Comments on: Data vs. Facts

By: bfeld

bfeld — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:49 +0000

Correct.

The post is also intended to be satirical. I made it purposefully confusing to underscore the point.

By: bfeld

bfeld — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:49 +0000

Pete – I completely agree with both points: (a) that my analysis is shallow (it's intended to be sarcastic) and (b) being at the place is where it's at.

By: Todd Sawicki

Todd Sawicki — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:49 +0000

Brad –

I hope you remembered to say hi to that opinionated entrepreneur for me. Glad to see you're making him famous – at least anonymously

By: Marc Averitt

Marc Averitt — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:49 +0000

Brad,

Thanks. Now I can simply point folks to your post rather than explain why I don't refer folks I said "no" to...especially those that I don't even know. Happy Thanksgiving,

Marc

By: jay_parkhil2393

jay_parkhil2393 — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:49 +0000

Good point, but Greg Lemond made it better many years ago in his book on bike racing. He would see young athletes mimic the training styles of their heroes and do badly, and summed it up by saying "what works for ___ is good because it works for ___. It doesn't mean it is necessarily good for you".

By: pete_abilla2397

pete_abilla2397 — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:49 +0000

Brad -- your analysis is pretty shallow. There is a long history of Data versus Fact -- this, really, is a question about epistemology, reaching back to Socrates.

More recently, however, Taiichi Ohno, the creator of the Toyota Production System adds a twist: being at the place of where value is added (genchi genbutsu and gemba) is experiencing the facts of the situation. Data, on the other hand, is a step removed from facts.

Taiichi strongly advocated "being at the place", not in some boardroom discussing charts and graphs, when being at the production floor with the people, machines, and processes -- that is where the real story is.

By: bfeld

bfeld — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:49 +0000

Todd – I gave him your regards.

By: Michael Lewkowitz

Michael Lewkowitz — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:49 +0000

Great post Brad!

I think what I often hear and probably put out is actually noise . Here's a good reference from a now passed mathematician that research org design and communication. I posted some of my highlights in reading on of his main books here: http://tinyurl.com/23v7yt

- "Fact: that which is the case."
- "Noise: A meaningless jumble of signals."
- "Data: statements of fact."
- "Information: that which CHANGES us."
- "Data become information – when the fact in them is susceptible to action. How can I possibly know that I am informed? — Only because I have changed my state."

Cheers!

Michael

By: scott_davis3674

scott_davis3674 — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:49 +0000

Funny, but true. And then there is the tension between Fact and Truth. I posted a couple of thoughts on this at http://circaspecting.typepad.com/circaspecting_mu...

Regards,
Scott

By: Dave

Dave — Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:55:48 +0000

I realize that you disclaimed careful definitions but this is just downright confusing.

I think what you are saying is that VCs provide information - sometimes anecdotes, sometimes theories presented as facts, and sometimes summaries or syntheses of other data. Entrepreneurs should not treat this information as guaranteed correct or factual - they should look closer at the basis of the theories, understand the underlying data for a synthesis or summary, and in any case treat the information from their own perspective as a single data *point* in their own analysis, one that is subject to error, subjectivity, hidden agendas, etc. (but importantly, may also be a golden nugget!), and should then collect further data points on the same subject matter from other unrelated sources.

In other words, that which someone else asserts as fact or knowledge is to the recipient of the assertion merely a single data point. Is that what you mean?