MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W82963474

Workshop on information management for situational analytics

2011· article· en· W82963474 sur OpenAlexaff
Gregory Richards, Bijan Raahemi

Notice bibliographique

RevueConference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative Research · 2011
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineBusiness, Management and Accounting
ThématiqueBig Data and Business Intelligence
Établissements canadiensUniversity of Ottawa
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésComputer scienceAnalyticsSituational ethicsData scienceSituation awarenessInformation managementKnowledge managementHuman–computer interactionPsychologyEngineering
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Situational Analytics It has long been argued that the fundamental purpose of is to enable managerial decision making. Prior to making decisions, managers often employ some form of analytics. Analytics could range from simple trend analysis through cause-effect modelling and sophisticated data mining. In every case, the decision to be made is about optimizing some organizational objective. This objective is influenced by activities in the organization. Therefore, once the objective has been accepted as important, the actual decision is not so much about the objective as it is about the activities that drive accomplishment of the objective. Each analytic situation therefore, can be characterized as an ensemble of objectives and drivers: the more explicit the linkages between these objectives and drivers the more understandable the decision. Thus the situation---the specific pattern of objectives and drivers---should determine the data to be used and the analytics relevant to the decision. Steps towards Situational Analytics The term situational generally refers to creating flexible, agile, adaptive, self-service capabilities that reduce the amount of time needed to update the data available in systems. This concept is fundamentally about granting capability to the information consumer to capture new data points as needs emerge, not necessarily to pattern the data into a decision framework that enables more rapid decision making. This patterning of data to fit the decision task is important in reducing the decision maker's cognitive load thus improving both the speed and quality of decisions. At the moment, when a decision maker interacts with BI-delivered data, he or she typically has to explore the data looking for trends and relationships between data points then consider the type of analytic technique that best fits with the data. Only then can the decision maker actually conduct the analytic process to make the decision. Information architectures that deliver the data in a way that fits the user's decision framework create a more explicit linking of data to the analytic situation. Therefore, while situational is about reducing the time to adaptation of the data, Situational Analytics is about reducing decision latency. An Architecture for Situational Analytics The architecture for Situational Analytics is based on the current 3-tiered architecture which includes a source system, a means of extracting data from the source and integrating it into a BI (which could include operational data stores, data marts, data warehouses, or tool-specific content storage areas) and a presentation layer where the data is delivered in different formats (multi-dimensional cubes, dashboards, or reports) to decision makers. Since the notion of situational analytics in goal-directed systems includes an ensemble of objectives and drivers, the architecture for situational analytics adds a modeling layer that allows for representation of the relationships between the objectives and drivers. In effect, the modeling layer replicates the framework by which the user makes decisions about how to improve performance relative to the pre-defined objectives. This layer also allows for identification of Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) to be used in the analysis. In addition, a link between the decision framework as represented in the modeling layer and the repository is required. That is, while the data mart or data warehouse is often designed using various data modeling techniques, the decision framework can be used as a means of selecting specific data points from those defined in the data model as key factors required for the situation. In this way, decision makers can reduce the amount of time they spend searching through data that might not be relevant to the decision, and focus on the relationships between key drivers and their attendant objectives. It is also a fact that most KPIs are influenced by business processes at different layers in the organization. Often the real reasons behind performance are hidden in business processes. Therefore, information about these processes are needed calling for a KPI-based but process-oriented view of the decision environment. That is, situational analytics requires access to aggregated KPIs but also a link from these KPIs to the process level data allowing decision makers to fully understand the impact of drivers on business objectives. Notwithstanding the importance of fully understanding the relationships between drivers and objectives, the growth of social media analytics begs for an integration of external data into the overall architecture of Situational Analytics. Typically, external sources can include a significant amount of unstructured data not easily captured in traditional tools. Business decisions however, often require a balancing of internal data (i.e., from Key Performance Indicators) and external data (i.e., customer comments or ratings on social media sites). Therefore, while decision frameworks that enable focus on internal KPIs are important elements of Situational Analytics, the ability to integrate external data is also a key factor. The critical issue here is to enable decision makers to understand the relative influence of different external data from competitors or from customers on their business objectives. Finally, modern organizations tent operate in a network of partners that might form and dissolve quickly once specific projects have been completed. A critical question for Situational Analytics is how do partners within a network share performance information in order to enable collaborative activity? Clearly, each partner will want to keep some information internal to that organization while sharing some data with others in the network. In these situations, an SOA approach can enable the sharing of decision frameworks and KPIs among partners thus facilitating the formation and management of productive networks and/or virtual organizations. In summary then, the architecture for Situational Analytics calls for tools that enable the modeling of decisions, integration of external data, and a view of the processes that contribute to KPIs thus providing a full snapshot of the decision environment whether within an organization or across partners within a network. Human Factors Notwithstanding the challenges of architecting a Situational Analytics system, a critical issue in any technology adoption curve within organizations is the capability of humans to fully make use of such systems itself. The logic of the Situational Analytics architecture is that the presentation of data fits more closely to the decision task at hand (mediated by the decision framework). Therefore, ease of use should be enhanced leading to more frequent exploitation of the capabilities of such a system. Over time, frequency of use should lead to the development of skills related to decision making with data. Core questions • What is the underlying logic of situational analytics? Is it about faster data updating or is it about reducing decision latency? Can we, in fact, improve decision quality and how would this be measured? • How does situational analytics integrate internal and external data? What are the underlying architectures needed for such integration? • What are the skills required of decision makers to make full use of such a system?

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction distillée sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Théorique ou conceptuel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,824
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,441

Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,000
Bibliométrie0,0000,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0000,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0000,000
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0000,000

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,317
Tête enseignante GPT0,416
Écart entre enseignants0,099 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeThéorique ou conceptuel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2011
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueConference of the Centre for Advanced Studies on Collaborative ResearchMême sujetBig Data and Business IntelligenceTravaux en français237 207