Re: AIKR Value Chain / Quality Control

Thank you Carl, and all

There are more fundamental issues - which I think impact this view
in relation to cognition/language/the brain
and I envisage further dimensions may need to be added to the grid

But as a starting point, why not?
 Perhaps,  at your convenience, you may want to provide one or two use
cases to demonstrate how the grid can be used and how it can fit

PDM

On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 8:45 PM carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> The proposed grid for KR Value Chain / Quality spans all activities of the
> KR framework. An organization that systemically uses would likely have an
> AI Maturity performance score of level 4 (out of 5)
>
>
> KRVC/Quality Exploration  Exploitation Evaluation
> Define
> Measure
> Analyze
> Improve
> Control
>
> As noted by Owen ... DMAIC  goals and objectives are very closely related
> to the purposes of the StratML standard  .. which simplifies how usage in a
> Strategy (shaped by a KR Framework) would be explained by an AI Strategist.
>
> cheers
>
> Carl Mattocks
> It was a pleasure to clarify
>
>
> On Thu, Sep 24, 2020 at 12:24 AM Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Thank you
>>
>> Carl and Killian
>>
>>  - if you want to limit the scope of the discussion/focus of work to non
>> bureaucratic communities of practice,
>> that should be stated  and notwithstanding an internet of languages,
>> bureaucracy, I am afraid still applies
>> (in terms of having contracts etc, it is necessary to some extend, even
>> just the contract with the telecom suppliers for the internet access, the
>> subscription etc)
>>
>> I still see a need to fit the proposed schema you sent (inspired from six
>> sigma) to other aspects of KR development deployment and management, how
>> does it match the KR process as we know it
>>
>> P
>>
>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 11:37 PM Kilian Kunst <kilian@idni.org> wrote:
>>
>>> That's right. We speak about the Internet of Languages in our whitepaper:
>>>
>>> After establishing the logics that support laws, we have to come down to
>>> a concrete language. However we reject the concept of “universal language”
>>> and postulate that no single language is adequate for all purposes. We
>>> acknowledge that many languages should not only coexist and be mutually
>>> interchangeable, but they should also have the ability to evolve with time.
>>> We therefore come up with a meta-language that is capable of defining new
>>> languages, but then, one might claim that we solved nothing, and even
>>> though we reject the idea of universal language, we still came up with a
>>> universal metalanguage. To this end we require the meta-language to be able
>>> to self-interpret and by that redefine itself and change with time. We
>>> therefore achieve a situation in which the choice of language doesn’t
>>> matter while even the meta-language is not fixed. The internet of languages
>>> is therefore a set of translators. It is important to note that we do not
>>> at all consider translations or even processing of natural languages, and
>>> our scope is restricted to formal languages. Once a translator from
>>> language X to language Y is written and submitted into the internet of
>>> languages, and similarly a translator from language Y to language Z, we
>>> then get a translator from X to Z “for free”. This gives rise to calling it
>>> an “internet” of languages.
>>>
>>>
>>> [image: created with MySignature.io]
>>> <https://mysignature.io/?utm_source=logo>
>>>
>>> Kilian Kunst
>>> Community Manager | Intelligent Decentralized Networks Initiatives LTD
>>> site:  www.IDNI.org <http://www.idni.org/>
>>> email:  Kilian@idni.org
>>> [image: created with MySignature.io] <https://twitter.com/TauChainOrg>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 4:44 PM carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Communities (CoInterest / CoPractice / CoResults) are not always
>>>> bureaucratic organizations ..some have schemas (& taxonomies)  that add
>>>> structure to discussions. As does DMAIC - by ordering the topics to be
>>>> acted upon..  Hopefully this can be true for Tau Communities.
>>>>
>>>> When the Tau community intends to make changes to the network code,
>>>> rules or protocols, they will simply need to express these opinions and
>>>> perspectives in a compatible language over the network. The self defining
>>>> logic of the Tau blockchain network will enable it to detect the consensus
>>>> among these opinions and automatically amend its own code to reflect this
>>>> consensus from block to block.  https://www.idni.org/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It was a pleasure to clarify
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Sep 22, 2020 at 10:11 PM Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> what I mean is that six sigma and other related methods
>>>>> are organisational praocesses, ie are applied within a closed system
>>>>>
>>>>> the development of KR however is distributed, and cognition does not
>>>>> work as a bureaucratic organisation
>>>>> the entire KR lifecycle does not typically happens (afaik) within a
>>>>> closed system and involves entities (such as cognition, interpretation)
>>>>> which are not bureaucratic,
>>>>>
>>>>> But it could be interesting to see how such a management process can
>>>>> be applied to the outcome of a mixed knowledge
>>>>> lifecycle process such as KR,  Maybe that process/schema should evolve
>>>>> further as well
>>>>>
>>>>> P
>>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 9:50 AM Paola Di Maio <paola.dimaio@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Thank you
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think it makes sense to apply quality management processes to KR
>>>>>> (if I understand you right)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wonder perhaps if it is worth to clarify further how this process
>>>>>> (which is an organisational tool)
>>>>>> can be applied to the knowledge lifecycle (from cognition to artefact)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> p
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, Sep 23, 2020 at 1:10 AM carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Regarding our discussion today about schema for 'publishing
>>>>>>> knowledge (representation)' that would have same multi-level Value Chain
>>>>>>> based on Strategies & [exploration, exploitation  and evaluation]
>>>>>>> ....
>>>>>>>  note: you messaged : The "
>>>>>>> knowledge-value_chain_A_conceptual_framework  " is now available in
>>>>>>> StratML format at https://stratml.us/drybridge/index.htm#KVC
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The mission, vision, goals and strategies of a public health
>>>>>>> organization or social enterprise drive the knowledge-value chain. The
>>>>>>> higher the knowledge performance related to dyadic capabilities, the higher
>>>>>>> the value generated (Fig. 1).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6869769_The_knowledge-value_chain_A_conceptual_framework_for_knowledge_translation_in_health
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> For consideration I also propose that ... to introduce Knowledge
>>>>>>> (representation) Quality controls we would use Exploration / Exploitation /
>>>>>>> Evaluation in a matrix cross-checking with  Define, measure,
>>>>>>> analyze, improve, and control (DMAIC) ..a data-driven quality strategy used
>>>>>>> to improve processes. .. It is an integral part of a Six Sigma
>>>>>>> <https://asq.org/quality-resources/six-sigma> initiative, but in
>>>>>>> general can be implemented as a standalone quality improvement procedure or
>>>>>>> as part of other process improvement initiatives such as lean
>>>>>>> <https://asq.org/quality-resources/lean>.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> KRVC/Quality Exploration  Exploitation Evaluation
>>>>>>> Define
>>>>>>> Measure
>>>>>>> Analyze
>>>>>>> Improve
>>>>>>> Control
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Define the problem, improvement activity, opportunity for
>>>>>>> improvement, the project goals, and customer (internal and external)
>>>>>>> requirements.
>>>>>>> Project charter to define the focus, scope, direction, and
>>>>>>> motivation for the improvement team
>>>>>>> Voice of the customer to understand feedback from current and future
>>>>>>> customers indicating offerings that satisfy, delight, and dissatisfy them
>>>>>>> Value stream map to provide an overview of an entire process,
>>>>>>> starting and finishing at the customer, and analyzing what is required to
>>>>>>> meet customer needs
>>>>>>> Measure process performance.
>>>>>>> Process map for recording the activities performed as part of a
>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>> Capability analysis to assess the ability of a process to meet
>>>>>>> specifications
>>>>>>> Pareto chart to analyze the frequency of problems or causes
>>>>>>> Analyze the process to determine root causes of variation and poor
>>>>>>> performance (defects).
>>>>>>> Root cause analysis (RCA) to uncover causes
>>>>>>> Failure mode and effects analysis (FMEA) for identifying possible
>>>>>>> product, service, and process failures
>>>>>>> Multi-vari chart to detect different types of variation within a
>>>>>>> process
>>>>>>> Improve process performance by addressing and eliminating the root
>>>>>>> causes.
>>>>>>> Design of experiments (DOE) to solve problems from complex processes
>>>>>>> or systems where there are many factors influencing the outcome and where
>>>>>>> it is impossible to isolate one factor or variable from the others
>>>>>>> Kaizen event to introduce rapid change by focusing on a narrow
>>>>>>> project and using the ideas and motivation of the people who do the work
>>>>>>> Control the improved process and future process performance.
>>>>>>> Quality control plan to document what is needed to keep an improved
>>>>>>> process at its current level
>>>>>>> Statistical process control (SPC) for monitoring process behavior
>>>>>>> *Balanced Scoring*  (my edit) to create a workplace suited for
>>>>>>> visual control
>>>>>>> Mistake proofing (poka-yoke) to make errors impossible or
>>>>>>> immediately detectable
>>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Carl
>>>>>>> It was a pleasure to clarify
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ---------- Forwarded message ---------
>>>>>>> From: carl mattocks <carlmattocks@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> Date: Wed, Sep 2, 2020 at 10:02 AM
>>>>>>> Subject: Re: AIKR Value Chain
>>>>>>> To: W3C AIKR CG <public-aikr@w3.org>
>>>>>>> Cc: Paola Di Maio <paoladimaio10@gmail.com>, Chris Fox <
>>>>>>> chris@chriscfox.com>, Paul Alagna <pjalagna@gmail.com>, Justin
>>>>>>> Stoltzfus <stoltz_sj@hotmail.com>, Jorge Sanchez. <jorgesr@zoho.eu>,
>>>>>>> Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Confirming that the AI KR value chain will be the focus of our next
>>>>>>> meeting on September 15 (invite to be sent separately).
>>>>>>> In addition to ITIF's model (see below),  as a use-case please
>>>>>>> review The knowledge-value chain: A conceptual framework for
>>>>>>> knowledge translation in health (  Bulletin of the World Health
>>>>>>> Organisation ). In particular, please peruse fig1.    The mission,
>>>>>>> vision, goals and strategies of a public health organization or
>>>>>>> social enterprise drive the knowledge-value chain. The higher the knowledge
>>>>>>> performance related to dyadic capabilities, the higher the value generated
>>>>>>> (Fig. 1).
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.researchgate.net/publication/6869769_The_knowledge-value_chain_A_conceptual_framework_for_knowledge_translation_in_health
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> have a great weekend
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Carl Mattocks
>>>>>>> co-chair AIKRCG
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It was a pleasure to clarify
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, Sep 1, 2020 at 4:30 PM Owen Ambur <Owen.Ambur@verizon.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Carl, at the end of our televideo conference earlier today you
>>>>>>>> indicated intent to focus on the value chain at our next meeting on
>>>>>>>> September 15.  So I thought you might like to see this objective in ITIF's
>>>>>>>> model for long-term U.S./Western revitalization (in competition with China):
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...........
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>