiency gains achieved through playbook adherence and channel a portion of those savings back into departments or teams as incentives.
Using categories allows for a more structured approach to implementation. Depending on the organizational dynamics, emphasis can be placed on one or more categories to drive adoption and compliance most effectively.
Certainly, given the scenario of deciding when to retire an application that utilizes a nearly obsolete technology stack, here are the top 5 Plays:
-
Application Value Assessment:
- Evaluate the business value of each application. Consider factors like how critical it is to operations, how often it's used, and the impact on the business if it were to be retired.
-
Technical Debt Quantification:
- Determine the technical debt associated with maintaining the application on the nearly obsolete technology stack. This includes considering security vulnerabilities, integration challenges, and scalability issues.
-
Migration Feasibility Study:
- Investigate the feasibility, costs, and benefits of migrating the application to a modern technology stack versus retiring it and potentially replacing it with a new solution.
-
Operational Cost Analysis:
- Examine the ongoing operational costs of the application, including licensing, support, and infrastructure costs, and compare this to the cost of retirement and potential replacement.
-
Stakeholder Impact and Communication Plan:
-
Understand the impact of application retirement on various stakeholders, both internal and external. Develop a plan to communicate the potential changes, gather feedback, and ensure a smooth transition if the decision to
retire is made.
These Plays can guide an organization in making a well-informed and comprehensive decision about the retirement of applications using nearly obsolete technology stacks.
-
Legacy Data Management Strategy:
-
Evaluate the data within the application. Determine how critical the data is, how long it needs to be retained for business or regulatory reasons, and develop a strategy for migrating, archiving, or disposing of the data as
needed.
-
Integration and Dependency Mapping:
- Identify other applications or systems that depend on or integrate with the application in question. Understand the implications of retirement on these connected systems and develop strategies to mitigate disruptions.
-
Skillset and Training Evaluation:
- Assess the availability and cost of talent needed to maintain the application on the older technology stack. Conversely, evaluate the potential training or reskilling needs if moving to a new technology or system.
-
Alternative Solutions Analysis:
-
Research available off-the-shelf solutions or platforms that might replace the application's functionality. Compare the costs, benefits, and integration challenges of these alternatives versus maintaining the current
application.
-
User Transition and Support Plan:
Play: Application Value Assessment
Purpose: To evaluate and determine the business value, relevance, and importance of a given application within the organization's ecosystem.
Target Audience:
- Enterprise Architects
- Business Analysts
- Product Owners
- Project Managers
- Department Heads and Business Unit Leaders
Checklist:
-
Current Business Relevance:
- Determine the current utility of the application in serving business needs. Is it still actively used, and does it fulfill a unique function?
-
User Activity Analysis:
- Assess the frequency and nature of usage. Which departments or roles rely heavily on the application? Are there any patterns indicating declining or increasing usage?
-
Financial Analysis:
- Review the direct and indirect costs associated with the application, such as licensing, maintenance, and support. Compare this to the perceived value or ROI the application delivers.
-
Operational Efficiency:
- Evaluate the application's performance metrics, downtime history, and maintenance challenges. How often are there disruptions, and what's the impact?
-
Data Criticality Assessment:
- Determine the importance and relevance of the data within the application. Does it house critical business data, and if so, how often is this data accessed?
-
Integration Importance:
- Identify other systems or applications that are integrated with or dependent on this application. What would be the impact on these systems if this application were retired or replaced?
-
Feedback from Users:
- Collect feedback from regular users regarding the application's utility, performance, and any challenges they face.
-
Comparison with Modern Alternatives:
- Investigate if there are newer applications or tools available that could serve the same purpose but offer better functionality, efficiency, or cost-effectiveness.
Key Questions:
- What strategic business objectives does the application currently support?
- Are there newer technologies or platforms that could deliver the same value more efficiently?
- How would the business be affected if the application were to be unavailable for an extended period?
- What are the most common challenges or complaints users have about the application?
- What is the total cost of ownership (TCO) of the application, and is this justifiable based on its current value to the organization?
Desired Outcomes:
- A comprehensive understanding of the application's current value and relevance to the organization.
- Insights into potential challenges or inefficiencies related to the application.
- A foundation for decision-making regarding potential upgrades, replacements, or retirement of the application.
Play: Technical Debt Quantification
Purpose:
To identify, measure, and prioritize the technical debt present within an application or system, allowing for informed decisions regarding mitigation, refactoring, or potential retirement.
Target Audience:
- Technical Leads
- Software Engineers and Developers
- Quality Assurance Engineers
- Enterprise Architects
- Project Managers
Checklist:
-
Codebase Analysis:
- Utilize static code analysis tools to identify code smells, code complexity, duplicate code, and potential security vulnerabilities.
-
Historical Bug Tracking:
- Examine the defect tracking system to understand the frequency, severity, and types of bugs that have been recurrent. This often hints at underlying technical debt.
-
Performance Bottlenecks:
- Identify areas where inefficient code or outdated libraries/tools result in sluggish performance or resource overuse.
-
Dependency Review:
- Analyze third-party libraries, frameworks, and tools for obsolescence or known issues. Identify if updates are available or if there's a need to migrate to a more modern alternative.
-
Documentation Adequacy:
- Assess the comprehensiveness and accuracy of current documentation. Incomplete or outdated documentation can represent a form of technical debt.
-
Architectural Review:
- Check for architectural inconsistencies, rigidity, or issues that prevent scaling or evolving the system easily.
-
Feedback from Development Team:
- Interview developers and testers to gain insights into challenges faced during feature development, bug fixes, or testing due to existing technical debt.
-
Cost Estimation:
- Based on the identified debt, estimate the effort and cost required for remediation.
Key Questions:
- What parts of the codebase are most prone to errors and require frequent fixes?
- Are there any external dependencies that are no longer supported or have better alternatives available?
- How much time does the team spend addressing issues related to technical debt versus new feature development?
- What are the potential risks if the identified technical debt is not addressed?
- How does the existing technical debt impact the end-users in terms of application performance, usability, or reliability?
Desired Outcomes:
- A prioritized list of technical debt items, categorized by severity and impact.
- An understanding of the associated risks and costs for each item of technical debt.
- A foundation for planning and budgeting for technical debt remediation activities, allowing for a strategic approach to improve software health and maintainability.
Play: Migration Feasibility Study
Purpose:
To systematically evaluate the practicality, challenges, risks, and benefits associated with migrating a legacy application to a newer technology stack or platform.
Target Audience:
- Enterprise Architects
- Technical Leads
- Project Managers
- Business Analysts
- DevOps Engineers
Checklist:
-
Current System Analysis:
- Document the application's existing architecture, technologies used, integrations, data flows, and any proprietary or custom solutions in use.
-
Migration Goal Definition:
- Clearly define the objectives of the migration, such as performance improvements, scalability, enhanced features, or support for future growth.
-
Technology Stack Evaluation:
- Compare the existing technology stack with potential replacements, considering factors like performance, scalability, support, and compatibility.
-
Data Migration Challenges:
- Assess the complexity of migrating data from the legacy system to the new platform, considering data integrity, volume, format differences, and any necessary transformations.
-
Integration and Interoperability:
- Review current integrations with other systems or services, determining how these will be managed or replaced in the new environment.
-
Risk Assessment:
- Identify potential pitfalls, challenges, or showstoppers in the migration process. Consider both technical and business risks.
-
Cost and Time Estimation:
- Provide a ballpark figure for the migration's time and cost, including unexpected contingencies and post-migration support.
-
Stakeholder Feedback:
- Engage with users, developers, and other key stakeholders to gather input, concerns, or insights that might affect the migration's feasibility.
Key Questions:
- What are the main drivers pushing for the migration, and how do they align with organizational goals?
- Are there any components of the legacy system that cannot be migrated or replaced?
- How will the migration affect end-users in terms of downtime, changed functionalities, or learning curves?
- Are there skills or knowledge gaps within the team that need to be addressed for a successful migration?
- How will success be measured post-migration?
Desired Outcomes:
- A comprehensive report detailing the feasibility of migrating the legacy system, including potential benefits, risks, costs, and timeframes.
- Clear insights into potential roadblocks or challenges, enabling proactive planning.
- An informed foundation for decision-making, allowing stakeholders to determine whether to proceed with the migration, seek alternatives, or maintain the status quo.
Play: Operational Cost Analysis
Purpose:
To assess the financial implications of operating an application, providing a clear picture of its ongoing costs, and evaluating opportunities for cost optimization.
Target Audience:
- Enterprise Architects
- Financial Analysts
- IT Managers
- Operations Managers
- Technical Leads
Checklist:
-
Infrastructure Costs:
- Calculate the costs related to servers, storage, networking, and other hardware requirements.
- Include cloud services fees if the application is hosted on a cloud platform.
-
Licensing and Software Fees:
- Evaluate the costs of third-party software, licenses, or tools used in the application's operation.
-
Maintenance and Support:
- Quantify the expenses of regular maintenance tasks, patching, updates, and support tickets.
-
Operational Personnel:
- Calculate the cost of manpower needed to keep the application running, including salaries, benefits, and training.
-
Downtime and Unavailability Costs:
- Estimate potential financial losses during unplanned outages, considering both direct costs and reputational damages.
-
Integration and Interoperability Costs:
- Determine costs associated with integrating the application with other systems, including middleware, API usage fees, and data exchange mechanisms.
-
Security and Compliance:
- Evaluate expenses related to securing the application, including firewalls, intrusion detection systems, audits, and compliance certifications.
-
Backup, Recovery, and Redundancy:
- Analyze costs related to backup solutions, disaster recovery preparations, and any redundancy measures.
Key Questions:
- What are the largest cost drivers for the application's operation, and are there areas ripe for optimization?
- How do operational costs compare to the application's delivered value?
- Are there any foreseeable events or changes that could significantly impact operational costs in the future?
- Are there any existing service-level agreements (SLAs) or contracts that dictate certain operational expenditures?
- What is the cost trend over time, and can any spikes or anomalies be explained?
Desired Outcomes:
- A detailed breakdown of the operational costs associated with the application.
- Insights into potential areas for cost-saving or reallocation.
- A basis for strategic decisions regarding application retirement, migration, or re-architecture based on financial feasibility.
Sure, let's compare and contrast these three plays based on their primary focus, stakeholders involved, and potential outcomes:
-
Strategic Application Valuation:
-
Primary Focus: Evaluation of an application's overall value to the organization, considering both current utility and potential for future growth. This play aims to determine whether it's more beneficial
to invest in the application further or to consider its retirement.
- Stakeholders Involved: Enterprise Architects, Business Analysts, Senior Management, and potentially end-users who can provide feedback on the application's importance and usage.
-
Potential Outcomes: A comprehensive assessment report indicating the strategic importance of the application, its alignment with business goals, and a recommendation for its future (whether to evolve,
maintain, or retire).
-
Operational Efficiency and Cost Impact Analysis:
-
Primary Focus: Analyzing the operational costs linked with running and maintaining an application against its efficiency and impact. It looks at the direct and indirect costs and weighs them against the
benefits derived from the application.
- Stakeholders Involved: Enterprise Architects, Financial Analysts or Controllers, Operations Team, IT Managers.
-
Potential Outcomes: A detailed financial report highlighting the operational costs, potential savings, and the ROI of the application. This play could lead to decisions about optimizing resources, making
budgetary adjustments, or considering application alternatives.
-
Business Continuity and Migration Strategy:
-
Primary Focus: Ensuring that if an application is marked for retirement or migration, there's minimal disruption to business processes. This play is about creating a robust strategy to either transition
to a new system or phase out the old one without affecting business operations.
- Stakeholders Involved: Enterprise Architects, IT Project Managers, Business Continuity Planners, and potentially representatives from key departments that use the application.
-
Potential Outcomes: A clear migration or phase-out plan that ensures business continuity, a risk assessment detailing potential challenges during the transition, and mitigation strategies to address
these risks.
Comparison and Contrast:
-
While the Strategic Application Valuation and Operational Efficiency and Cost Impact Analysis plays focus on the 'evaluation' side (be it value-based or cost-based), the
Business Continuity and Migration Strategy is more about 'action' and planning post-evaluation.
-
The first play is a balance between technical and business perspectives, while the second leans more towards financial analysis. The third play, in contrast, is heavily oriented towards project management and risk mitigation.
- Different stakeholders are involved in each play, but there's potential overlap, especially with Enterprise Architects who likely have a role in each play given the overarching EA governance perspective.
- The outcomes of the first two plays are assessment reports that can guide decision-making, while the outcome of the third is a clear strategy and plan for execution.
Strategic Application Valuation Play
Purpose: To assess the strategic value of an application to the organization, considering its alignment with current business goals, its utility to end-users, and its potential for future growth or adaptability.
Key Stakeholders:
- Enterprise Architects
- Business Analysts
- Senior Management
- End-users or department representatives
- IT Managers
Key Questions:
- How well does the application align with the current and projected business strategies?
- What feedback do end-users provide about the application's utility and importance?
- Are there emerging business needs or market trends that the application might not meet in the future?
- How does the application fare against competitors or industry benchmarks?
- Are there newer technologies or platforms that could offer better efficiency or value?
Checklist:
-
Business Alignment Evaluation:
- Document current business strategies and goals.
- Map application features and utilities to these strategies.
- Identify gaps or misalignments.
-
User Feedback Collection:
- Conduct surveys or focus groups with end-users.
- Collect quantitative data on application usage patterns.
- Analyze feedback for common pain points or enhancement requests.
-
Future-Proofing Assessment:
- Analyze market trends and emerging technologies.
- Assess the application's adaptability to incorporate future business needs or technology shifts.
- Evaluate the longevity and support of the current technology stack.
-
Competitive Benchmarking:
- Identify industry standards or competitor applications for comparison.
- Assess features, performance, and user satisfaction against benchmarks.
- Identify areas of improvement or differentiation.
-
Alternative Technology Evaluation:
- Research newer platforms or technologies that might offer better value.
- Evaluate the feasibility and cost of migration or integration.
- Consider the potential business value or efficiency gains from adopting new technologies.
Outcomes:
Next Steps: Depending on the outcomes, the next steps could involve:
- Initiating a project to upgrade or enhance the application.
- Researching and planning for potential migration to a more modern platform.
- Starting the process to retire the application, if it no longer aligns with the organization's strategic goals.
Operational Efficiency and Cost Impact Analysis Play
Purpose: To assess the efficiency of an application in terms of its operational performance, cost-effectiveness, and overall impact on the business. This play will evaluate the cost of running the application versus
the value it brings to the organization.
Key Stakeholders:
- Enterprise Architects
- IT Operations Managers
- Financial Analysts or Controllers
- Business Unit Leaders
- IT Support Teams
Key Questions:
- What is the total cost of ownership (TCO) for this application?
- How does the application's operational performance impact business processes?
- Are there recurring costs or potential future costs related to this application?
- How does the application's cost and performance compare to industry benchmarks or alternatives?
- Are there areas where efficiency can be improved, leading to cost savings?
Checklist:
-
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) Calculation:
- Account for licensing fees, maintenance costs, support costs, and any other recurring expenses.
- Consider the costs of potential future upgrades or patches.
-
Operational Performance Assessment:
- Measure key performance indicators (KPIs) like uptime, response time, and transaction speeds.
- Evaluate any operational bottlenecks or areas where the application might be slowing down business processes.
-
Cost Forecasting:
- Project the costs of maintaining the application over the next few years.
- Consider factors like potential scalability needs, support contract renewals, or end-of-life for certain technologies.
-
Benchmarking and Comparative Analysis:
- Compare the application's costs and performance metrics to industry standards or similar applications.
- Identify areas where the application might be overpriced or underperforming.
-
Efficiency Improvement Opportunities:
- Identify potential optimizations or configurations that could improve performance.
- Evaluate the feasibility of moving to cloud hosting or other infrastructure changes that could lead to cost savings.
Outcomes:
Next Steps: Depending on the outcomes, the next steps could involve:
- Implementing suggested optimizations to improve efficiency.
- Planning for future costs and budgeting accordingly.
- Considering alternative solutions if the application is deemed inefficient or too costly in the long run.
Absolutely, addressing the non-technical, behavioral, and organizational aspects of technical debt and technology governance is crucial. These softer elements can often be the bottleneck in bringing about effective change. Here are
some potential play titles that address these angles:
-
Stakeholder Alignment and Engagement:
- Purpose: To foster alignment and buy-in from key stakeholders across the organization, ensuring that they understand and support the goals of technical governance and tech debt reduction.
-
Cultural Shift Towards Continuous Improvement:
- Purpose: To cultivate a culture that values and practices continuous improvement, seeing technical debt not as a failure but as a natural outcome of innovation that needs regular management.
-
Knowledge Sharing and Collaboration Boost:
- Purpose: To promote cross-team and cross-departmental collaboration, ensuring that knowledge about technical debt, its implications, and remediation strategies are widely shared and understood.
-
Rewarding and Recognizing Tech Debt Reduction:
- Purpose: To motivate and encourage teams by recognizing and rewarding efforts made in identifying, addressing, and reducing technical debt.
-
Psychological Safety in Tech Debt Discussions:
- Purpose: To create an environment where team members feel safe discussing technical debt openly, without fear of blame, promoting proactive identification and management.
-
Change Management for Tech Governance Initiatives:
- Purpose: To ensure that new technology governance initiatives are introduced in a way that's sensitive to the people affected, with clear communication, training, and support.
-
Tech Debt Transparency and Open Reporting:
- Purpose: To promote transparency in how technical debt is reported and discussed, ensuring that all stakeholders have a clear view of the current state and can collaborate on solutions.
-
Empathy Training for Tech Governance:
- Purpose: To instill a sense of empathy in tech governance teams, ensuring they understand the challenges faced by development teams and can work collaboratively towards solutions.
-
Building Trust in Tech Governance Decisions:
- Purpose: To establish and reinforce trust in the decisions made by technology governance bodies, ensuring teams feel their concerns are heard and addressed.
-
Feedback Loops and Continuous Listening:
- Purpose: To establish mechanisms for continuous feedback from teams affected by tech governance decisions, ensuring their input is regularly considered.
These plays aim to address the human side of the equation, recognizing that technology decisions don't exist in a vacuum and are deeply intertwined with people, their beliefs, motivations, and behaviors.
Absolutely. These ten plays can be grouped into logical categories based on their underlying themes and objectives:
-
Stakeholder Engagement and Alignment:
- Stakeholder Alignment and Engagement: Fostering alignment and buy-in from key stakeholders.
- Tech Debt Transparency and Open Reporting: Promoting transparency in technical debt reporting and discussion.
-
Organizational Culture and Behavior:
- Cultural Shift Towards Continuous Improvement: Cultivating a culture of continuous improvement.
- Rewarding and Recognizing Tech Debt Reduction: Motivating teams through recognition and rewards.
- Psychological Safety in Tech Debt Discussions: Creating an open, blame-free environment.
- Empathy Training for Tech Governance: Instilling empathy in tech governance teams.
-
Change Management and Trust Building:
- Change Management for Tech Governance Initiatives: Introducing governance initiatives with sensitivity and support.
- Building Trust in Tech Governance Decisions: Establishing and reinforcing trust in governance decisions.
-
Collaboration and Feedback:
- Knowledge Sharing and Collaboration Boost: Promoting cross-team collaboration and knowledge sharing.
- Feedback Loops and Continuous Listening: Establishing mechanisms for continuous feedback.
Grouping them this way helps in understanding the overarching goals of each set of plays and can guide how they might be implemented or prioritized within an organization.
Absolutely. Financial incentives can be powerful motivators, especially in large organizations. Let's explore how financial considerations might play into Group 2: Organizational Culture and Behavior.
-
Budget Allocation for Continuous Learning: Set aside a dedicated budget for teams to access resources, courses, and workshops that focus on the latest technological trends and best practices. This investment
will not only improve skill sets but will also signal the organization's commitment to continuous improvement.
-
Tech Debt Reduction Bonuses: Introduce a bonus or incentive program for teams that successfully reduce significant portions of technical debt. This can be a lump sum bonus, additional team resources, or even
dedicated "innovation time" where the team can work on projects of their choice.
-
Sponsorship for Tech Conferences and Workshops: Teams or individuals that take the initiative to tackle technical debt can be rewarded with sponsorships to attend relevant tech conferences, workshops, or
seminars. This serves as both a reward and an opportunity for professional growth.
-
Funding for Tools and Resources: Allocate funds for teams to acquire tools or resources that can help in identifying, tracking, and reducing technical debt. This could include software, services, or even
hiring short-term consultants.
-
Reward System for Knowledge Sharing: Introduce a system where individuals or teams are financially rewarded for creating and sharing resources that help others understand and tackle technical debt. This
could be through creating internal documentation, holding workshops, or mentoring.
-
Invest in Psychological Safety Initiatives: This might include funding for team-building exercises, workshops on effective communication, or bringing in external consultants or coaches who specialize in
building cohesive, open teams.
By integrating financial incentives into the efforts to shift organizational culture and behavior, the enterprise can tangibly demonstrate its commitment to these initiatives, further motivating teams and individuals to align with
the desired behaviors and outcomes.
Absolutely, the funding and budgetary mechanism within an organization is a powerful tool for encouraging or mandating specific behaviors, especially in a setting where a strict command structure isn't present. Here's how financial
strategies can be incorporated to promote the adoption and acceptance of application retirement and replacement, using a combination of incentives and disincentives:
Carrot: Incentive-Based Approaches
-
Dedicated Innovation Budgets: Allocate special budgets for departments or projects that actively pursue modernization initiatives. This gives them financial flexibility to explore and adopt new technologies,
hire experts, or undergo training.
-
Performance Bonuses: Link departmental or project bonuses to modernization milestones. When teams reach certain goals in the application retirement and replacement process, they receive additional funds.
-
Reinvestment Opportunities: Allow departments to reinvest a portion of the savings generated from retiring old applications back into their operations or into new projects.
-
Training & Development Funds: Offer additional training and development budgets to teams that actively seek to upgrade or replace outdated systems. This ensures that they have the skills necessary to
operate new technologies effectively.
-
Awards & Recognition: Organize annual awards that recognize teams or individuals who have been champions of change, leading successful retirement and replacement projects.
Stick: Disincentive-Based Approaches
-
Diminishing Support Budgets: Reduce the budget allocated for the maintenance and support of outdated systems progressively over time, signaling a clear intent for them to be retired.
-
Higher Cost Allocations: Implement a model where departments using older systems have to bear a greater portion of centralized IT costs, reflecting the higher cost of maintaining legacy systems.
-
Mandated Compliance Deadlines: Set clear deadlines by which certain technologies or applications should be phased out, and tie these to departmental budgets. If they don't comply by the deadline, their
budgets for the next fiscal year could be affected.
-
External Audit & Reviews: Introduce periodic external audits of technology stacks. A negative review could have implications on departmental budgets or lead to further scrutiny.
-
Funding Caps: Implement a funding cap for projects that continue to use outdated technologies, ensuring they can't scale further without adopting modern solutions.
By leveraging the financial levers available to them, organizational leaders can create an environment where it's in every department or project's best interest to proactively participate in the retirement and replacement of
outdated applications. However, while financial incentives and disincentives are powerful, they work best when combined with clear communication, training, and organizational support to ensure everyone understands the reasons and
benefits behind these initiatives.
Certainly, when it comes to the retirement of technical debt, challenges often arise not just from the technical realm, but also from organizational dynamics and human behavior. Here's an ordered list of critical points of failure
from these non-technical perspectives:
-
Lack of Leadership Commitment and Support: Without strong leadership buy-in, efforts to retire technical debt often falter. Leadership must not only understand the importance of addressing technical debt but
also actively support initiatives, allocate resources, and drive the cultural shift necessary.
-
Inadequate Funding and Budgetary Support: Even if there's a recognized need to address technical debt, without proper financial backing, initiatives can be stalled. This also includes inconsistent funding or
sudden budget cuts in the middle of a debt retirement project.
-
Organizational Resistance to Change: People naturally resist change, especially when they perceive it as threatening their current workflows, job roles, or expertise. This resistance can hamper efforts to
modernize or retire old systems.
-
Lack of Clear Communication: If the reasons, benefits, and strategies for retiring technical debt aren't communicated effectively, it can lead to misunderstandings, mistrust, and pushback from various
organizational levels.
-
Absence of Incentives: Without a proper reward structure (monetary or non-monetary) to encourage teams and individuals to take on the challenge of addressing technical debt, motivation can wane.
-
Skill and Training Gaps: Even with the best intentions, if teams lack the necessary skills or knowledge to address technical debt, they may feel overwhelmed or ill-equipped, leading to inaction or errors.
-
No Clearly Defined Ownership: Without clear responsibility and ownership for addressing technical debt, efforts can become fragmented, duplicated, or neglected.
-
Short-term Performance Metrics: When teams and leaders are evaluated primarily on short-term outputs and deliverables, there might be disincentives to invest time and resources into longer-term debt
retirement, which might not have immediate visible benefits.
-
Fear of Negative Outcomes: The prospect of system downtimes, disruptions, or potential failures can make teams hesitant to embark on the retirement of certain technical debts, especially if they are critical
systems.
-
Lack of Stakeholder Buy-in: Other departments, especially those who are end-users of the systems in question, need to be on board. Their resistance, due to concerns about disruptions or changes to their
workflows, can be a significant obstacle.
-
Cultural Reliance on Legacy Systems: In some organizations, legacy systems might have a deep cultural or historical significance, making their retirement more emotionally charged than expected.
-
Competing Priorities: In dynamic organizations, priorities can shift rapidly. An initiative that starts off as a priority might get sidelined due to a new business challenge or opportunity, leaving technical
debt unaddressed.
Addressing these potential points of failure requires a comprehensive, holistic approach, encompassing clear communication, effective leadership, proper training, and a supportive organizational culture.
"Not knowing what to do, how to do" is a fundamental challenge, especially in complex organizations dealing with deeply entrenched technical debt. While it slightly overlaps with "Skill and Training Gaps" (point 6), it's broader
than just skills and training. It encompasses a lack of clarity about the strategic direction, procedures, best practices, and methodologies to address technical debt.
Thus, it could be its own point:
13. Unclear Strategy and Methodology: Not having a clear, well-defined strategy and methodology for addressing technical debt can result in confusion, missteps, and wasted resources. This extends to not knowing
which tools to use, which practices to implement, and how to strategically prioritize efforts for maximum impact.
This point emphasizes the importance of having a roadmap, strategy, or framework in place, ensuring that all stakeholders have a shared understanding of the path forward. Without it, even the most well-intentioned efforts can
flounder.
Absolutely, your insights are rooted in real-world experiences, which are invaluable. Let's expand upon and articulate these impediments more formally:
-
Lack of Courage and Ownership: Taking on the task of retiring technical debt, especially when it involves overhauling or rebuilding substantial components, requires a tremendous amount of courage. Owning
such a responsibility means facing the potential fallout if things don't go as planned. Many individuals or teams shy away from taking these bold steps because of the weight of this responsibility.
-
Fear of Failure and Ambiguity: In many corporate cultures, failure isn't embraced as a learning opportunity but is seen as a shortcoming. This fear of failure can paralyze teams, especially when paths to
success are unclear or when they're venturing into unknown territory. The absence of a defined pathway can amplify this fear.
-
Short-term Management Mindset: When management focuses exclusively on short-term results, immediate deliverables, and predetermined deadlines without an understanding or acknowledgment of the complexities
involved, it can stifle teams. This mindset overlooks the necessity of taking the time to address and retire technical debt correctly, and can often result in only surface-level fixes that might exacerbate the problem in the
long run.
-
Skill and Knowledge Gaps:
-
Domain Analysis & Architectural Alignment: Understanding the domain deeply and ensuring that the architecture and design align with business needs, non-functional requirements, and future growth is
paramount. If there's a misalignment or misunderstanding in these areas, it can lead to further complications.
-
Technological Expertise: Transitioning to or adopting a new technology stack requires a learning curve. Without adequate expertise or training, teams can struggle, leading to inefficient solutions or
further technical debt.
-
Unknown Terrain: As Donald Rumsfeld famously said, there are "known unknowns" and "unknown unknowns". In the context of retiring technical debt, these are the challenges that teams know they will face
and those that they can't anticipate. Being unprepared for either can derail efforts.
Addressing these impediments requires a cultural shift in organizations, where understanding, patience, training, and long-term vision are championed. Without addressing these underlying issues, efforts to retire technical debt can
often be superficial or short-lived.
Certainly. Let's refine and delve deeper into these chosen strategies:
-
Incremental Approach:
-
Break Down Large Tasks: Decompose mammoth technical debt issues into smaller, more manageable tasks. This approach not only makes the tasks feel less daunting but also allows for early wins that can
motivate teams.
-
Prioritize: Not all technical debt is created equal. Some may have more immediate or more significant business impacts than others. Prioritize based on a combination of business impact, ease of
implementation, and risk.
- Iterate and Learn: After each iteration, conduct reviews to understand what went well and where improvements can be made, then apply these learnings to the next cycle.
-
Clear Communication & Prototyping & POCs:
-
Transparent Expectations: Both management and technical teams need to set and understand expectations clearly. When everyone is on the same page regarding goals, the path to achieving them becomes
clearer.
-
Prototyping: Before a full-scale implementation, create a prototype to understand the challenges, feasibility, and benefits. It can be a powerful tool to also convince stakeholders of the benefits of a
proposed solution.
-
Proofs of Concept (POCs): POCs allow for testing the viability of a solution in a real-world scenario but on a smaller scale. Successful POCs can be scaled, and lessons from failed POCs can be
invaluable.
-
Educate Leadership, Align on Expectations, and Focus on Long-term Value:
-
Workshops for Leadership: Make leaders aware of the intricacies of technical debt and its long-term impacts. This knowledge can recalibrate their expectations and give teams the room they need to operate
effectively.
-
Metrics and KPIs: Establish key performance indicators that align with both the technical goals and business outcomes. This helps in tracking progress and also in communicating the value of retiring
technical debt to leadership.
- Showcase Long-term Benefits: Continuously highlight the broader business benefits of addressing technical debt, from improved system performance and agility to cost savings in the long run.
-
Documentation:
- Centralized Knowledge Base: Maintain a centralized repository where all documentation is stored. This makes it easily accessible to all stakeholders.
- Regular Updates: Ensure that documentation is a continuous process and not just a one-time effort. As systems evolve, so should their documentation.
- Include Practical Examples: Theoretical knowledge is essential, but real-world examples can make complex concepts easier to grasp and implement.
-
Feedback Loops and Collaborate with Other Teams:
- Regular Check-ins: Set up routine check-ins between teams and stakeholders. This ensures that any challenges faced are communicated and addressed in real-time.
- EA Mentorship and Guidance: Engage Enterprise Architecture experts to mentor and guide teams. Their broad perspective can offer valuable insights and prevent teams from reinventing the wheel.
- Cross-team Workshops: Organize workshops where teams can share their experiences, challenges, and solutions. This promotes a collaborative environment and can lead to faster problem resolution.
Implementing these strategies, especially in large organizations, requires consistent effort, clear leadership, and an environment that values learning and collaboration.
Absolutely. Let's turn these strategies into actionable Enterprise Architecture (EA) Plays:
-
Title: Incremental Modernization
Description: Emphasizing an approach that avoids "big bang" overhauls, this play advocates for decomposing large-scale technical debt resolutions into manageable tasks. It focuses on iterating, learning, and
showing early wins to gain momentum and maintain stakeholder support.
Objective/Purpose: To make technical debt retirement more feasible and less daunting by breaking it down into incremental steps, thus allowing teams to manage, prioritize, and implement solutions efficiently
while providing tangible results at each phase.
-
Title: Communication and Prototyping Bridge
Description: Building bridges between the technical teams and leadership, this play employs clear communication channels, prototyping, and proofs of concept to ensure transparent expectations. It aims to
educate while also gathering real-world insights before full-scale implementation.
Objective/Purpose: To ensure all stakeholders, from technical teams to leadership, have clear and aligned expectations. Using prototypes and POCs to provide tangible insights and evidence, ensuring that
solutions are not only technically sound but also resonate with the business side of the organization.
-
Title: Knowledge and Collaboration Hub
Description: Rooted in the principle of shared understanding and collaboration, this play promotes the creation of a centralized knowledge repository, routine inter-team check-ins, and mentorship programs.
It emphasizes the value of collective wisdom, learning from others' experiences, and staying updated with evolving system requirements.
Objective/Purpose: To foster a culture of continuous learning and collaboration, ensuring teams are not working in silos. By creating a shared knowledge base and promoting regular interaction and mentorship,
teams are better equipped to tackle challenges, share solutions, and drive the retirement of technical debt in alignment with organizational goals.
These plays emphasize the non-technical challenges that often derail projects, focusing instead on the human, organizational, and process-oriented solutions that can guide large entities through the complexities of addressing
technical debt.
I understand where you're coming from. The proposed plays above do have actionable elements but may not have been presented in the traditional format you'd expect for "plays." They focus more on overarching strategies and
principles.
Let's redefine these in terms of actionable plays, considering the context you've provided:
-
Title: Modular Decomposition Sprint
Action Steps:
- Identify a section of the system or application ripe for modernization.
- Break down the section into smaller, modular components.
- Prioritize which components to address first based on impact and feasibility.
- Set a timeline for each modular upgrade, ensuring limited disruption to daily operations.
- Regularly review and adjust priorities as the modernization progresses.
Objective/Purpose: Systematically reduce technical debt by decomposing and addressing it in modular chunks, ensuring manageable upgrades and regular progress checks.
-
Title: Prototyping Workshop
Action Steps:
- Select a specific challenge or area of technical debt.
- Organize a cross-functional team workshop to brainstorm and design potential solutions.
- Develop a prototype or proof of concept based on workshop outcomes.
- Present the prototype to stakeholders for feedback and insights.
- Iterate based on feedback and prepare for scaled implementation.
Objective/Purpose: Align technical and non-technical stakeholders around feasible solutions by developing tangible prototypes, ensuring clear expectations, and driving buy-in.
-
Title: Collaboration Roundtables
Action Steps:
- Schedule regular meetings between technical teams, EA mentors, and representatives from various business units.
- Set an agenda focusing on specific challenges, new tech adoption, or best practices.
- Facilitate knowledge sharing sessions or "lightning talks" from different team members.
- Document insights, decisions, and shared solutions in a centralized repository.
- Foster ongoing mentorship relationships between EA experts and technical teams to provide continuous guidance.
Objective/Purpose: Cultivate a culture of shared understanding and continuous learning. Foster proactive collaboration to navigate technical debt challenges with collective wisdom and mentorship.
Presented in this manner, these plays now focus on actionable steps that an organization can take. The structure outlines what to do, how to approach it, and what objectives the play aims to achieve.
Play Title: Communication Bridge
Purpose:
To foster open dialogue between technical teams, business units, and leadership, enabling a clear understanding of challenges, goals, and impacts related to technical debt and modernization. This play aims to bridge the
communication gap and ensure alignment across all organizational levels.
Scope:
This play is directed towards organizations where silos impede the open exchange of information. It targets the translation of technical issues into business implications and vice versa, ensuring that technical debt and its impacts
are comprehensible to all.
Actionable Steps:
-
Stakeholder Identification:
- Catalog key personnel across technical teams, business units, and leadership.
- Determine who needs to be in the loop for specific technical debt conversations.
-
Communication Platforms:
- Establish regular forums, such as town halls or roundtables, to discuss technical debt challenges and potential solutions.
- Utilize digital platforms like collaboration tools or intranet sites to share updates and gather feedback.
-
Translation Workshops:
- Conduct sessions where technical teams explain technical issues in layman's terms.
- Simultaneously, business units can elucidate the business impacts and needs, ensuring tech teams understand the wider implications.
-
Feedback Loops:
- Create mechanisms for continuous feedback from all stakeholders.
- Address concerns and use feedback to refine strategies.
-
Success Stories & Case Studies:
- Publicize successful instances of technical debt resolution, detailing both the technical challenges and the business benefits realized.
- Use these stories as a motivator and a demonstrative tool.
-
Training & Education:
- Offer training sessions for non-technical personnel on basic tech concepts and the implications of technical debt.
- For technical teams, provide insights into business strategies and how tech decisions impact them.
Outcome Metrics:
- Stakeholder Engagement: Measure the participation and engagement levels in communication forums.
- Feedback Volume: Monitor the amount and quality of feedback received.
- Resolution Efficiency: Track how efficiently communicated challenges get addressed.
Stakeholders:
- Technical Teams: For providing insights into technical challenges.
- Business Units: To offer a business perspective and discuss impacts.
- Leadership: For strategic alignment and decision-making.
- End Users: To provide feedback on system performance and functionality.
Funding Strategies:
- Cost-based: Factor in costs related to communication platforms, training sessions, and workshops.
- Risk-based: Consider the risks associated with miscommunication or lack of alignment and the potential savings from effective communication.
Implementation Strategy:
- Lead by Example: Leadership should actively participate in forums, emphasizing the importance of open dialogue.
- Iterative Approach: Begin with smaller communication initiatives, gather feedback, and scale based on success.
- Maintain Consistency: Regularly scheduled communication sessions ensure that dialogue is continuous and not just reactionary.
By emphasizing the importance of transparent, two-way communication, the "Communication Bridge" play helps organizations navigate the complexities of technical debt in a unified manner, ensuring everyone is on the same page and
working towards a common goal.
Play Title: Collaboration Roundtables
Purpose:
To create a structured environment where cross-functional teams, from technical experts to business stakeholders, convene and collaboratively address the challenges, implications, and opportunities of retiring technical debt. This
play focuses on leveraging collective wisdom, sharing responsibilities, and fostering a culture of cooperative problem-solving.
Scope:
This play is essential for large organizations where diverse teams function in silos. It's designed to overcome barriers of understanding and action by ensuring everyone has a voice in the decision-making process related to
technical debt and its implications.
Actionable Steps:
-
Roundtable Setup:
- Define the frequency (e.g., monthly, quarterly) and format (virtual, in-person) of the roundtables.
- Determine the topics in advance to ensure preparation and relevance.
-
Stakeholder Identification:
- Assemble a mix of personnel from technical departments, business units, project management, and leadership.
- Ensure that each session has representation from varying perspectives to enrich the discussion.
-
Facilitation and Structure:
- Assign a facilitator for each session to guide discussions, ensuring they remain productive and on-topic.
- Allow for open sessions where emerging concerns can be tabled and addressed.
-
Documentation and Action Items:
- Ensure that discussions, insights, and agreed-upon action items are thoroughly documented.
- Assign responsibilities and timelines to ensure actionable insights are implemented.
-
Feedback Mechanism:
- After each roundtable, solicit feedback to understand what went well and where improvements can be made.
- Adjust the format and topics based on this feedback to keep the sessions valuable.
Outcome Metrics:
- Participation Rate: Monitor the attendance and engagement level in roundtable sessions.
- Actionable Outcomes: Track the number of actionable insights derived from each session and their subsequent implementation rate.
- Stakeholder Satisfaction: Measure satisfaction levels of participants post-roundtable to ensure they find value in the sessions.
Stakeholders:
- Technical Teams: For technical insights and potential solutions.
- Business Units: To highlight business implications and share priorities.
- Project Management: To ensure feasibility and alignment with existing projects.
- Leadership: For strategic guidance and resource allocation.
Funding Strategies:
- Cost-based: Allocate resources for setting up and conducting roundtables, including potential platform costs, facilitation fees, and documentation tools.
- Value-based: Consider the potential savings and increased efficiency from collaborative problem-solving and preemptive addressing of technical debt.
Implementation Strategy:
- Lead with Intent: Clearly communicate the purpose and value of the roundtables to potential participants.
- Adaptive Scheduling: Understand the availability and priorities of stakeholders to ensure maximum participation.
- Continuous Improvement: Regularly refine the roundtable process based on feedback and changing organizational needs.
The "Collaboration Roundtables" play is a strategic move to bring together the collective expertise of an organization, ensuring that the challenges of technical debt are addressed holistically, with insights from every angle.


Long Tom 55 km
Sabie RSA
Race Winners
(30 runnings)
31 Mar 2007
08 Apr 2006
09 Apr 2005
2004
15 Mar
2003
2001-2002
2000
13 Mar
1999
14 Mar 1998
1997
1996
21995
1994
1993
1992
1991
17 Mar 1990
1989
1988
1987
1986
02 Mar 1985
1984
1983
Notes: 1983 was the inaugural year. For 1983-2002, the course was from Sabie
(1000m MSL) to Lydenburg (1379 MSL) with a maximum elevation of 2150m MSL. For
2015-date, the course has been out-and-back from Sabie.
19
Mar
2016
3:39:35
B Ngwenya (RSA)
5:11:00
Madeleine Whitehair (RSA)
28 Mar
2015
3:32:22
Leboka Noto-3
4:50:17
Nocawe Morake (RSA)
2013-2014
---
not held
---
not held
31 Mar
2012
3:43:41
Leboka Noto-2
5:04:36
Jennifer Koech Chepkosgei (KEN)
26 Mar
2011
3:39:41
Fanie Mathipa (RSA)
4:24:02
Melanie vanRooyen-2
27 Mar
2010
3:36:14
Lucas Nonyana-2
4:44:02
Melanie vanRooyen (RSA)
28 Mar
2009
3:40:47
Lucas Nonyana (RSA)
4:56:26
Paula Quinsee (RSA)
29 Mar
2008
3:42:47
Paul Mhizha (ZIM)
4:56:20
Vanessa Wayland (RSA)
3:34:52
Leboka Noto (RSA)
4:51:36
Ilse Scheepers (RSA)
3:37:10
Shadrack Mudimbu-2
4:42:49
Areba Moraa (RSA)
3:41:48
Shadrack Mudimbu (ZIM)
4:40:42
Mene Olivier (RSA)
---
n/a
---
n/a
3:49:21
Walter Mabuza (RSA)
5:21:46
Gwyneth Maclachlan (RSA)
---
not held
---
not held
---
n/a
---
n/a
3:30:30
Simon Malindi -2
4:50:10
Carolyn Wridgway (RSA)
3:31:17
Simon Malindi (RSA)
4:23:10
Ann Chester (RSA)
---
n/a
---
n/a
---
n/a
---
n/a
---
n/a
---
n/a
---
n/a
---
n/a
---
n/a
---
n/a
---
n/a
---
n/a
---
n/a
---
n/a
3:41:36
Ben vanVuuren (RSA)
4:47:01
Mara Holtzhausen (RSA)
---
n/a
---
n/a
---
n/a
---
n/a
---
n/a
---
n/a
---
n/a
---
n/a
4:00:29
Chris Reyneke (RSA)
---
n/a
---
n/a
---
n/a
---
n/a
---
n/a
Most Wins
(1983/date)
Men
3
Leboka Noto (RSA)
2007,2012,2015
Women
2
Melanie vanRooyen (RSA)
2010-11
Prize Money (ADR qualified runners) No information on prize money has been received for this race.
Race Time Bias (sec/km) Race time bias is not calculated for distances beyond 45 km. Competitive Level (1990-date) Insufficient data to calculate the competitive level.
Last Updated on
28 May 2016
Contributor: Riel Hauman (50)


Tu opinón es importante
Donut icing oat cake icing macaroon. Fruitcake apple pie sweet roll lemon drops pie. Cheesecake powder marshmallow cupcake marzipan jelly. Powder cake macaroon gingerbread tart. Bear claw lemon drops pastry gingerbread wafer dessert cheesecake carrot cake. Biscuit apple pie carrot cake tiramisu.


|
Little Heroes
|
This improved version of the System.Collections.Generic.List that doesn't release the buffer on Clear(), resulting in better performance and less garbage collection. More...
Public Member Functions | |
| IEnumerator< T > | GetEnumerator () |
| For 'foreach' functionality. More... | |
| void | Clear () |
| Clear the array by resetting its size to zero. More... | |
| void | Release () |
| Clear the array and release the used memory. More... | |
| void | Add (T item) |
| Add the specified item to the end of the list. More... | |
| void | Insert (int index, T item) |
| Insert an item at the specified index, pushing the entries back. More... | |
| bool | Contains (T item) |
| Returns 'true' if the specified item is within the list. More... | |
| int | IndexOf (T item) |
| Return the index of the specified item. More... | |
| bool | Remove (T item) |
| Remove the specified item from the list. More... | |
| void | RemoveAt (int index) |
| Remove an item at the specified index. More... | |
| T | Pop () |
| Remove an item from the end. More... | |
| T[] | ToArray () |
| Mimic List's ToArray() functionality, except that in this case the list is resized to match the current size. More... | |
| void | Sort (CompareFunc comparer) |
| List.Sort equivalent. More... | |
| delegate int | CompareFunc (T left, T right) |
| Comparison function should return -1 if left is less than right, 1 if left is greater than right, and 0 if they match. More... | |
Public Attributes | |
| T[] | buffer |
| Direct access to the buffer. More... | |
| int | size = 0 |
| Direct access to the buffer's size. More... | |
Properties | |
| T | this[int i] [get, set] |
| Convenience function. More... | |
This improved version of the System.Collections.Generic.List that doesn't release the buffer on Clear(), resulting in better performance and less garbage collection.
PRO: BetterList performs faster than List when you Add and Remove items (although slower if you remove from the beginning). CON: BetterList performs worse when sorting the list. If your operations involve sorting, use the standard List instead.
| void BetterList< T >.Add | ( | T | item | ) |
Add the specified item to the end of the list.
| void BetterList< T >.Clear | ( | ) |
Clear the array by resetting its size to zero.
Note that the memory is not actually released.
| delegate int BetterList< T >.CompareFunc | ( | T | left, |
| T | right | ||
| ) |
Comparison function should return -1 if left is less than right, 1 if left is greater than right, and 0 if they match.
| bool BetterList< T >.Contains | ( | T | item | ) |
Returns 'true' if the specified item is within the list.
| IEnumerator<T> BetterList< T >.GetEnumerator | ( | ) |
For 'foreach' functionality.
| int BetterList< T >.IndexOf | ( | T | item | ) |
Return the index of the specified item.
| void BetterList< T >.Insert | ( | int | index, |
| T | item | ||
| ) |
Insert an item at the specified index, pushing the entries back.
| T BetterList< T >.Pop | ( | ) |
Remove an item from the end.
| void BetterList< T >.Release | ( | ) |
Clear the array and release the used memory.
| bool BetterList< T >.Remove | ( | T | item | ) |
Remove the specified item from the list.
Note that RemoveAt() is faster and is advisable if you already know the index.
| void BetterList< T >.RemoveAt | ( | int | index | ) |
Remove an item at the specified index.
| void BetterList< T >.Sort | ( | CompareFunc | comparer | ) |
List.Sort equivalent.
Doing Array.Sort causes GC allocations.
List.Sort equivalent. Manual sorting causes no GC allocations.
| T [] BetterList< T >.ToArray | ( | ) |
Mimic List's ToArray() functionality, except that in this case the list is resized to match the current size.
| T [] BetterList< T >.buffer |
Direct access to the buffer.
Note that you should not use its 'Length' parameter, but instead use BetterList.size.
| int BetterList< T >.size = 0 |
Direct access to the buffer's size.
Note that it's only public for speed and efficiency. You shouldn't modify it.
|
getset |
Convenience function.
I recommend using .buffer instead.


?name
:
u
^
c
o
e
at
U.*^_V*c.V
l)v>
Elev.
3
3~Q
Tree
(j^vxi-Stm*
_Vine
_Size:
Notes
HTn
sW>-cl'i.
Collectors
No..
173^
Local
Name
Date
of
Collection
0<>.
3,
Ident.
by
Collected
by
L
R.
HOLDRIDGE
FLORA
of
HAITI,
W.
I.
01529874
Legend -
Level of confidence that token is an accurately-transcribed word
extremely low
very low
low
undetermined
medium
high
very high


WITNESS LIST Judicial Affairs Committee April 9, 2001-2:00P HB 180 Against: Ash, Russell (Self) HB 485 Against: Ash, Russell (Self) HB 1061 On: Phillips, Chief Justice Tom (Self) HB 1567 Registering, but not testifying: Against: Heyer, Connie (Texas Community Associations Institute) Mintz, David (Texas Apartment Ass'n) HB 2270 For: Douglas, Joan (City of Houston) Registering, but not testifying: For: Carr, Snapper (Texas Municipal League) Casto, Larry (City of Dallas) HB 2322 For: Colton, Colleen (Self) Ferchill, Judge Patrick (Self) Fields, Steven (Self) Hill, Ann T. (Self) Kiser, Dr. Sanford (Texas Society of Psychiatric Physicians) Ortiz, Lenn (Self) Shorter, Arlene (Self) Swinney, James (Texas Depressive Manic Depressive Association) Against: Borel, Dennis (Disability Policy Consortium Legislative Group) Denton, Ann V. (Self) Halligan, Mike (Texas Mental Health Consumers) Hearon, Genevieve (Self) Herman, Judge Guy (Self) King, Karen (Self) Mitchell, Beth (Advocacy, Inc.) On: Herman, Judge Guy (Statutory Probate Court Judges of Texas) Pherson, Kim (Texas Mental Health Ass'n) Registering, but not testifying: For: Bush, John R. (Texas Society of Psychiatric Physicians) Dallas, Charlotte (DMDA Texas) Dean, Richard (Depressive Manic Depressive Ass'n of Tarrant County) Diano, Chip (Self) Jones, Susan (Texas Hospital Ass'n) Khan, Cynthia (Self) Mills, Christie (Self) Mizcles, Amy (National Alliance for the Mentally Ill of Texas) Scholl, Nancy (DMDA San Antonio) Swinney, Sarah (Self) Against: Carter, Candice (AARP) Kafka, Bob (ADAPT) Marshall, Susan (The Arc of Texas) Prough, Andrew (Citizens Commission on Human Rights) Thormann, Richard (Self) HB 2562 On: Griesel, Chris (Supreme Court of Texas) HB 2814 For: Herman, Judge Guy (Self and Statutory Probate Court Judges of Texas) HB 2884 On: Phillips, Chief Justice Tom (Self) Registering, but not testifying: Against: Pool, Darryl (Republican Party of Texas) HB 2964 For: Bacarisse, Charles (Harris County District Clerk) Myres, Susan (Houston Bar Association - Family Law Section) On: Dempster, Judge Georgia (Self) Registering, but not testifying: Against: Baggett, Dennis (Texas Daily Newspaper Ass'n/Texas Press Ass'n) HB 3144 Committee Substitute (Hartnett/CSHB 3144) For: Herman, Judge Guy (Self and Statutory Probate Court Judges of Texas) HB 3406 For: Herman, Judge Guy (Self and Statutory Probate Court Judges of Texas) Ward, Donald (Livestock Marketing Ass'n) HB 3586 For: Jackson, Jim (Self and Dallas County Commissioners Court) Jenevein, Judge Bob (Dallas County Court-at-Law Judges) SB 303 For: Magnuson, Ken (Self) On: Mogil, Lisa (Sunset Commission) Reaves, Margaret (Commission on Judicial Conduct) SB 629 On: Rosales, Stephen (Office of Attorney General) Registering, but not testifying: On: Nikiel, Beth (Office of Attorney General)


AVRsack Copyright © 2015, Matthias Neeracher
ACEView Copyright © 2012, Michael Robinson
ace Copyright © 2010, Ajax.org B.V.
All rights reserved.Redistribution and use in source and binary forms, with or without modification, are permitted provided that the following conditions are met:
1. Redistributions of source code must retain the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer.
2. Redistributions in binary form must reproduce the above copyright notice, this list of conditions and the following disclaimer in the documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.


MART
Home
About us
Page
Shop
Blog
Contact us
AFFORDABLE PARIS TOURS
CITY TOURS / TOUR TICKETS / TOUR GUIDES
NEW COLLECTION
favorite
comparison
balance
add to cart
Blue tshirt
$26
favorite
comparison
balance
add to cart
Women shirt
$31
favorite
comparison
balance
add to cart
Yellow tshirt
$21
favorite
comparison
balance
add to cart
Yellow tshirt
$21


SweetFreeStuff.com
///////////////////////////////////////////
Free Victorias Secret Reward Code
Posted: 20 Nov 2014 11:22 AM PST
http://feedproxy.google.com/&edburner&utm_medium=email
Email<EMAIL_ADDRESS>to request a free code. Your free
code could be worth $500, $100, $50, $10, or $10 off of a $30 purchase and
can be redeemed from December 4th – December 19th. Free Victoria’s Secret
Reward Code
The post Free Victoria’s Secret Reward Code appeared first on
SweetFreeStuff.com.
///////////////////////////////////////////
FREE Sample Tums Ultra Maximum Strength Chewable Tablets Sample (Costco
Members)
Posted: 19 Nov 2014 10:20 PM PST
http://feedproxy.google.com/&edburner&utm_medium=email
Click on Get a Sample. Costco Member ID required. FREE Sample Tums Ultra
Maximum Strength Chewable Tablets Sample
The post FREE Sample Tums Ultra Maximum Strength Chewable Tablets Sample
(Costco Members) appeared first on SweetFreeStuff.com.
///////////////////////////////////////////
Free Subscription to Rolling Stone Magazine
Posted: 19 Nov 2014 10:02 PM PST
http://feedproxy.google.com/&edburner&utm_medium=email
The post Free Subscription to Rolling Stone Magazine appeared first on
SweetFreeStuff.com.
///////////////////////////////////////////
Free Crystal Stud Earrings
Posted: 19 Nov 2014 09:24 PM PST
http://feedproxy.google.com/&edburner&utm_medium=email
For new members.
The post Free Crystal Stud Earrings appeared first on SweetFreeStuff.com.
///////////////////////////////////////////
Free Sample of Nikwax BaseFresh
Posted: 19 Nov 2014 09:13 PM PST
http://feedproxy.google.com/&edburner&utm_medium=email
You need to take the quiz and answer the questions correctly. Free Sample
of Nikwax BaseFresh
The post Free Sample of Nikwax BaseFresh appeared first on
SweetFreeStuff.com.
///////////////////////////////////////////
Free Nikwax Polar Proof Sample
Posted: 19 Nov 2014 09:13 PM PST
http://feedproxy.google.com/&edburner&utm_medium=email
Take the quiz and get the correct answers to receive a free sample of
Nikwax Polar Proof.
The post Free Nikwax Polar Proof Sample appeared first on
SweetFreeStuff.com.
///////////////////////////////////////////
Free Hylands Baby Gas Drops November 20th at 9PM EST
Posted: 19 Nov 2014 09:00 PM PST
http://feedproxy.google.com/&edburner&utm_medium=email
On Thursday November 20th at 9pm EST, you could send a friend one of:
1,000 full size Hylands Baby Gas Drops 2,500 $2.00 coupons redeemable
only at Walgreens Free Hyland’s Baby Gas Drops November 20th at 9PM EST
The post Free Hyland’s Baby Gas Drops November 20th at 9PM EST appeared
first on SweetFreeStuff.com.
///////////////////////////////////////////
Free Gooseberry Patch Kid Friendly Recipe Book
Posted: 18 Nov 2014 10:00 PM PST
http://feedproxy.google.com/&edburner&utm_medium=email
The post Free Gooseberry Patch Kid Friendly Recipe Book appeared first on
SweetFreeStuff.com.


| Art-id |
label |
caption |
| PMC3544629 |
Table 1
|
International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (IC ... |
| PMC3544629 |
Table 2
|
International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (IC ... |
| PMC3544629 |
Table 3
|
Pediatric hospitalizations for lower respiratory tract infec ... |
| PMC3544629 |
Table 4
|
Hospitalizations and average length of stay among high-risk ... |
| PMC3544629 |
Table 5
|
Hospitalization rates for lower respiratory tract infection ... |
| PMC3544629 |
Table 6
|
British Columbia population estimates and projections to 202 ... |
| PMC3544629 |
Table 7
|
Projections for lower respiratory tract infection hospitaliz ... |
| PMC3702433 |
Table 1
|
Table 1 The demographic and clinical characteristics of stud ... |
| PMC3702433 |
Table 2
|
Incidence of CAP among adults by gender and age group, Nha T ... |
| PMC3702433 |
Table 3
|
The bacterial and viral aetiology of the enrolled patients |
| PMC3787546 |
Table 1
|
Differences between asthma and COPD. |
| PMC5327784 |
Table 1
|
Some past emerging infectious disease epidemics and probable ... |
| PMC5327784 |
Table 2
|
Top priority emerging infectious diseases. |
| PMC5327784 |
Table 3
|
Major neglected tropical diseases. |
| PMC5735522 |
Table 1
|
Viruses utilized to assess the analytical specificity of the ... |
| PMC5735522 |
Table 2
|
Primer and probe sequences used in the CDC and PAHO RT-qPCR ... |
| PMC5735522 |
Table 3
|
Analytical sensitivity of ZIKV RT-qPCR and RT-iiPCR assays u ... |
| PMC5735522 |
Table 4
|
Analytical sensitivity of ZIKV RT-qPCR and RT-iiPCR assays u ... |
| PMC5735522 |
Table 5
|
Inclusivity and exclusivity test panel used to compare the s ... |
| PMC5735522 |
Table 6
|
Detection rates per assay according to the specimen’s viral ... |
| PMC5735522 |
Table 7
|
Agreement between the RT-iiPCR and RT-qPCR assays for detect ... |
| PMC5765694 |
Table 1
|
Descriptive characteristics of the study samples ( n = 75) |
| PMC5819479 |
Table 1
|
Numbers of RNA virus species that exhibit specified levels o ... |
| PMC5819479 |
Table 2
|
Numbers of RNA virus species naturally infecting additional ... |
| PMC5819479 |
Table 3
|
Numbers of RNA virus species with specified routes of transm ... |
| PMC6156540 |
Table 1
|
Exemplary clinical trials employing viral vector based vacci ... |
| PMC6156540 |
Table 2
|
Clinical trials employing DNA vaccines in pandemic settings. |
| PMC6156540 |
Table 3
|
Clinical trials employing RNA vaccines in pandemic settings. |
| PMC6156540 |
Table 4
|
Summarized properties of discussed vaccine technologies. |
| PMC6369834 |
Table 1
|
Western Balkan countries participation in ECDC-supported lab ... |
| PMC6369834 |
Table 2
|
Western Balkan countries' capacities to confirm cases by pri ... |
| PMC6509602 |
Table 1
|
Responses to open-ended questions on EIDs |
| PMC6509602 |
Table 2
|
Key barriers and proposed solutions relating to EIDs |
| PMC6509602 |
Table 3
|
Responses to open-ended questions on antimicrobial resistanc ... |
| PMC6509602 |
Table 4
|
Key barriers and proposed solutions relating to AMR and anti ... |
| PMC6509602 |
Table 5
|
Processes and activities proposed to move the National Emerg ... |
| PMC6594388 |
Table 1
|
Novel therapeutics currently under development (clinical tri ... |
| PMC6727070 |
Table 1
|
Integrated aetiology analysis input values for sensitivity a ... |
| PMC6727070 |
Table 2
|
Demographic and clinical characteristics of cases without HI ... |
| PMC6727070 |
Table 3
|
Demographic and clinical characteristics of cases with a pos ... |
| PMC6727070 |
Table 4
|
Organisms identified by culture and PCR of lung aspirate or ... |
| PMC6911100 |
Table 1
|
Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus (MERS-CoV) occu ... |
| PMC6925075 |
Table 1
|
Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations investors (a ... |
| PMC6925075 |
Table 2
|
The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) f ... |
| PMC6926871 |
Table 1
|
Search terms. |
| PMC6926871 |
Table 2
|
Inclusion and exclusion criteria. |
| PMC6926871 |
Table 4
|
Summary results of studies reviewed including type of screen ... |
| PMC6926871 |
Table 5
|
WHO temporary recommendations for entry and exit screening a ... |
| PMC6926871 |
Table 6
|
Screening methods and accompanying measures. |
| PMC6926871 |
Table 7
|
Number of travelers screened, suspected and confirmed cases ... |
| PMC6926871 |
Table 8
|
Number of travelers screened, suspected and confirmed cases ... |
| PMC6926871 |
Table 9
|
Reported facts about the cost of screening measure. |
| PMC6926871 |
Table 10
|
Assessment of public health impact as reported by authors. |
| PMC6926871 |
Table 3
|
Degree of success, limitations and concomitant effects of en ... |
| PMC6935926 |
TABLE 1
|
Summary of results from Nanopore sequencing based on pooled ... |
| PMC6939334 |
Table 1
|
US FDA-approved monoclonal antibody on the market |
| PMC6939334 |
Table 2
|
Top 10 best-selling monoclonal antibody drugs in 2018 |
| PMC6939334 |
Table 3
|
Key patents covering phage-displayed antibody libraries |
| PMC6939334 |
Table 4
|
The major platforms of human antibody transgenic animals in ... |
| PMC6939334 |
Table 5
|
US FDA-approved human mAbs |
| PMC6941257 |
Table 1
|
A summary of aptamers selected against bacterial cells or to ... |
| PMC6941257 |
Table 2
|
A summary of several aptamers developed for the treatment of ... |
| PMC6941257 |
Table 3
|
A summary of several aptamers developed for the treatment of ... |
| PMC6958603 |
Table 1
|
Mean indicators’ scores (range 1–3) for each attribute used ... |
| PMC6958603 |
Table 2
|
Indicators for data quality and completeness, timeliness, re ... |
| PMC6958603 |
Table 3
|
Indicators for simplicity and acceptability used for the eva ... |
| PMC6958603 |
Table 4
|
Indicators for stability used for the evaluation of the infl ... |
| PMC6958603 |
Table 5
|
Indicators for utility and sustainability used for the evalu ... |
| PMC6961264 |
Table 1
|
Influenza vaccine effectiveness estimates for community-dwel ... |
| PMC6961264 |
Table 2
|
Descriptive characteristics of community-dwelling adults age ... |
| PMC6961264 |
Table 3
|
Descriptive characteristics of community-dwelling adults age ... |
| PMC6961264 |
Table 4
|
Descriptive characteristics of community-dwelling adults age ... |
| PMC6969405 |
Table 1
|
Detailed pathological, histological, and bacteriological fin ... |
| PMC6969405 |
Table 2
|
Nidovirus detection in different snake species |
| PMC6969405 |
Table 3
|
Nucleotide sequence identity (%) of the two newly generated ... |
| PMC6969405 |
Table 4
|
Snake nidovirus RNA distribution in tissues of nine green tr ... |
| PMC6969405 |
Table 5
|
Pathologic and molecular findings of selected snakes with di ... |
| PMC6969405 |
Table 6
|
Symptoms of snake nidovirus RNA positive and negative animal ... |
| PMC6981968 |
Table 1
|
Effects of disclosure of hospital list. |
| PMC6981968 |
Table 2
|
Results of sensitivity analysis of the time taken to complet ... |
| PMC7000305 |
Table 1
|
Baseline Characteristics. |
| PMC7000305 |
Table 2
|
Odds Ratio for Confirmed Cases of MERS-CoV Infection. |
| PMC7017508 |
Table 1
|
Demographic characteristics of hospitalized children with co ... |
| PMC7017508 |
Table 2
|
Prevalence of causative respiratory viruses and Mycoplasma p ... |
| PMC7017508 |
Table 3
|
Comparison of clinical and laboratory findings according to ... |
| PMC7019290 |
Table 1
|
Examples of known animal viruses reported in available metag ... |
| PMC7019290 |
Table 2
|
Examples of novel viruses found in farm animals by available ... |
| PMC7028525 |
Table 1
|
Reported cases of pulmonary silicone embolism syndrome. |
| PMC7033854 |
Table 1
|
Comparisons of baseline characteristics at admission |
| PMC7033854 |
Table 2
|
Comparisons of laboratory and radiologic parameters between ... |
| PMC7033854 |
Table 3
|
Characteristics of fever and response to antipyretics betwee ... |
| PMC7033854 |
Table 4
|
Comparison of clinico-laboratory findings between Adv and No ... |
| PMC7033854 |
Table 5
|
Comparison of clinico-laboratory variables between combined ... |
| PMC7033854 |
Table 6
|
Comparisons of treatment outcomes between Adv and Non-Adv gr ... |
| PMC7034298 |
Table 1
|
The clinical and immunological characterization. |
| PMC7034298 |
Table 2
|
Summary of patients with IKK2 deficiency previously reported ... |
| PMC7041086 |
Table 1
|
Clinical and spirometric characteristics at baseline. Descri ... |
| PMC7041086 |
Table 2
|
Characteristics of the infection disease at baseline. Compar ... |
| PMC7041086 |
Table 3
|
Description of microbiological findings in the Viral Infecti ... |
| PMC7041086 |
Table 4
|
Outcomes (Delta-FEV-1, Acute rejection, BOS and Death) after ... |
| PMC7041086 |
Table 5
|
Outcomes (BOS and AR) after 6 months of observation. Descrip ... |
| PMC7047374 |
Table 1
|
Definition of those parameters in the Bats-Hosts-Reservoir-P ... |


A machine learning based approach for fungal species identification using barcode sequence data. The multi-class random forest model has been used for prediction purpose, where the gap-pair compositional feature was used to encode the barcode sequence data. The encoded dataset was used as input for prediction purpose. Though this approach has been developed for fungal species identification in particular, can be used for other species identification as well.
| Version: | 1.0.1 |
| Depends: | R (≥ 3.3.0) |
| Imports: | bold, randomForest, Biostrings, BioSeqClass |
| Published: | 2018-02-07 |
| Author: | P K Meher |
| Maintainer: | P K Meher <meherprabin at yahoo.com> |
| License: | GPL-2 | GPL-3 [expanded from: GPL (≥ 2)] |
| NeedsCompilation: | no |
| CRAN checks: | funbarRF results |
| Reference manual: | funbarRF.pdf |
| Package source: | funbarRF_1.0.1.tar.gz |
| Windows binaries: | r-devel: funbarRF_1.0.1.zip, r-release: funbarRF_1.0.1.zip, r-oldrel: funbarRF_1.0.1.zip |
| OS X binaries: | r-release: funbarRF_1.0.1.tgz, r-oldrel: funbarRF_1.0.1.tgz |
Please use the canonical form https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=funbarRF to link to this page.


If you're seeing this for too long, something bad must've happened!
Try reloading the page, and if it don't help, contact the mod author!
The game is currently being updated.
If you can see this message, that means the game has detected inconsistent version number between files.
This can be caused by the website currently being updated and not ready yet or there is an error causing the files to be read incorrectly.
Please try again later, or if this screen has been up for more than 30 minutes, please contact the mod author.


Caputo, booted from Stone trial, alleges threat from U.S. marshal
by https://www.facebook.com/JerryZremskIBuffaloNews/WASHINGTON – Michael R. Caputo of East Aurora sat for two weeks as his best friend, Roger Stone, went on trial on felony charges of perjury and witness tampering.
But when the federal jury convicted Stone on all counts Friday, Caputo quickly showed his displeasure – and got into a scrape with a U.S. marshal as a result.
After the verdict, Caputo refused to stand in respect for the jury, as is customary. Told by a U.S. marshal that he had to do so, Caputo stood – and turned his back on the jury.
"I decided to do something to show my displeasure without disrupting the proceedings," Caputo said afterward.
A U.S. marshal then ordered Caputo out of the courtroom, handing the Republican political consultant off to another federal agent.
That's when, according to Caputo, things got uncomfortable.
"I don’t know how you work here," Caputo told the U.S. marshal, according to Caputo's account of the incident on Twitter.
"It's a job, sir," the marshal replied.
Caputo's retort?
"I'd rather die."
To hear Caputo tell it, the marshal then said: "That can be arranged."
Michael Caputo
Caputo took that as a death threat.
"Must I fear the @USMarshalsHQ?" he said on Twitter.
Afterward, Caputo said he was contemplating filing a complaint or contacting a lawyer about the marshal's actions.
"From my perspective, at the least it's completely unprofessional," Caputo said. "And at the worst, it's truly frightening."
A spokeswoman for the U.S. Marshals Service did not immediately respond to a request for comment on Caputo's tweet.
Stone was convicted of lying to Congress and interfering with a witness regarding his attempts to get information from WikiLeaks about its pending release of emails damaging to the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, in the 2016 presidential campaign.
Caputo had strong words as well as actions for the jury that convicted Stone, as well as U.S. District Court Judge Amy Berman Jackson, who was appointed to the bench by then-President Barack Obama, a Democrat.
"Normal Americans don’t stand a chance with an Obama judge and a Washington jury," Caputo tweeted.


She was group leader, leading the group to make critical decisions. She was also key in bringing the team together in the very beginning. She particularly led the team during the dash board development cycle. She was a passionate group member with utter most dedication.
He led the team on the entire running of the project often guiding the team on the confusing parts of the team. He was the literally the reference material of the group. Particularly he led the team on the report writing and general organization of the team's work. He also led the team on the presentation of the project.
He led the team on one of the most challenging part of the assignment, the website development. A concept we had zero experience. He demonstrated the ability to learn quickly, work under pressure and maneuver the unforeseeable. He is passionate about women.
He led the team throughout the entire programming of the Arduino board, often showing expertise and fast learning abilities. He was key in solving some of the technical and practical technicalities that we faced along the way. He is passionate about programming and hardware.
She was the groups' 'sticking gum', keeping the group together as a family. Particularly she led the team on the poster development section, creating an attractive poster that is summarizing the entire project and often guiding the team to follow our tight schedule.


| Package | Description |
|---|---|
| org.apache.derby.client | |
| org.apache.derby.client.am | |
| org.apache.derby.client.net | |
| org.apache.derby.jdbc |
| Class and Description |
|---|
| LogWriter |
| SqlException |
| Class and Description |
|---|
| Agent |
| ClientCallableStatement |
| ClientConnection |
| ClientDatabaseMetaData |
| ClientJDBCObjectFactory
The methods of this interface are used to return JDBC interface
implementations to the user depending on the JDBC version supported
by the JDK.
|
| ClientMessageId
A very simple wrapper around a message id.
|
| ClientParameterMetaData |
| ClientPreparedStatement |
| ClientResultSet |
| ClientStatement |
| ColumnMetaData |
| ConnectionCallbackInterface |
| Cursor |
| DisconnectException |
| EncryptionManager |
| LogicalCallableStatement
A wrapper class for a physical Derby callable statement.
|
| LogicalConnection
A simple delegation wrapper handle for a physical connection.
|
| LogicalPreparedStatement
A wrapper class for a physical Derby prepared statement.
|
| LogWriter |
| MaterialStatement |
| Section |
| SectionManager |
| SqlException |
| StatementCacheInteractor
Utility class encapsulating the logic for interacting with the JDBC statement
cache when creating new logical statements.
|
| Class and Description |
|---|
| ClientJDBCObjectFactory
The methods of this interface are used to return JDBC interface
implementations to the user depending on the JDBC version supported
by the JDK.
|
| SqlException |
Copyright © 2016. All rights reserved.


|
CMSIS-Driver Validation
Version 3.0.0
Driver Validation
|
Heap memory is used by the memory allocation functions.
It is usually configured in the startup_device.s file located under the Device component class but it can also, in some cases, be configured by a linker script instead.
Some interface test functions allocate additional buffers from the heap memory.
The CMSIS-Driver Validation framework does not impose heap requirements because it does not use heap memory.
Each interface test module has specific requirements for the heap memory, default requirements are listed below:
| Interface test module | Heap memory requirement (in bytes) |
|---|---|
| CAN | 128 |
| Ethernet | 1024 |
| SPI | 12288 |
| USART | 8192 |
Interface test modules that are not listed in the previous table do not use heap memory.
The system heap memory size must support the largest heap requirement of any used interface test module.
For example, if SPI driver testing is selected heap memory size should be set to at least 12 kB.
Suggested value for heap memory size is 16384 bytes.
The thread requirements need to be reflected in the CMSIS-RTOS2 configuration. Refer to the CMSIS-RTOS2 Reference for further details.
For CMSIS-RTOS2 RTX5, thread requirements are configured in the RTX_Config.h file located under the CMSIS component class:
| Option | Value |
|---|---|
| System Configuration: Global Dynamic Memory size [bytes] (Note 1) | 16384 |
| Thread Configuration: Default Thread Stack size [bytes] | 3072 |


Hello there!
Bootstrap CSS and JS for this page were loaded through JNPM Servlet CDN
Switch to Page with resources provided by Wicket CDN


Generate RDF from web documents in XML, JSON, CSV, GeoJSON, HTML, CBOR, plain text with regular expressions.
Generate RDF Streams from large CSV documents, MQTT or WebSocket streams, regular HTTP Get operations.
SPARQL-Generate is an extension of SPARQL 1.1 for querying not only RDF datasets but also documents in arbitrary formats. It offers a simple template-based option to generate RDF Graphs from documents and different streams. It presents the following advantages:
Maxime Lefrançois, Antoine Zimmermann, Noorani Bakerally A SPARQL extension for generating RDF from heterogeneous formats, In Proc. Extended Semantic Web Conference, ESWC, May 2017, Portoroz, Slovenia (long paper - PDF - BibTeX)
Maxime Lefrançois, Antoine Zimmermann, Noorani Bakerally Flexible RDF generation from RDF and heterogeneous data sources with SPARQL-Generate, In Proc. the 20th International Conference on Knowledge Engineering and Knowledge Management, EKAW, Nov 2016, Bologna, Italy (demo track - PDF - BibTeX)
Maxime Lefrançois, Antoine Zimmermann, Noorani Bakerally Génération de RDF à partir de sources de données aux formats hétérogènes, Actes de la 17ème conférence Extraction et Gestion des Connaissances, EGC, Jan 2017, Grenoble, France - (PDF - BibTeX)
Use SPARQL-Generate as:
See our predefined SPARQL binding functions and SPARQL-Generate iterator functions. You can also leverage the SPARQL 1.1 extension mechanism and implement your own functions to support any other format.
Test, evaluate, contribute
Our tests report contains tests from related work and more. You can request a new unit test, a new binding function or iterator function via the issue tracker. We also led a comparative evaluation with the RML reference implementation.


{{userlist}}
Showing of 'interpolate' filter: {{ 'Current version is v%VERSION%.' | interpolate }}
This is the partial for view 2.