Thanks Bjorn, it’s an important issue that has been important in the scientific method for centuries, i.e, “what constitutes evidence relevant to our analysis?”
In my view we need a few key pieces of data and information to be confident in our analysis and conclusions.
First, we need a “business ecosystem map” that is made up of the systems relevant to the issue at hand. These systems form “the indicative” map, i.e., those systems contributing data & information to our analysis. These can be tangible or intangible systems depending on the objective.
Second, we need to understand the kinds of evidence that may be relevant to our question, how to handle it, and awareness the biases commonly associated with them (see link below).
Collectively, the above could be seen as your “navigation system”. It still may be useful to visualise the data & information available in each system as a catalogue as long as those sources are evaluated for relevance following something like the Standard guide to “evidence”.
An interesting guideline question could be “how does our selection or omission of potentially relevant systems and/or the data & information associated with them affect the variance of our conclusions?
The "business ecosystem map" as a foundation for determining what's indicative—and therefore what warrants cataloging effort—resonates strongly. It shifts the question from "can we catalog this?" to "does this system contribute to decisions we need to make?"
That's a much more defensible starting point than comprehensiveness for its own sake.
Thanks Bjorn, it’s an important issue that has been important in the scientific method for centuries, i.e, “what constitutes evidence relevant to our analysis?”
In my view we need a few key pieces of data and information to be confident in our analysis and conclusions.
First, we need a “business ecosystem map” that is made up of the systems relevant to the issue at hand. These systems form “the indicative” map, i.e., those systems contributing data & information to our analysis. These can be tangible or intangible systems depending on the objective.
Second, we need to understand the kinds of evidence that may be relevant to our question, how to handle it, and awareness the biases commonly associated with them (see link below).
e.g., https://plato.stanford.edu/search/searcher.py?query=Evidence+
Collectively, the above could be seen as your “navigation system”. It still may be useful to visualise the data & information available in each system as a catalogue as long as those sources are evaluated for relevance following something like the Standard guide to “evidence”.
An interesting guideline question could be “how does our selection or omission of potentially relevant systems and/or the data & information associated with them affect the variance of our conclusions?
Thanks for this thoughtful framing.
The "business ecosystem map" as a foundation for determining what's indicative—and therefore what warrants cataloging effort—resonates strongly. It shifts the question from "can we catalog this?" to "does this system contribute to decisions we need to make?"
That's a much more defensible starting point than comprehensiveness for its own sake.