Tag: Risk Management

A footnote to theses

Not to Theseus, however close.
But on the superfluence of latter-day (PhD- in particular) theses in printed form. Wouldn’t they be much better on-line, in a format with clickable hyperlinks ..? Wasn’t that what hyperlinking was ‘invented’ for ..!?
Why then still rely on the old ‘footnote’ reference system… If only b/c some geriatric referees still want to see their own name printed and care less or not at all about hits. With the democratization of even science, wouldn’t hit scores (Errm, weighted by the authority of the visitors …! How? We’ll figure something out) be a better validity measure?

Yes, of course this would require a backlog of old printed articles to be put on-line, including linking their reference lists. But this effort should (sic) be minute, compared to today’s paper production — I mean, the production of papers. And, in the end, needed anyway.
Oh, another inhibitor for the oldies: their references can now be checked automatically (I guess (appropriately)) and their assumed notoriety will be disclosed exposed for what it is — which may not be liked by all.

But then, on-line theses would be much better readable since the Definitions and Research Description parts might be separate html docs, split away from the core science content.

Many more advantages, and this:
DSC_0031
[No longer dungeoned but in Church, still stalactitic; Edinburg]

Information does(n’t) Matter

Another consequence of the analysis mentioned before about answers flowing upward through infosystems and command and inquiries/questions flowing down: When the latter get viewed as anti-data or even anti-information, we see Information Theory in action.

Where without the creation of potential (difference) by an inquiry standing ready at, say, a sensor [abstracting for a tiny moment away from the complexity that could be in any sensor, assuming it a math point] to capture some data it may produce, the potential may not pull away the data created by a Heisenbergian creation (-by-measurement ..!?) of the data/anti-data pair. Leaving the anti-data, the uncertainty behind. Is this the creation, the maintenance, or the destruction of a Schrödinger’s measurement ..?

More operationally: In what way does this interpretation induce metaphoric (?) insight into the connection between physical world, ‘signals’ (as in Shannon and other Info Theory), and continuous (!?)/discretised sensor-data streams..?
[For once skipping the bullying of those not understanding the fundamental nature of the continuous/(math-)discrete divide]

Well, there’s also this:
DSC_0478
[The gift of far-sightedness. SE Sicily you recognize of course]

Meldt uzelve, out of control

Met al die seminars en cursussen over de Wet meldplicht datalekken lijkt het wel of het meldplichtprocedurenaarbinnenrammen dé oplossing is voor al uw privacy-problemen.
Terwijl het natuurlijk niet meer is dan het perfect regelen van het naar buiten toe rondroepen van de totaal transparante schuld zodra (niet als) er iets misgaat.

Over het voorkomen dat beter is dan genezen (en dat is implementatie van de meldplicht-procedures nog verre van), horen we een stuk minder. Hooguit bij degenen die nu én zometeen de kous op de kop krijgen; dat alles anders moet terwijl het a. nu vaak al best prima geregeld is, b. zometeen niet beter zal zijn (feit bij voorbaat), c. a en b gelden binnen de kaders van de nu en dan geldende organisatorische belemmeringen van budget, tijd en wil van boven, om de zaken beter te regelen.
Het kan ook anders anders: preventief. Leest en ziet.

En ook:
DSCN8603b
[Zonder privacy, een saaie wereld …; Zuid-As maar da’s duidelijk]

Bow the Stork Tie

When analyzing the Stork methodology for EU-wide federated eID- and authentication methods and technology, again one stumbles (rather, ‘ they’ do) over the bow tie of CIA, mostly C, controls. Too bad. Usually, ENISA(-involved) stuff is Great quality. Now, quite too much less so.
Which is too bad. To note, we already commented on the classical CIA rating (incl the bow tie fallacy) before. Now, the CIA seems to have something to bring to bear on CIA as well. Better study hard …!

Oh well …:
DSCN9668
[Weaving transparency and stability, Cala at Hoofddorp again]

More valid today than in 2008

Because everyone and their dog noted the Good Ol’ Days of housing price ridiculousness have returned and the bwankers’ moronity has never gone away, the following vids are of more import than ever:
Part 1: here;
part 2: here;
part 3: here;
part 4: here.

That’ll be all for now; recovering from my Abrams birthday party still. And:
DSCN8626cut
[Trend’s just a matter of perspective. Mo’ money, no problem equals Zuid-As Amsterdam]

RCSA is close to BAU

Close, as in no cigar yet (has the US ban on Cuban import been lifted already?).
But definitely, Risk Control Self-Assessments would, if carried out properly, be that major part of management’s daily (sic) chores that wouldn’t need annual get-togethers coaxed by outsiders (sic) but would be Business As Usual in operational practice. Maybe needing some periodic (weekly? monthly? certainly more than as now weakly annually) departmental review gathering but not a stage show as if this is the holy grail of business information flow. After which the ‘second line’ (as the back not even middle office function) receives the (right) info and acknowledges that the ‘first’ line has so much better sensors since they’re the first line par excellence, integrates the info into the upward report flow and reverts to fine-tuning the tools they provide to first-liners, and furthermore does … nothing. Second line is helpers, not dictators-by-soft-smothering. When it would turn out that all the high-quality hence qualitative (the reverse for quantitative) risk pics cannot be easily integrated into one pic, that’s too bad for the integrators but an appropriate (!) reflection of reality.

And if, on the other hand, first-liners need to be taken away from their actual productive work to sit in some song-and-dance by second-liners because it was so decreed by ‘governance’ levels (emperor’s clothes!), the very objectives will not be achieved. Since the ‘do something’ by deep-lying incompetence has lead to the wrong turn into a blind alley whereas the broad avenue (something like Younge Street) between wilderness and high (?) culture.

[I scheduled this post a couple of weeks ago for release in a couple of weeks but new developments seem to speed things up. For my many posts against Form over Substance … just search this blog for ‘TLD’ or bureaucracy …]
Won’t rant (too much) on; keep it to RCSA = BAU + quite some ε still, and:
DSC_0015
[Distorted? Only your picture is, here for a change, by standing too close; true reality is  not at the Edinburg Royal Mile!]

3D printing hinting at breakthroughs

As 3D printing will see more of ‘breakthrough’ developments in 2016 … hold it, I mean, hope and want.
Since, there’s still no clarity whether and when.
Because reasons. One of them being: There’s no iPod of 3D printing yet. And people see, and fear, the cartridge costs; more so when you consider your need for many more than just ink in colours but also all sorts of hard-to-keep(?)-plastic plastics et al. And there’s space issues, 3D printers playing out in 3D space even more than the 2Ds did, especially when you’d want to print larger stuff.
And, not to forget, the major, almost overriding difficulty still on the design side of things; versatility biting and choking ease of use.

Oh you may say that the larger stuff will be printed elsewhere, like the A0s you have now (but you don’t unless you’re a design agency). Which would also take care of the cartridge part. Indeed, as it will also take care of the closeness-, tailoring, and versatility parts. Middle grounds… may be off the balance sought.

So, a moron-usable cheap but effective and high-quality contraption could help. But isn’t near the horizon yet. A fool-proof design interface could help. But fools are so ingenious…

Hope certainly helps, for the time being. And:
000007 (16)
[Pray the way you please, Oak Park again but oft missed]

Swinging and chattering

Sorry, couldn’t resist to share with you this other nugget of insight and metaphor (well, rather; comparison, of apples with apples) in Mirror Worlds that, opposite of my previous optimistic post about ‘managers’, might not be taken to be cheerful to all: (p.53) ” … Its significance is denigrated by the run-off-the-mill hacks, bureaucrats and cadres who swing chattering from detail to detail like monkeys in branches, never sensing or caring about the forest at large. Such people more or less run the world.”

Alas. And with the new year approaching of course there’s hope. Some of it, hopefully. And:
DSCN8327
[All houseboats are alike; but some are more modern that others; Amstel]

Gelernter on Management

Turns out that the seminal Mintzberg’s Managing (as here), has an updated version in the almost off-hand remark by David Gelernter (in this) that we should have been dealing with an “‘organization engineer’ (otherwise known as a ‘manager’)” (p.75) all along, with a focus on the ‘uncoupling’ of the manifold different (sic) tasks to be completed to be doled out to the (relative) specialists in the department. Freeing the latter of switching (time) costs and effectiveness losses, along with freeing them of concurrency resolution.

Which indeed deserves a HT for putting it so clearly: The manager uncouples, doles out, and then awaits the results to be consolidated whilst catering to the external-defense and facilitation needs of the department staff.

Which is also key to understanding that yes managers need to have the best of insights into what the total-tasks and subtasks entail. Hence no more generic-managers over specialist knowledge workers, but task-dedicated super-insight managers. Remunerated for their superior results, not for their babble and chair-stickiness.

Let’s keep it cheerful, for once, for the coming two days and beyond. And:
DSCN8391
[Once, a world trade center: Edam]

Maverisk / Étoiles du Nord