Comments on: Aiming at ghosts http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2008/06/aiming-at-ghosts/ Thu, 17 May 2012 14:19:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: Shahar http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2008/06/aiming-at-ghosts/#comment-15 Shahar Wed, 02 Jul 2008 07:34:39 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=27#comment-15 Hi Fabian, thanks for paper. It's quite a read :) I'll have a look and comment. If anyone beats me too it - share your thoughts, please. Shahar Beet Hi Fabian,
thanks for paper. It’s quite a read :)
I’ll have a look and comment.
If anyone beats me too it - share your thoughts, please.
Shahar
Beet

]]> By: Fabian Szulanski http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2008/06/aiming-at-ghosts/#comment-14 Fabian Szulanski Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:06:38 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=27#comment-14 Hi Shahar, Here I share an academic paper about the "art and science" of tacit knowledge elicitation, which can be applied to any kind of model building process, such as problem formulation / structuration. I hope it will add some value. Cheers, Fabian. http://web.mit.edu/jsterman/www/ford_sterman_elicit_1.pdf Hi Shahar,

Here I share an academic paper about the “art and science” of tacit knowledge elicitation, which can be applied to any kind of model building process, such as problem formulation / structuration.

I hope it will add some value.

Cheers,

Fabian.

http://web.mit.edu/jsterman/www/ford_sterman_elicit_1.pdf

]]> By: Shahar http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2008/06/aiming-at-ghosts/#comment-9 Shahar Wed, 25 Jun 2008 12:05:50 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=27#comment-9 Hi David, Thanks for your comment. Your question should lead me to my next post {which I haven't written yet}. In a nut shell, I think you can identify two main channels: the first is a methodology that contends (and support its contention with appropriate evidence) for formal tools that help focus on the more fertile locations. The second is a good track record and lots of experience. I think that a healthy combination of the two usually delivers a fixedness discerning eye. I know this answer does not say much. I promise that in my next post I will delineate some practical tools for ghost hunting. In the mean time if any or the other readers care to comment and offer such guidelines, that would be great! :) S Hi David,
Thanks for your comment.
Your question should lead me to my next post {which I haven’t written yet}.
In a nut shell, I think you can identify two main channels: the first is a methodology that contends (and support its contention with appropriate evidence) for formal tools that help focus on the more fertile locations. The second is a good track record and lots of experience. I think that a healthy combination of the two usually delivers a fixedness discerning eye.
I know this answer does not say much. I promise that in my next post I will delineate some practical tools for ghost hunting.
In the mean time if any or the other readers care to comment and offer such guidelines, that would be great! :) S

]]> By: David Hammond http://www.sitsite.com/blog/2008/06/aiming-at-ghosts/#comment-8 David Hammond Wed, 25 Jun 2008 11:54:07 +0000 http://www.sitsite.com/blog/?p=27#comment-8 I totaly agree but how can I learn about whether one's aim (innovation method) is valid or just tongue in cheek? can you give some guidlines to identify good methods? Dave I totaly agree but how can I learn about whether one’s aim (innovation method) is valid or just tongue in cheek? can you give some guidlines to identify good methods?

Dave

]]>