Drivesaitl
Finding Hyman
Excellent reply. So rare in these discussions on analytics. Personally I LOVE information. I've been a stat hound since I was a kid. Even connected to that my favorite part of a hockey card as a kid was looking at the backside of all the player stats.You would think this to be the case, but (working in this field), I've seen plenty of situations where "learned experience" and analytics come into direct conflict. Some people don't particularly like to have their past experience, intuition and assumptions challenged by information generated from systems that they don't entirely understand. When you think about the people who sit in some of the big chairs in an organization, this can have interesting consequences.
Indeed. All the tools are flawed to some extent, so it's a matter of figuring out what the good piece of it is, and then marrying/reconciling it to the other good pieces we have available. It's not necessarily about having the most sophisticating analytics system, it's more of how good a job the organization does at integrating all the different sources of info together to create a more complete picture.
My response to your first paragraph is that all new theories, metrics, get challenged. This is necessary in any enquiry endeavor. The questions, challenges, rebukes, reviews, even rejection of hypothesis are requisite in growth of knowledge. So that the conflict and criticism needs to be there. Analytics is not at the stage where it supplants other learned experience. Another comment is the analytics community hasn't always done a great job making their metrics, tables etc. easily understood. On many sources you could be looking at charts with say 24 columns and they aren't identified or explained. I've seen often without even a key or legend describing what the columns specifically are or the calculations involved in the numbers and metrics. Largely, description of the tools is not found.
2nd paragraph agreed.