I don't quite understand the details, but sounds link a kind of 'ah ha'
observation of both natural systems in operation and the self-reference
dilemma of theory. My rule is try to never change the definition of
your measures. It's sort of like maintaining software compatibility.
if you arbitrarily change the structure of the data you collect you
can't compare old and new system structures they reflect nor how your
old and new questions relate to each other. It's such a huge
temptation to change your measures to fit your constantly evolving
questions, but basically..., don't do it. :)
Phil Henshaw ????.?? ? `?.????
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
680 Ft. Washington Ave
NY NY 10040
tel: 212-795-4844
e-mail: pfh at synapse9.com
explorations: www.synapse9.com <
http://www.synapse9.com/>
-----Original Message-----
From:
[hidden email] [mailto:
[hidden email]] On
Behalf Of Mikhail Gorelkin
Sent: Tuesday, February 27, 2007 5:06 PM
To: FRIAM
Subject: [FRIAM] Subtle problem with BI
Hello all,
It seems there is a subtle problem with BI (data mining, data
visualization, etc.). Usually we assume that our data reflect adequately
business issues (customer behavior), and in the same time we update
(patch) our data-collecting software very often, which reflects the very
fact of its (more or less) inadequacy! So, our data also have such
inadequacy! but we never try to estimate it 1) to improve our software;
2) to make our business decision more accurate. It looks like both our
data-collecting software and BI are linked together forming a business
(and cybernetic!) model.
Any comments?
Mikhail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/attachments/20070303/eb14ee4a/attachment.html
Locked
