[ba-ohs-talk] IBIS question requires experience, pilot testing
Al, Johannes, (01)
Doing KM is 10 times easier than explaining it, because the work product of
"knowledge" is performed in the background of cognition on automatic pilot, and
so to pull it forward into an explanation for review by the conscious mind seems
very tedious. Yet, when people observe work product, there is often recognition
of added value, without suffering the burden of comprehending a long
explanation. (02)
Is there some work product that demonstrates IBIS, Pepper and the Compendium
have been used to convent information into knowledge by connecting disparate
events into chronologies of cause and effect for decision support? (03)
Rod (04)
albert.m.selvin@verizon.com wrote:
>
> The Compendium approach has sought to extend the usefulness of IBIS, in
> part by providing an alternative set of structures and templates to use in
> the types of situations Johannes describes. One of the fundamental premises
> of Compendium is that "modeling" types of approaches (structured frameworks
> derived from engineering and other analytical disciplines) can interweave
> with IBIS in all sorts of useful ways. These are explored and illustrated
> in a number of papers that can be found on the <a href =
> http://www.compendiuminstitute.org/library/papers.htm>Compendium
> Institute</a> site.
>
> Coming up with the best representation for the scenario below would depend
> on a set of situational factors, such as the composition of the group, the
> amount of time they have, the skills and backgrounds, the downstream
> audience, etc. What (in general) a Compendium practitioner would prescribe,
> though, would be a set of templates that decompose the problem and solution
> into component parts that could be represented (and referred to)
> separately. For example, a "timing" model would show the sequence of
> Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. The rationale for the timing can be
> modeled (using IBIS) on that 'map'. The nature and pieces, though, of
> Alternative 1 and 2 themselves would be modeled separately in "task" or
> "object" models, as would the "customers", "ROI" calculations and
> assumptions, etc. What makes this all work is the transclusive linking of
> the nodes representing Alternative 1 and 2 in all these different contexts;
> at a glance (or right-click) the user can see all the different dimensions
> of the problem and how the alternatives play into those dimensions.
>
> This is easier to see in practice than in the above explanation, of course.
>
> Al
>
> Johannes Ernst <jernst@r-objects.com>@bootstrap.org on 01/28/2002 01:00:57
> AM
>
> Please respond to ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org
>
> Sent by: owner-ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org
>
> To: ba-ohs-talk@bootstrap.org
> cc:
>
> Subject: [ba-ohs-talk] IBIS question
>
> We have incorporated IBIS into our product, Pepper, and it is very
> useful at "putting all the facts on the table" in order to enable
> informed decision-making by a person based on those facts.
>
> However, I'm not convinced that it can do much in order to actually
> help making the decision, and then record the reasons for a decision.
> Why? Because deciding on anything non-trivial involves lots of pros
> and cons for lots of ideas, but the decision is never clear-cut. It
> is always a tradeoff, and I'm not sure how to use IBIS to capture
> that tradeoff and the conditions under which one would redo the
> decision.
>
> Simplistic example:
> Question: How can we meet the customer requirement "product needs to
> run faster"?
> - Idea: Buy a new computer for the customer
> Pro: product will run faster
> Con: substantial customer confusion and installation issues
> - Idea: Redesign XYZ component in the product
> Pro: seamless upgrade for the customer
> Con: long design cycle
>
> There's no clear "right" idea here -- the obvious alternatives are:
> 1) go with idea 1
> 2) go with idea 2
> 3) go with idea 1 for 6 months, redesign product in the meantime, go
> with idea 2 for 6 months thereafter.
>
> What I'd like to express are things like "our plan of action is
> alternative 1 because we only have X customers right now, and the ROI
> for alternative 2 is not good enough given that it's only X
> customers, but once X has grown above Y, we will change to
> alternative 3". IMHO, that would be much more useful because that
> would capture not just the facts, but also the course of action and
> the tradeoffs.
>
> So my question: is anyone aware of any work that extends base IBIS to
> help with this scenario?
>
> I appreciate it. Cheers,
>
> Johannes Ernst
> R-Objects Inc. (05)