http://www.mountainman.com.au/softwa...telligence.htm


What is computerized organizational intelligence?



Summarily OI might be defined as the sum of the data objects

and the source code objects associated with application systems hosted by
the organization.



In the source code of each of the component application objects there rests
an intelligence by design of the author of the code. For example, a daily
report may summarise yesterdays problem incidents. This is one small quanta
in an oceanic consideration. Mechanisms by which the application system
suite of components is coordinated and managed also need to be included in
this sum, and these contribute to an emergent sum greater than the parts



In the physical database file containing the organization's data is the
balance of computerized OI. As the RDBMS environment has become enrichened
with services and utilities over the decades, it would be fair to comment
that more and more organizations have more and more OI bound up in this file
each year of its service.



Like yang and ying, the code and data are almost inseparable, and almost
equally totally useless without the other.



Hypothesis 1: The quantum of organizational intelligence bound

in computer system software

is not null.





Hypothesis 2: The quantum of organizational intelligence bound

in computer system software

is at least the sum of

the quantum of organizational intelligence bound

within each of the different computer systems

software environments (1 to n)

operative in the computer system.





Using these two hypotheses, we can formulate a theorem of location and
distribution

of organizational intelligence within a computer system without having to
formally define

exactly what organizational intelligence is.





See link for this theorem.

Feedback welcomed.









Pete Brown

www.mountainman.com.au/software

"mountain man" <hobbit (AT) southern_seaweed (DOT) com.op> wrote

..htm
Mindless marketing horseshit. plonk

"Bob Badour" <bbadour (AT) golden (DOT) net> wrote

correction:

Mindless Marketing Manifest. Moron

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri (AT) ywho (DOT) com> wrote

Well, yours certainly has more panache; although, I am surprised you did not
extend the alliteration to:

Mindless Marketing Manifest. Moron Mountain Man

And I maintain one must include the 'plonk' when the newbie bounces off the
bottom of one's killfile.

When you moronic responders have finished with the aliteration
and writing flowery poetry and the rest, perhaps you'd have time
to review the theory.

But its probably a little beyond your capabilities.
Never mind.

Go and play with your killfile spring-trap mechanisms





"Bob Badour" <bbadour (AT) golden (DOT) net> wrote

"Tony Douglas" <tonyisyourpal (AT) netscape (DOT) net> wrote

Diagrams (and especially pretty diagrams) make the material much more reader
friendly. Terse presentation just raises the bar. (Disclamer: I'm not saying
that irrelevant diagrams are useful:-)

In this particular case, the problem IMO lies in the chosen dictionary.
"intelligence", "methodology" etc are the words that discredited themself.
Don't use them if you don't want turning your reader into skeptical mood.
Don't use the word "quantum" unless speaking about quantum physics,
otherwise a reader would suspect that you are just an ordinary crank. Etc.,
etc

"Tony Douglas" <tonyisyourpal (AT) netscape (DOT) net> wrote in message

And here's the spelling card being played.
Another dead head selects to respond ...


A picture is worth a thousand words.

No comments as to the computer and database
related elements of the article? Dont understand it?
Unable to respond to technical issues?


Have a nice day.

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri (AT) ywho (DOT) com> wrote


The term 'organizational intelligence' was used specifically.
You obviously have no idea about this term.

I dont think you understand the meaning of these words.
HTF can a word discredit itself?


What a great quantum of rubbish!

Database forum participants pulling spelling cards and semantic cards.
As if there is significance in reserving special meanings for specific words
in
the english language. The word "quantum" was used millenia (this means like
thousands of years) prior to any of the myriad of physics quantum
*theories*.

If you are going to play the semantic cards,
at least get it right.

Steer clear of technical issues.
Have a nice day.

"mountain man" <hobbit (AT) southern_seaweed (DOT) com.op> wrote

There is a clear motivation for this. Most of the non-peer reviewed
"research" on the web is junk. Therefore, people adopted simplistic criteria
to filter out the noise. Pardon me, but if your paper has a crank essay's
appearance, then, most likely its content is garbage too. Nobody is going to
spend their lifetime trying to make a sence out of it.

Therefore, be careful with presentation form. If you don't play by the
rules, you have no audience.

"Mikito Harakiri" <mikharakiri (AT) ywho (DOT) com> wrote

Mikito,

There is a reason the mountain man made that plonk noise on his first post.
He is another Neo. I suggest you invoke Date's Principle of Incoherence.