Re: the distinction between data and intelligence

mountain man wrote:

> With varying reception I have attempted to
> discuss the concept of "organisational intelligence" (OI)
> informally defined as the collective sum of all program
> code elements associated with one or more DB
> applications used by an organisation, *and* the data
> held in the (R)DBMS. (ie: a union set)
>

Pete,

You know I've been meaning to respond to this for awhile, but have not gotten to it.

In reviewing the responses you have received to this idea in the past, it seems that they are uniformly negative, but, and this is very important, they are for the most part not hostile (except for Alfredo who is always hostile).

This fact, negativity without hostility, should perhaps be very encouraging. It may mean that you are heading in the right general direction, but are either biting off too much at once (my own opinion), or have gone off the mark in asking the question, or gone off the mark in phrasing the answer. What it definitely does *not* mean is that you are in completely the wrong ballpark.

Normally when pressed for details on "intelligence", you seem, and I use this word inviting correction, to equate intelligence with processes. I would suggest this is way too broad. You are trying to pin down the assets that are not physical, no? Boxes are physical. Data, being static once recorded, is actually more like boxes than it is like code, because once you have it you have it. But what is code? Is this what you call intelligence? I'd like to follow that reasoning through and see if it can be nailed down to measurable terms.

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