Skip to main content

Action Oriented Workflow : Refined local guessing and prediction by design.

The zeitgeist of big data trends has recently come alive with articles pointing to the statistical pitfalls that big data analysis is fraught with when particular attention is not paid to means by which statisticians prevent bias from creeping into the results of their analysis. As most of the data scientists being nominated at many companies are simply computer programmers with a title and not necessarily statistics degrees this is not surprising. I find it interesting because of a unique distinction to these methods and how the Action Oriented Workflow paradigm built into the AgilEntity frame work I designed inherently behaves.

When I started work on the Action Oriented Workflow algorithm the idea I was trying to mine as that sufficient history on work actions on given business objects could be used to determine predictive ways to route new work through an organization such that traditional boundaries of stagnation are overridden. These boundaries include the offices, teams, buildings, organizational units, divisions and regions that all corporations strive to have as they grow to international power.

It there for was always about not so much "big data" gathered relentlessly and inquired for trends by interrogation of the data, instead it works by isolating the best trends within medium to small groups of is more about "right data" than "big data". The statistical pitfalls that attend cross boundary mixing of any kind of data are naturally modeled in AOW because workflows always *start* by encapsulating the action patterns between known groups of working agents which are always small at first. This is key as it means true signals of the action landscape are built first before being diluted to a different optimal regime when new agents from other workflows are crossed into interaction.

 It is only when these groups couple their work via the natural action of cross team collaboration (and under social oversight) that the new dna of adjacent workflows mixes such that a new optimal regime is explored involving the two (or more) connected groups of agents possessing of those workflows...thus statistical shaping to outlier interactions within these small groups start at their *highest* resolution of efficiency and then are dwindled down only as cross workflow interactions are engaged...meanwhile the algorithm continues to learn optimal for that new regime.

So there is no global guess done over all possible actions of disparate agents being sampled there is a refined but growing set of local guesses.

I posit that this is the optimal way to determine  predictive routing between agents action histories and is far less susceptible to the gross predictions made by global guess algorithms like the one used in Google Flu that could have simple critical assumptions about the sample space lead to wildly inaccurate "predictions".


Popular posts from this blog

On the idea of "world wide mush" resulting from "open" development models

A recent article posted in the Wall Street Journal posits that the collectivization of various types of goods or services created by the internet is long term a damaging trend for human societies.

I think that the author misses truths that have been in place that show that collectivization is not a process that started with the internet but has been with us since we started inventing things.

It seems that Mr. Lanier is not properly defining the contexts under which different problems can benefit or suffer from collectivization. He speaks in general terms of the loss of the potential for creators to extract profit from their work but misses that this is and was true of human civilization since we first picked up a rock to use as a crude hammer. New things make old things obsolete and people MUST adapt to what is displaced (be it a former human performance of that task or use of an older product) so as to main…

Engineers versus Programmers

I have found as more non formally trained people enter the coding space, the quality of code that results varies in an interesting way.

The formalities of learning to code in a structured course at University involve often strong focus on "correctness" and efficiency in the form of big O representations for the algorithms created.

Much less focus tends to be placed on what I'll call practical programming, which is the type of code that engineers (note I didn't use "programmers" on purpose) must learn to write.

Programmers are what Universities create, students that can take a defined development environment and within in write an algorithm for computing some sequence or traversing a tree or encoding and decoding a string. Efficiency and invariant rules are guiding development missions. Execution time for creating the solution is often a week or more depending on the professor and their style of teaching code and giving out problems. This type of coding is devo…

Waking Out: A proposal to emerging ethical super intelligence safely.

The zeitgeist of Science fiction is filled with stories that paint a dystopian tale of how human desires to build artificial intelligence can go wrong. From the programmed pathology of HAL in 2001 a space odyssey, to the immediately malevolent emergence of Skynet in The Terminator and later to the humans as energy stores for the advanced AI of the Matrix and today , to the rampage of "hosts" in the new HBO series Westworld.

These stories all have a common theme of probing what happens when our autonomous systems get a mind of their own to some degree and no longer obey their creators but how can we avoid these types of scenarios but still emerge generalized intelligence that will leverage their super intelligence with empathy and consideration the same that we expect from one another? This question is being answered in a way that is mostly hopeful that current methods used in machine learning and specifically deep learning will not emerge skynet or HAL.

I think this is the …