Re: OI and 'business intelligence' and reality

"Kenneth Downs" <knode.wants.this_at_see.sigblock> wrote in message news:e5akk2-9a2.ln1_at_pluto.downsfam.net...

>
> 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 thesis is that there exists an atomic structure (at some level yet to be determined - and it may be a subtle "substance") for what we call "business intelligence", or "organisational intelligence" or "artificial intelligence".

Further that this atomic structure exists both in data and code.

Finally that it can be in principle identified by trained and experienced professionals. Database theorists can perceive that one schema is more "intelligent" than another, while application software suite designers can perceive that a certain approach (NOTE: irrespective of the programming language) is more "intelligent" than another.

The problem is identifying and managing the UNION. ie: both the data and the code (change management) as a cohesive whole from the organiation's perspective, once all the vendors have received their cheques, and are elsewhere engaged.

>> 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.

The profit and loss statement at the end of the period in conjunction with the balance sheet can also tell a story about the "intelligence" of an organisation (and/or its management).

In the business sense, this is the foundational bottom line, and can be used to equate the cost of development, and the increase of functionality. I agree that most organisations today (due to substantial govt legisilative change since the 1970's) even if they are non-profit, are accountable, and must account.

Intelligence is won, incremental development by incremental development, at a cost to the organisation.

>> 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.

That is why once an organisation reaches a certain size, an internal IT structure is mandatory, as is a manager of IT (and development) who has the experience to recognise the occurrence of a situation such as this, and the authority to obviate "things that thrash around in the dark". ;-)

>>> 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.

Although we are talking about machine intelligence here you have a valid point. The evolution of that intelligence has a history that can be itemised, and Codd and the relational model have their part to play in it.

> You need someplace to start. $ is usually close to many people's
> hearts.

Good point .... I will have to work on that angle, but I am confident that this issue of OI will resolve in the end to dollars, because after all the operations of the (database+software) system effect the effectiveness of the organisation in a centralised manner.

>> 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.

Thanks for the feedback.
I appreciate it.

Pete Brown
Falls Creek
Oz
www.mountainman.com.au Received on Wed May 04 2005 - 02:18:14 CEST