Re: OI and 'business intelligence' and reality

From: Kenneth Downs <knode.wants.this_at_see.sigblock>
Date: Tue, 03 May 2005 09:14:27 -0400
Message-Id: <e5akk2-9a2.ln1@pluto.downsfam.net>

mountain man wrote:

> "Kenneth Downs" <knode.wants.this_at_see.sigblock> wrote in message
> news:i46ck2-jce.ln1_at_pluto.downsfam.net...

>> mountain man wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> But what are you summing?  Bytes?

>
>
> 1) I assert OI to be present in some measure (both
> positive and negative) in every element of data and
> every line of program code, even though this
> measure might be exceedingly small in some instances.
>
> 2) When an instance of the system (data + code) is
> running ([r]dbms assumed) then it follows from 1
> that a total measure (in respect of the organisation's
> investment in development) can be obtained.
> NOTE: that is all; I am not claiming a formula to
> measure a value.
>
> 3) This total amount of OI is bound by the limit of
> the union of all data (of course including schema)
> and all software (in fact all lines of code) that the
> organisation has developed at that time.
> NB: It has been assembled into a directory above.
>
>
>

>> Seems you can only measure the usefulness
>> of any commodity by its contribution to the bottom line.

>
>
> That's correct, and this assessment often requires great
> experience and knowledge of the specific environment,
> such as the schema of the database on the one hand, and
> on the other hand, knowledge of the application software
> programs.

Here is where I would pause. Seems you are seeking the Universal Unit of Measure for IT, which we are calling in this thread "Business Intelligence".

>
> The bottom line is intelligence, not data.

I actually meant the $$ bottom line, not sure if I made that clear. My original point along those lines was that your universal unit of measure is money, and IT is valuable insofar as it is able to produce money.

If that is too capitalist, and does not apply to non-profits, then we can speak of "energy", the ability to do work, or the ability to meet the goals of the organization. But since non-profits still need to buy things to do things, it can still be thought of as money.

>
> It is the (artificial) intelligence written into the code and
> schema to support the organisation that is being summed
> (in principle) to arrive at a "whole" for the total.
>
>

>> Putting some
>> programs into that directory can REDUCE the bottom line.

>
>
> Of course it can.
> Negative intelligence (eg: bugs) exists.
>

Not bugs, programs that work perfectly well but which reduce the bottom line. Individuals can often recognize such things and just dispose of them, companies find this harder.

>
>

>> To have a workable concept you have to better define the operator (+) and
>> the operands (code) and (data).

>
> I am not ready for a working concept.
> I am trying to develop a principle ....
> Let me express the principle in another manner.
>

<snip>

I would restate that you are biting off something the size of psychohistory here. You need someplace to start. $ is usually close to many people's hearts.

>
> Am I making myself understood here,
> or is this still viewed as metaphysics?
>

I think I know what you are after, but it is no small task.

-- 
Kenneth Downs
Secure Data Software, Inc.
(Ken)nneth@(Sec)ure(Dat)a(.com)

Received on Tue May 03 2005 - 08:14:27 CDT