Re: OI and 'business intelligence' and reality

"paul c" <toledobythesea_at_oohay.ac> wrote in message news:wfEce.1168344$8l.1157572_at_pd7tw1no...
> mountain man wrote:
>> The definition recently posted for the term "organisational intelligence"
>> (ie: as applied to computer systems = Sum of the data + Sum of the code)
>> did not appear to be well received. ...
>
> i think i receive it loud and clear. it is more subtle
> than some formulas. in fact, if you complete it, it reads
> sum ... = data sum + code sum + point_of_view + design_intent -
> misconceptions (eg. misconceptions about subject matter). this all
> assumes that approapriate domains are capable of some kind of 'plus'
> operation.

No, in fact I think you missed the point. The definition was simply
OI = Sum (Data) + Sum(SoftwareCode)

The domains are capable of union.
Why wouldn't they be?

Get the RDBMS data file and throw it in a directory. Now you have the data side of the domain.

Get the OS software and the RDBMS software and all the application software components, and throw them into the same directory.

Reasonably simple exercise. Reality check.

The sum of this represents the present instance of the DATA for an organisation and the SOFTWARE at various layers in use at that organisation.

> lets get real. most computer systems (and db systems as long as they
> depend on "code") can never be 'reality models' (even the rare "real-time"
> db's depend on integer clocks so can't be called
> instantaneous).

Real time is not relevant.

> a computer system that purports to do more than
> record-keeping can never be more than a metaphor. it should be
> classified according to how useful a metaphor it is (in its intended
> context).

Traditionally computer systems harnessed to (R)DBMS software were only used for record keeping, and in today's world, many people in fact use these systems for just record keeping. Many people believe this is all they are capable of.

Automated systems also perform the following functions:

* information reporting to workgroups in the organisation
* information reporting to clients of the organisation.
* controlling processes of diverse operational context.

They are capable of doing this, not because computers are sentient, but because of the intelligence (with respect to the organisational data) codified in programs by programmers under some form of delegation from the business owner.

The assertion that some menial (clerical) intelligence can be attributed to the operation of a sophisticated computer system is not too outlandish in my mind.

> this discussion has trespassed into the metaphysical. as a famous guy
> said (perhaps it was Dikstra, i'd be glad to know for sure): "the question
> of whether a computer can think is as interesting as
> whether a submarine can swim").

This discussion passed into the metaphysical because you cannot entertain the above assertion. I believe that the problem is really in the use and the definition of the word "intelligence".

If you check a dictionary you'll find something like 3 separate meanings for the word:

1. The capacity to acquire and apply knowledge.
2. The faculty of thought and reason.
3. Superior powers of mind.

Obviously the first meaning is applicable to the operational context of a computer system and rdbms, while the third meaning is not applicable.

The second meaning can be simulated by a computer by adequate programming, eg Turing, and in business systems that are "sophisticated" (ie: have had a lot of work put in on them --- rules based, etc).

Now, are you going to pick up that "metaphysical card" that you last played in this thread, or is all this stuff just too metaphysical for you?

Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz
www.mountainman.com.au Received on Sat Apr 30 2005 - 12:12:44 CEST