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: [EMAIL PROTECTED] explorations: www.synapse9.com <http://www.synapse9.com/> -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 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
============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
