3.20 score from hupso.pl for:
peterjamesthomas.com



HTML Content


Titlepeter james thomas | expert in the data to information to insight to action journey / mathematician / blogger / speaker

Length: 119, Words: 17
Description expert in the data to information to insight to action journey / mathematician / blogger / speaker

Length: 98, Words: 14
Keywords pusty
Robots
Charset UTF-8
Og Meta - Title exist
Og Meta - Description exist
Og Meta - Site name exist
Tytuł powinien zawierać pomiędzy 10 a 70 znaków (ze spacjami), a mniej niż 12 słów w długości.
Meta opis powinien zawierać pomiędzy 50 a 160 znaków (łącznie ze spacjami), a mniej niż 24 słów w długości.
Kodowanie znaków powinny być określone , UTF-8 jest chyba najlepszy zestaw znaków, aby przejść z powodu UTF-8 jest bardziej międzynarodowy kodowaniem.
Otwarte obiekty wykresu powinny być obecne w stronie internetowej (więcej informacji na temat protokołu OpenGraph: http://ogp.me/)

SEO Content

Words/Characters 14066
Text/HTML 31.97 %
Headings H1 14
H2 1
H3 14
H4 0
H5 0
H6 0
H1
peter james thomas
how to be surprisingly popular
a sweeter spot for the cdo?
predictions about prediction
20 risks that beset data programmes
toast
do any technologies grow up or do they only come of age?
nucleosynthesis and data visualisation
post navigation
feedburner subscription
wordpress subscription
last 20 articles
categories
recommended sites
H2
expert in the data to information to insight to action journey / mathematician / blogger / speaker
H3
share this:
like this:
share this:
like this:
share this:
like this:
share this:
like this:
share this:
like this:
share this:
like this:
share this:
like this:
H4
H5
H6
strong
introduction
the problems
a surprisingly popular solution
so no surprises there
this is a surprise
study 1
study 2
study 3
study 4
some thoughts
the cdo is at the intersection of innovation, compliance and data expertise.
data management
the enterprise data marketplace becomes a priority.
new kinds of data governance organizations and practices emerge.
data science
self-service and automated predictive analytics tools will cause some embarrassing mistakes.
business analytics
modern analytic platforms dominate bi.
introduction
up-front risks
risk
potential impact
1.
not appreciating the size of work for both business and technology resources.
2.
not establishing a dedicated team.
3.
not establishing a unified and collaborative team.
4.
staff lack skills and prior experience of data programmes.
5.
not establishing an appropriate management / governance structure.
6.
failing to recognise ongoing local needs when centralising.
programme execution risks
risk
potential impact
7.
poor programme management.
8.
poor programme communication.
9.
big bang approach.
10.
endless search for the perfect solution / adherence to overly theoretical approaches.
11.
lack of focus on interim deliverables.
12.
insufficient time spent understanding source system data and how data is transformed as it flows between systems.
13.
poor reconciliation.
14.
strong approach to data quality.
user requirement risks
risk
potential impact
15.
not enough up-front focus on understanding key business decisions and the information necessary to take them.
16.
in the absence of the above, the programme becoming a technology-driven one.
17.
a focus on replicating what the organisation already has but in better tools, rather than creating what it wants.
integration risk
risk
potential impact
18.
lack of leverage of new data capabilities in front-end / digital systems.
deployment risks
risk
potential impact
19.
education is an afterthought, training is technology- rather than business-focused.
20.
declaring success after initial implementation and training.
summary
foreword
introduction
– michael gove [5], at this point uk justice secretary and one of the main proponents of the leave campaign, speaking on sky news, june 2016.
– the buttonwood column, the economist, september 2016.
a brief [6] history of the public perception of science
– anita makri, give the public the tools to trust scientists, nature, january 2017.
food safety – the dangers lurking in toast
– food standards agency, families urged to ‘go for gold’ to reduce acrylamide consumption, january 2017.
– bbc, browned toast and potatoes are ‘potential cancer risk’, say food scientists, january 2017.
food safety – a statistical / risk based approach
– david spiegelhalter, opinion: how dangerous is burnt toast?, university of cambridge, january 2017.
a call for a new and more honest approach to science communications
epilogue
the historical perspective
the johnson perspective
big bang nucleosynthesis
stellar nucleosynthesis
explosive nucleosynthesis
cosmic ray fission
b
introduction
the problems
a surprisingly popular solution
so no surprises there
this is a surprise
study 1
study 2
study 3
study 4
some thoughts
the cdo is at the intersection of innovation, compliance and data expertise.
data management
the enterprise data marketplace becomes a priority.
new kinds of data governance organizations and practices emerge.
data science
self-service and automated predictive analytics tools will cause some embarrassing mistakes.
business analytics
modern analytic platforms dominate bi.
introduction
up-front risks
risk
potential impact
1.
not appreciating the size of work for both business and technology resources.
2.
not establishing a dedicated team.
3.
not establishing a unified and collaborative team.
4.
staff lack skills and prior experience of data programmes.
5.
not establishing an appropriate management / governance structure.
6.
failing to recognise ongoing local needs when centralising.
programme execution risks
risk
potential impact
7.
poor programme management.
8.
poor programme communication.
9.
big bang approach.
10.
endless search for the perfect solution / adherence to overly theoretical approaches.
11.
lack of focus on interim deliverables.
12.
insufficient time spent understanding source system data and how data is transformed as it flows between systems.
13.
poor reconciliation.
14.
strong approach to data quality.
user requirement risks
risk
potential impact
15.
not enough up-front focus on understanding key business decisions and the information necessary to take them.
16.
in the absence of the above, the programme becoming a technology-driven one.
17.
a focus on replicating what the organisation already has but in better tools, rather than creating what it wants.
integration risk
risk
potential impact
18.
lack of leverage of new data capabilities in front-end / digital systems.
deployment risks
risk
potential impact
19.
education is an afterthought, training is technology- rather than business-focused.
20.
declaring success after initial implementation and training.
summary
foreword
introduction
– michael gove [5], at this point uk justice secretary and one of the main proponents of the leave campaign, speaking on sky news, june 2016.
– the buttonwood column, the economist, september 2016.
a brief [6] history of the public perception of science
– anita makri, give the public the tools to trust scientists, nature, january 2017.
food safety – the dangers lurking in toast
– food standards agency, families urged to ‘go for gold’ to reduce acrylamide consumption, january 2017.
– bbc, browned toast and potatoes are ‘potential cancer risk’, say food scientists, january 2017.
food safety – a statistical / risk based approach
– david spiegelhalter, opinion: how dangerous is burnt toast?, university of cambridge, january 2017.
a call for a new and more honest approach to science communications
epilogue
the historical perspective
the johnson perspective
big bang nucleosynthesis
stellar nucleosynthesis
explosive nucleosynthesis
cosmic ray fission
i
introduction
the problems
a surprisingly popular solution
so no surprises there
this is a surprise
study 1
study 2
study 3
study 4
some thoughts
the cdo is at the intersection of innovation, compliance and data expertise.
data management
the enterprise data marketplace becomes a priority.
new kinds of data governance organizations and practices emerge.
data science
self-service and automated predictive analytics tools will cause some embarrassing mistakes.
business analytics
modern analytic platforms dominate bi.
introduction
up-front risks
risk
potential impact
1.
not appreciating the size of work for both business and technology resources.
2.
not establishing a dedicated team.
3.
not establishing a unified and collaborative team.
4.
staff lack skills and prior experience of data programmes.
5.
not establishing an appropriate management / governance structure.
6.
failing to recognise ongoing local needs when centralising.
programme execution risks
risk
potential impact
7.
poor programme management.
8.
poor programme communication.
9.
big bang approach.
10.
endless search for the perfect solution / adherence to overly theoretical approaches.
11.
lack of focus on interim deliverables.
12.
insufficient time spent understanding source system data and how data is transformed as it flows between systems.
13.
poor reconciliation.
14.
strong approach to data quality.
user requirement risks
risk
potential impact
15.
not enough up-front focus on understanding key business decisions and the information necessary to take them.
16.
in the absence of the above, the programme becoming a technology-driven one.
17.
a focus on replicating what the organisation already has but in better tools, rather than creating what it wants.
integration risk
risk
potential impact
18.
lack of leverage of new data capabilities in front-end / digital systems.
deployment risks
risk
potential impact
19.
education is an afterthought, training is technology- rather than business-focused.
20.
declaring success after initial implementation and training.
summary
foreword
introduction
– michael gove [5], at this point uk justice secretary and one of the main proponents of the leave campaign, speaking on sky news, june 2016.
– the buttonwood column, the economist, september 2016.
a brief [6] history of the public perception of science
– anita makri, give the public the tools to trust scientists, nature, january 2017.
food safety – the dangers lurking in toast
– food standards agency, families urged to ‘go for gold’ to reduce acrylamide consumption, january 2017.
– bbc, browned toast and potatoes are ‘potential cancer risk’, say food scientists, january 2017.
food safety – a statistical / risk based approach
– david spiegelhalter, opinion: how dangerous is burnt toast?, university of cambridge, january 2017.
a call for a new and more honest approach to science communications
epilogue
the historical perspective
the johnson perspective
big bang nucleosynthesis
stellar nucleosynthesis
explosive nucleosynthesis
cosmic ray fission
em introduction
the problems
a surprisingly popular solution
so no surprises there
this is a surprise
study 1
study 2
study 3
study 4
some thoughts
the cdo is at the intersection of innovation, compliance and data expertise.
data management
the enterprise data marketplace becomes a priority.
new kinds of data governance organizations and practices emerge.
data science
self-service and automated predictive analytics tools will cause some embarrassing mistakes.
business analytics
modern analytic platforms dominate bi.
introduction
up-front risks
risk
potential impact
1.
not appreciating the size of work for both business and technology resources.
2.
not establishing a dedicated team.
3.
not establishing a unified and collaborative team.
4.
staff lack skills and prior experience of data programmes.
5.
not establishing an appropriate management / governance structure.
6.
failing to recognise ongoing local needs when centralising.
programme execution risks
risk
potential impact
7.
poor programme management.
8.
poor programme communication.
9.
big bang approach.
10.
endless search for the perfect solution / adherence to overly theoretical approaches.
11.
lack of focus on interim deliverables.
12.
insufficient time spent understanding source system data and how data is transformed as it flows between systems.
13.
poor reconciliation.
14.
strong approach to data quality.
user requirement risks
risk
potential impact
15.
not enough up-front focus on understanding key business decisions and the information necessary to take them.
16.
in the absence of the above, the programme becoming a technology-driven one.
17.
a focus on replicating what the organisation already has but in better tools, rather than creating what it wants.
integration risk
risk
potential impact
18.
lack of leverage of new data capabilities in front-end / digital systems.
deployment risks
risk
potential impact
19.
education is an afterthought, training is technology- rather than business-focused.
20.
declaring success after initial implementation and training.
summary
foreword
introduction
– michael gove [5], at this point uk justice secretary and one of the main proponents of the leave campaign, speaking on sky news, june 2016.
– the buttonwood column, the economist, september 2016.
a brief [6] history of the public perception of science
– anita makri, give the public the tools to trust scientists, nature, january 2017.
food safety – the dangers lurking in toast
– food standards agency, families urged to ‘go for gold’ to reduce acrylamide consumption, january 2017.
– bbc, browned toast and potatoes are ‘potential cancer risk’, say food scientists, january 2017.
food safety – a statistical / risk based approach
– david spiegelhalter, opinion: how dangerous is burnt toast?, university of cambridge, january 2017.
a call for a new and more honest approach to science communications
epilogue
the historical perspective
the johnson perspective
big bang nucleosynthesis
stellar nucleosynthesis
explosive nucleosynthesis
cosmic ray fission
Bolds strong 94
b 94
i 94
em 94
Zawartość strony internetowej powinno zawierać więcej niż 250 słów, z stopa tekst / kod jest wyższy niż 20%.
Pozycji używać znaczników (h1, h2, h3, ...), aby określić temat sekcji lub ustępów na stronie, ale zwykle, użyj mniej niż 6 dla każdego tagu pozycje zachować swoją stronę zwięzły.
Styl używać silnych i kursywy znaczniki podkreślić swoje słowa kluczowe swojej stronie, ale nie nadużywać (mniej niż 16 silnych tagi i 16 znaczników kursywy)

Statystyki strony

twitter:title pusty
twitter:description pusty
google+ itemprop=name pusty
Pliki zewnętrzne 38
Pliki CSS 9
Pliki javascript 29
Plik należy zmniejszyć całkowite odwołanie plików (CSS + JavaScript) do 7-8 maksymalnie.

Linki wewnętrzne i zewnętrzne

Linki 581
Linki wewnętrzne 166
Linki zewnętrzne 415
Linki bez atrybutu Title 493
Linki z atrybutem NOFOLLOW 0
Linki - Użyj atrybutu tytuł dla każdego łącza. Nofollow link jest link, który nie pozwala wyszukiwarkom boty zrealizują są odnośniki no follow. Należy zwracać uwagę na ich użytkowania

Linki wewnętrzne

skip to content #content
[1] #1
[2] #2
[3] #3
[4] #4
[5] #5
[6] #6
[7] #7
[8] #8
[9] #9
[10] #10
[11] #11
[12] #12
[13] #13
[14] #14
whatsapp://send?text=how%20to%20be%20surprisingly%20popular https%3a%2f%2fpeterjamesthomas.com%2f2017%2f02%2f22%2fhow-to-be-surprisingly-popular%2f
[1] #1
[2] #2
[3] #3
[4] #4
[5] #5
whatsapp://send?text=a%20sweeter%20spot%20for%20the%20cdo%3f https%3a%2f%2fpeterjamesthomas.com%2f2017%2f02%2f20%2fa-sweeter-spot-for-the-cdo%2f
[1] #1
[2] #2
[3] #3
[4] #4
[5] #5
[6] #6
[7] #7
[8] #8
[9] #9
whatsapp://send?text=predictions%20about%20prediction https%3a%2f%2fpeterjamesthomas.com%2f2017%2f02%2f13%2fpredictions-about-prediction%2f
[1] #1
[2] #2
[3] #3
[4] #4
[5] #5
[6] #6
[7] #7
[8] #8
[9] #9
[10] #10
[1] #1
whatsapp://send?text=20%20risks%20that%20beset%20data%20programmes https%3a%2f%2fpeterjamesthomas.com%2f2017%2f02%2f06%2f20-risks-that-beset-data-programmes%2f
[1] #1
[2] #2
[3] #3
[4] #4
[5] #5
[6] #6
here #toast
[7] #7
[8] #8
[9] #9
[10] #10
[11] #11
[12] #12
[13] #13
[14] #14
whatsapp://send?text=toast https%3a%2f%2fpeterjamesthomas.com%2f2017%2f02%2f01%2ftoast%2f
[1] #1
disclosure #disclosure
[2] #2
[3] #3
[4] #4
[5] #5
whatsapp://send?text=do%20any%20technologies%20grow%20up%20or%20do%20they%20only%20come%20of%20age%3f https%3a%2f%2fpeterjamesthomas.com%2f2017%2f01%2f26%2fdo-any-technologies-grow-up-or-do-they-only-come-of-age%2f
[1] #1
[2] #2
[3] #3
[4] #4
[5] #5
[6] #6
[7] #7
[8] #8
[9] #9
[10] #10
[11] #11
[12] #12
[13] #13
[14] #14
[15] #15
whatsapp://send?text=nucleosynthesis%20and%20data%20visualisation https%3a%2f%2fpeterjamesthomas.com%2f2017%2f01%2f24%2fnucleosynthesis-and-data-visualisation%2f
cancel #
cancel #cancel

Linki zewnętrzne

peter james thomas https://peterjamesthomas.com/
home https://peterjamesthomas.com/
about this site https://peterjamesthomas.com/about-this-site/
site map https://peterjamesthomas.com/about-this-site/site-map/
problems and browser compatibility https://peterjamesthomas.com/about-this-site/problems-and-browser-compatibility/
please add my site to the recommended list https://peterjamesthomas.com/about-this-site/please-add-my-site-to-the-recommended-list/
career information https://peterjamesthomas.com/career-information/
executive biography https://peterjamesthomas.com/career-information/executive-biography/
experience https://peterjamesthomas.com/career-information/experience/
validus holdings https://peterjamesthomas.com/career-information/experience/validus-holdings/
greene king https://peterjamesthomas.com/career-information/experience/greene-king/
element six (de beers) https://peterjamesthomas.com/career-information/experience/element-six/
chubb international https://peterjamesthomas.com/career-information/experience/chubb-international/
chubb insurance company of europe https://peterjamesthomas.com/career-information/experience/chubb-insurance-company-of-europe/
the emir project https://peterjamesthomas.com/career-information/experience/chubb-insurance-company-of-europe/the-emir-project/
emir user feedback https://peterjamesthomas.com/career-information/experience/chubb-insurance-company-of-europe/emir-user-feedback/
cedardata plc https://peterjamesthomas.com/career-information/experience/cedardata-plc/
education https://peterjamesthomas.com/career-information/education/
professional education https://peterjamesthomas.com/career-information/education/professional-education/
academic education https://peterjamesthomas.com/career-information/education/academic-education/
awards https://peterjamesthomas.com/awards/
financial sector technology award https://peterjamesthomas.com/awards/financial-sector-technology/
cognos uk award https://peterjamesthomas.com/awards/cognos/
media & seminars https://peterjamesthomas.com/public-presence/
media https://peterjamesthomas.com/public-presence/media/
vendor case studies https://peterjamesthomas.com/vendor-case-studies/
presss interviews & quotes https://peterjamesthomas.com/public-presence/media/press-case-studies-and-interviews/
videos https://peterjamesthomas.com/public-presence/videos/
cognos video testimonial https://peterjamesthomas.com/public-presence/videos/cognos-video-testimonial/
informatica video testimonial https://peterjamesthomas.com/public-presence/videos/informatica-video-testimonial/
computing / accountancy age “webinar” https://peterjamesthomas.com/public-presence/videos/computing-accountancy-age-webinar/
smart data collective – “podcast” https://peterjamesthomas.com/public-presence/videos/smart-data-collective-podcast-interview/
microsoft bi video interview https://peterjamesthomas.com/public-presence/videos/microsoft-bi-video-interview/
seminars https://peterjamesthomas.com/public-presence/seminars/
keynote articles https://peterjamesthomas.com/keynote-articles/
creative commons https://peterjamesthomas.com/creative-commons/
contact details https://peterjamesthomas.com/contact/
how to be surprisingly popular https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/22/how-to-be-surprisingly-popular/
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/22/how-to-be-surprisingly-popular/
peter james thomas https://peterjamesthomas.com/author/trnovice/
statistics https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/mathematics-science/mathematics-mathematics-science/statistics-mathematics/
algorithm https://peterjamesthomas.com/tag/algorithm/
machine learning https://peterjamesthomas.com/tag/machine-learning/
nature.com https://peterjamesthomas.com/tag/nature-com/
polling https://peterjamesthomas.com/tag/polling/
wisdom of the crowd https://peterjamesthomas.com/tag/wisdom-of-the-crowd/
nature http://www.nature.com/
- https://peterthomas.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/columbia-and-philadelphia.png
springer nature sharedit http://www.springernature.com/gp/researchers/sharedit
link http://www.nature.com/articles/nature21054.epdf?shared_access_token=odud0w1mm6egy4zsoyexrnrgn0jajwel9jnr3zotv0n63hwrnkylqzj5knxw6lgp291o7egwgb61gp_fbsdynleag7jvzhsoa6kqtbb1_1gkwrwnnwskr4zlsozwofa-44spe2ipaeyfu7kjtl-r5jx7pwsr00bjrzakboim-jub-xs7fqpx_cx5buqyt0b2xxenzy9wo9wepn84mctd6w%3d%3d
here http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v541/n7638/full/nature21054.html
toast https://peterthomas.wordpress.com/2017/02/01/toast/
elsewhere https://peterjamesthomas.com/glimpses-of-symmetry/chapter-4-rationality-and-reality/#3
follow @peterjthomas https://twitter.com/peterjthomas
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/22/how-to-be-surprisingly-popular/
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/22/how-to-be-surprisingly-popular/?share=email
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/22/how-to-be-surprisingly-popular/?share=twitter
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/22/how-to-be-surprisingly-popular/?share=linkedin
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/22/how-to-be-surprisingly-popular/?share=facebook
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/22/how-to-be-surprisingly-popular/?share=tumblr
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/22/how-to-be-surprisingly-popular/?share=reddit
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/22/how-to-be-surprisingly-popular/?share=pinterest
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/22/how-to-be-surprisingly-popular/?share=google-plus-1
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/22/how-to-be-surprisingly-popular/?share=pocket
leave a comment https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/22/how-to-be-surprisingly-popular/#respond
a sweeter spot for the cdo? https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/20/a-sweeter-spot-for-the-cdo/
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/20/a-sweeter-spot-for-the-cdo/
peter james thomas https://peterjamesthomas.com/author/trnovice/
chief data officer https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/chief-data-officer/
atscale https://peterjamesthomas.com/tag/atscale/
bruno aziza https://peterjamesthomas.com/tag/bruno-aziza/
@brunoaziza https://twitter.com/brunoaziza
atscale http://www.atscale.com/
cdos: they are not who you think they are http://blog.atscale.com/cdo-job-description-venn-diagram
the chief data officer “sweet spot” https://peterjamesthomas.com/2016/12/22/the-chief-data-officer-sweet-spot/
do any technologies grow up or do they only come of age? https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/26/do-any-technologies-grow-up-or-do-they-only-come-of-age/
is the time ripe for appointing a chief business intelligence officer? https://peterjamesthomas.com/2009/07/22/is-the-time-ripe-for-appointing-a-chief-business-intelligence-officer/
5 themes from a chief data officer forum https://peterjamesthomas.com/2015/11/11/5-themes-from-a-chief-data-officer-executive-forum/
5 more themes from a chief data officer forum https://peterjamesthomas.com/2015/11/17/5-more-themes-from-a-chief-data-officer-forum/
themes from a chief data officer forum – the 180 day perspective https://peterjamesthomas.com/2016/05/20/themes-from-a-chief-data-officer-forum-the-180-day-perspective/
enid blyton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/enid_blyton
j. k. rowling http://www.jkrowling.com/
alphabet soup https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/10/alphabet-soup/
5 themes from a chief data officer forum https://peterjamesthomas.com/2015/11/11/5-themes-from-a-chief-data-officer-executive-forum/#theme1
a single version of the truth? https://peterjamesthomas.com/2009/06/25/a-single-version-of-the-truth/
wanted – chief data officer https://peterjamesthomas.com/2015/11/02/wanted-chief-data-officer/
follow @peterjthomas https://twitter.com/peterjthomas
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/20/a-sweeter-spot-for-the-cdo/
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/20/a-sweeter-spot-for-the-cdo/?share=email
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/20/a-sweeter-spot-for-the-cdo/?share=twitter
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/20/a-sweeter-spot-for-the-cdo/?share=linkedin
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/20/a-sweeter-spot-for-the-cdo/?share=facebook
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/20/a-sweeter-spot-for-the-cdo/?share=tumblr
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/20/a-sweeter-spot-for-the-cdo/?share=reddit
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/20/a-sweeter-spot-for-the-cdo/?share=pinterest
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/20/a-sweeter-spot-for-the-cdo/?share=google-plus-1
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/20/a-sweeter-spot-for-the-cdo/?share=pocket
1 comment https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/20/a-sweeter-spot-for-the-cdo/#comments
predictions about prediction https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/13/predictions-about-prediction/
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/13/predictions-about-prediction/
peter james thomas https://peterjamesthomas.com/author/trnovice/
business analytics https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/business-intelligence/business-analytics/
business intelligence https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/business-intelligence/
data management https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/chief-data-officer/data-management/
data science https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/chief-data-officer/data-science/
eckerson group https://peterjamesthomas.com/tag/eckerson-group/
wayne eckerson https://peterjamesthomas.com/tag/wayne-eckerson/
eckerson group https://www.eckerson.com
predictions for 2017 https://www.eckerson.com/articles/eckerson-group-predictions-for-2017
@weckerson https://twitter.com/weckerson
my review of bruno aziza’s thoughts on the atscale blog https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/26/do-any-technologies-grow-up-or-do-they-only-come-of-age/
wikiquotes https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/niels_bohr#disputed
niels bohr https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/niels_bohr
yogi berra https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/yogi_berra
trends in business intelligence https://peterjamesthomas.com/2009/03/09/trends-in-business-intelligence/
what should companies consider before investing in a business intelligence solution? https://peterjamesthomas.com/2011/08/27/what-should-companies-consider-before-investing-in-a-business-intelligence-solution/
bumps in the road https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/20/bumps-in-the-road/
data management as part of the data to action journey https://peterjamesthomas.com/2015/12/24/data-management-as-part-of-the-data-to-action-journey/
data visualisation – a scientific treatment https://peterjamesthomas.com/2014/11/06/data-visualisation-a-scientific-treatment/#controls
an inconvenient truth https://peterjamesthomas.com/2015/11/03/an-inconvenient-truth/
a bad workman blames his [business intelligence] tools https://peterjamesthomas.com/2009/07/29/a-bad-workman-blames-his-business-intelligence-tools/
follow @peterjthomas https://twitter.com/peterjthomas
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/13/predictions-about-prediction/
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/13/predictions-about-prediction/?share=email
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/13/predictions-about-prediction/?share=twitter
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/13/predictions-about-prediction/?share=linkedin
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/13/predictions-about-prediction/?share=facebook
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/13/predictions-about-prediction/?share=tumblr
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/13/predictions-about-prediction/?share=reddit
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/13/predictions-about-prediction/?share=pinterest
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/13/predictions-about-prediction/?share=google-plus-1
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/13/predictions-about-prediction/?share=pocket
leave a comment https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/13/predictions-about-prediction/#respond
20 risks that beset data programmes https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/06/20-risks-that-beset-data-programmes/
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/06/20-risks-that-beset-data-programmes/
peter james thomas https://peterjamesthomas.com/author/trnovice/
cultural transformation https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/cultural-transformation/
data management https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/chief-data-officer/data-management/
data quality https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/chief-data-officer/data-quality/
education https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/cultural-transformation/education/
outsourcing https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/project-management/outsourcing-project-management/
project management https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/project-management/
ideally sitting under a cdo https://peterjamesthomas.com/2015/11/02/wanted-chief-data-officer/
undoubted damage that poorly coordinated change programmes can inflict on data assets https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/20/bumps-in-the-road/
perseverance https://peterjamesthomas.com/2009/03/31/perseverance/
forming an information strategy: part i – general strategy https://peterjamesthomas.com/2014/11/26/forming-an-information-strategy-part-i-general-strategy/
forming an information strategy: part ii – situational analysis https://peterjamesthomas.com/2014/12/01/forming-an-information-strategy-part-ii-situational-analysis/
forming an information strategy: part iii – completing the strategy https://peterjamesthomas.com/2014/12/15/forming-an-information-strategy-part-iii-completing-the-strategy/
cliffsnotes https://www.cliffsnotes.com/
information strategy: 1) general strategy https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141126162530-3170720-forming-an-information-strategy-part-i-general-strategy
information strategy: 2) situational analysis https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/20141201111751-3170720-forming-an-information-strategy-part-ii-situational-analysis
information strategy: 3) completing the strategy https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/information-strategy-3-peter-james-thomas
an award-winning one https://peterjamesthomas.com/awards/
a more appropriate metaphor for business intelligence projects https://peterjamesthomas.com/2009/03/18/a-more-approprate-metaphor-for-business-intelligence-projects/
is outsourcing business intelligence a good idea? https://peterjamesthomas.com/2009/03/14/is-outsourcing-business-intelligence-a-good-idea/
[3] https://peterjamesthomas.com/2016/05/20/themes-from-a-chief-data-officer-forum-the-180-day-perspective/#3
vision vs pragmatism https://peterjamesthomas.com/2008/12/02/vision-vs-pragmatism/
holistic vs incremental approaches to bi https://peterjamesthomas.com/2008/12/09/holistic-vs-incremental-approaches-to-bi/
tactical meandering https://peterjamesthomas.com/2009/03/25/tactical-meandering/
scaling-up performance management https://peterjamesthomas.com/2008/12/05/scaling-up-performance-management/
developing an international bi strategy https://peterjamesthomas.com/2009/02/12/developing-an-international-bi-strategy/
marketing change https://peterjamesthomas.com/2008/11/25/marketing-change/
education and cultural transformation https://peterjamesthomas.com/2008/12/17/education-and-cultural-transformation/
sustaining cultural change https://peterjamesthomas.com/2009/02/16/sustaining-cultural-change/
recipes for success? https://peterjamesthomas.com/2009/04/17/recipes-for-success/
follow @peterjthomas https://twitter.com/peterjthomas
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/06/20-risks-that-beset-data-programmes/
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/06/20-risks-that-beset-data-programmes/?share=email
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/06/20-risks-that-beset-data-programmes/?share=twitter
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/06/20-risks-that-beset-data-programmes/?share=linkedin
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/06/20-risks-that-beset-data-programmes/?share=facebook
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/06/20-risks-that-beset-data-programmes/?share=tumblr
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/06/20-risks-that-beset-data-programmes/?share=reddit
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/06/20-risks-that-beset-data-programmes/?share=pinterest
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/06/20-risks-that-beset-data-programmes/?share=google-plus-1
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/06/20-risks-that-beset-data-programmes/?share=pocket
1 comment https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/06/20-risks-that-beset-data-programmes/#comments
toast https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/01/toast/
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/01/toast/
peter james thomas https://peterjamesthomas.com/author/trnovice/
biology https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/mathematics-science/biology-mathematics-science/
data science https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/chief-data-officer/data-science/
mathematics & science https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/mathematics-science/
physics https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/mathematics-science/physics-mathematics-science/
statistics https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/mathematics-science/mathematics-mathematics-science/statistics-mathematics/
anita makri https://peterjamesthomas.com/tag/anita-makri/
david spiegelhalter https://peterjamesthomas.com/tag/david-spiegelhalter/
food standards agency https://peterjamesthomas.com/tag/food-standards-agency/
nature.com https://peterjamesthomas.com/tag/nature-com/
public trust in science https://peterjamesthomas.com/tag/public-trust-in-science/
university of cambridge https://peterjamesthomas.com/tag/university-of-cambridge/
social media https://peterjamesthomas.com/keynote-articles/#6
cultural transformation https://peterjamesthomas.com/keynote-articles/#2
general technology https://peterjamesthomas.com/keynote-articles/#5
sporting analogies https://peterjamesthomas.com/2011/05/19/analogies/
mathematical or scientific https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/mathematics-science/
interests and experience https://peterjamesthomas.com/career-information/education/academic-education/
the buttonwood column http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and-economics/21707193-dangerous-contradiction-between-economic-reality-and-political-rhetoric-trust
patterns patterns everywhere https://peterjamesthomas.com/2010/04/21/patterns-patterns-everywhere/
the manhattan project https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/manhattan_project
anita makri http://anitamakri.com/
nature http://www.nature.com/
give the public the tools to trust scientists http://www.nature.com/news/give-the-public-the-tools-to-trust-scientists-1.21307?wt.mc_id=twt_naturenews
the food standards agency https://www.food.gov.uk
go for gold https://www.food.gov.uk/news-updates/news/2017/15890/families-urged-to-go-for-gold-to-reduce-acrylamide-consumption
families urged to ‘go for gold’ to reduce acrylamide consumption https://www.food.gov.uk/news-updates/news/2017/15890/families-urged-to-go-for-gold-to-reduce-acrylamide-consumption
browned toast and potatoes are ‘potential cancer risk’, say food scientists http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-38680622
david spiegelhalter http://www.statslab.cam.ac.uk/dept/people/spiegelhalter/davids.html
opinion: how dangerous is burnt toast? http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/opinion-how-dangerous-is-burnt-toast
https://xkcd.com/1732/ https://xkcd.com/1732/
the royal society https://royalsociety.org/
follow @peterjthomas https://twitter.com/peterjthomas
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/01/toast/
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/01/toast/?share=email
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/01/toast/?share=twitter
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/01/toast/?share=linkedin
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/01/toast/?share=facebook
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/01/toast/?share=tumblr
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/01/toast/?share=reddit
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/01/toast/?share=pinterest
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/01/toast/?share=google-plus-1
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/01/toast/?share=pocket
1 comment https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/01/toast/#comments
do any technologies grow up or do they only come of age? https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/26/do-any-technologies-grow-up-or-do-they-only-come-of-age/
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/26/do-any-technologies-grow-up-or-do-they-only-come-of-age/
peter james thomas https://peterjamesthomas.com/author/trnovice/
big data https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/technology/big-data/
cloud computing https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/technology/cloud-computing/
data governance https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/chief-data-officer/data-governance/
atscale https://peterjamesthomas.com/tag/atscale/
bruno aziza https://peterjamesthomas.com/tag/bruno-aziza/
stephen king https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/stephen_king
atscale http://www.atscale.com/
an article on their blog http://blog.atscale.com/is-your-big-data-strategy-as-mature-as-your-competitors
@brunoaziza https://twitter.com/brunoaziza
phrases from the past https://peterjamesthomas.com/2009/03/28/business-analytics-vs-business-intelligence/
“why business intelligence projects fail” https://peterjamesthomas.com/2009/06/04/why-business-intelligence-projects-fail/
follow @peterjthomas https://twitter.com/peterjthomas
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/26/do-any-technologies-grow-up-or-do-they-only-come-of-age/
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/26/do-any-technologies-grow-up-or-do-they-only-come-of-age/?share=email
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/26/do-any-technologies-grow-up-or-do-they-only-come-of-age/?share=twitter
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/26/do-any-technologies-grow-up-or-do-they-only-come-of-age/?share=linkedin
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/26/do-any-technologies-grow-up-or-do-they-only-come-of-age/?share=facebook
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/26/do-any-technologies-grow-up-or-do-they-only-come-of-age/?share=tumblr
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/26/do-any-technologies-grow-up-or-do-they-only-come-of-age/?share=reddit
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/26/do-any-technologies-grow-up-or-do-they-only-come-of-age/?share=pinterest
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/26/do-any-technologies-grow-up-or-do-they-only-come-of-age/?share=google-plus-1
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/26/do-any-technologies-grow-up-or-do-they-only-come-of-age/?share=pocket
2 comments https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/26/do-any-technologies-grow-up-or-do-they-only-come-of-age/#comments
nucleosynthesis and data visualisation https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/24/nucleosynthesis-and-data-visualisation/
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/24/nucleosynthesis-and-data-visualisation/
peter james thomas https://peterjamesthomas.com/author/trnovice/
chemistry https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/mathematics-science/chemistry/
data visualisation https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/business-intelligence/data-visualisation/
physics https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/mathematics-science/physics-mathematics-science/
astrophysics https://peterjamesthomas.com/tag/astrophysics/
jennifer johnson https://peterjamesthomas.com/tag/jennifer-johnson/
mendeleev https://peterjamesthomas.com/tag/mendeleev/
periodic table https://peterjamesthomas.com/tag/periodic-table/
- https://peterthomas.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/nucleosynthesis-periodic-table.png
http://www.sdss.org/ http://www.sdss.org/
the periodic table http://www.ptable.com/
@jajohnson51 https://twitter.com/jajohnson51
the ohio state university https://www.osu.edu/
sloan digital sky survey http://www.sdss.org/
origin of the elements in the solar system http://blog.sdss.org/2017/01/09/origin-of-the-elements-in-the-solar-system/
dmitri mendeleev https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/dmitri_mendeleev
antoine lavoisier https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/antoine_lavoisier
julius meyer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/julius_lothar_meyer
- https://astronomy.osu.edu/people/johnson.3064
carl sagan https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/carl_sagan
data visualisation – a scientific treatment https://peterjamesthomas.com/2014/11/06/data-visualisation-a-scientific-treatment/
isaac newton https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/isaac_newton
robert hooke https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/robert_hooke
döbereiner, j. w. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/johann_wolfgang_d%c3%b6bereiner
giyf https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?hl=en&sa=x&ved=0ahukewjk79g-_drrahwpjsakhv54abyqpagd#hl=en&q=the+big+bang+scientific+theory
core collapse supernova https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/supernova#core_collapse
type-ia supernovae https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/type_ia_supernova
follow @peterjthomas https://twitter.com/peterjthomas
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/24/nucleosynthesis-and-data-visualisation/
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/24/nucleosynthesis-and-data-visualisation/?share=email
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/24/nucleosynthesis-and-data-visualisation/?share=twitter
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/24/nucleosynthesis-and-data-visualisation/?share=linkedin
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/24/nucleosynthesis-and-data-visualisation/?share=facebook
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/24/nucleosynthesis-and-data-visualisation/?share=tumblr
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/24/nucleosynthesis-and-data-visualisation/?share=reddit
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/24/nucleosynthesis-and-data-visualisation/?share=pinterest
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/24/nucleosynthesis-and-data-visualisation/?share=google-plus-1
https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/24/nucleosynthesis-and-data-visualisation/?share=pocket
leave a comment https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/24/nucleosynthesis-and-data-visualisation/#respond
older posts https://peterjamesthomas.com/page/2/
- http://feeds2.feedburner.com/peterthomas-bi-and-cultural-transformation-expert
subscribe in a reader http://feeds2.feedburner.com/peterthomas-bi-and-cultural-transformation-expert
- http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=peterthomas-bi-and-cultural-transformation-expert&loc=en_us
subscribe by e-mail http://feedburner.google.com/fb/a/mailverify?uri=peterthomas-bi-and-cultural-transformation-expert&loc=en_us
- http://www.twitter.com/peterjthomas
- http://www.linkedin.com/in/peterjamesthomas
how to be surprisingly popular https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/22/how-to-be-surprisingly-popular/
a sweeter spot for the cdo? https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/20/a-sweeter-spot-for-the-cdo/
predictions about prediction https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/13/predictions-about-prediction/
20 risks that beset data programmes https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/06/20-risks-that-beset-data-programmes/
toast https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/02/01/toast/
do any technologies grow up or do they only come of age? https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/26/do-any-technologies-grow-up-or-do-they-only-come-of-age/
nucleosynthesis and data visualisation https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/24/nucleosynthesis-and-data-visualisation/
bumps in the road https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/20/bumps-in-the-road/
the big data universe https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/16/the-big-data-universe/
metamorphosis https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/13/metamorphosis/
alphabet soup https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/10/alphabet-soup/
indiana jones and the anomalies of data https://peterjamesthomas.com/2017/01/04/indiana-jones-and-the-anomalies-of-data/
the chief data officer “sweet spot” https://peterjamesthomas.com/2016/12/22/the-chief-data-officer-sweet-spot/
more statistics and medicine https://peterjamesthomas.com/2016/11/08/more-statistics-and-medicine/
curiouser and curiouser – the limits of brexit voting analysis https://peterjamesthomas.com/2016/07/12/curiouser-and-curiouser-the-limits-of-brexit-voting-analysis/
how age was a critical factor in brexit https://peterjamesthomas.com/2016/07/07/how-age-was-a-critical-factor-in-brexit/
a tale of two [brexit] data visualisations https://peterjamesthomas.com/2016/07/06/a-tale-of-two-brexit-data-visualisations/
showing uncertainty in a data visualisation https://peterjamesthomas.com/2016/07/01/showing-uncertainty-in-a-data-visualisation/
themes from a chief data officer forum – the 180 day perspective https://peterjamesthomas.com/2016/05/20/themes-from-a-chief-data-officer-forum-the-180-day-perspective/
data management as part of the data to action journey https://peterjamesthomas.com/2015/12/24/data-management-as-part-of-the-data-to-action-journey/
- http://www.dama.org
- http://smartdatacollective.com
- http://www.dataqualitypro.com
business intelligence https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/business-intelligence/
bi and the economic crisis https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/business-intelligence/bi-and-the-economic-crisis/
business analytics https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/business-intelligence/business-analytics/
business intelligence competency centres https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/business-intelligence/business-intelligence-competency-centres/
dashboards https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/business-intelligence/dashboards/
data visualisation https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/business-intelligence/data-visualisation/
data warehousing https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/business-intelligence/data-warehousing/
enterprise performance management https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/business-intelligence/enterprise-performance-management/
infographics https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/business-intelligence/infographics/
management information https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/business-intelligence/management-information/
sas bi / ba controversy https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/business-intelligence/sas-bi-ba-controversy/
chief data officer https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/chief-data-officer/
data governance https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/chief-data-officer/data-governance/
data management https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/chief-data-officer/data-management/
data quality https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/chief-data-officer/data-quality/
data science https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/chief-data-officer/data-science/
cultural transformation https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/cultural-transformation/
change management https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/cultural-transformation/change-management/
education https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/cultural-transformation/education/
general https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/
business https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/business/
management https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/management/
site update https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/site-update/
social media https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/social-media/
blogging https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/social-media/blogging-social-media/
linkedin https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/social-media/linkedin-social-media/
twitter https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/social-media/twitter-social-media/
strategy https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/strategy/
technology https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/technology/
big data https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/technology/big-data/
cloud computing https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/technology/cloud-computing/
industry commentary https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/technology/industry-commentary/
amazon https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/technology/industry-commentary/amazon/
balanced insight https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/technology/industry-commentary/balanced-insight/
erp https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/technology/industry-commentary/erp/
google https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/technology/industry-commentary/google/
ibm https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/technology/industry-commentary/ibm/
cognos https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/technology/industry-commentary/ibm/cognos/
informatica https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/technology/industry-commentary/informatica/
microsoft https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/technology/industry-commentary/microsoft/
oracle https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/technology/industry-commentary/oracle/
hyperion https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/technology/industry-commentary/oracle/hyperion/
sap https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/technology/industry-commentary/sap/
businessobjects https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/technology/industry-commentary/sap/businessobjects/
sas https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/technology/industry-commentary/sas/
sun https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/technology/industry-commentary/sun/
oracle and sun https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/technology/oracle-and-sun/
systems integration https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/technology/systems-integration/
text analytics https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/general/technology/text-analytics/
it business alignment https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/it-business-alignment/
mathematics & science https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/mathematics-science/
astronomy https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/mathematics-science/astronomy/
biology https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/mathematics-science/biology-mathematics-science/
chemistry https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/mathematics-science/chemistry/
mathematics https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/mathematics-science/mathematics-mathematics-science/
pure mathematics https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/mathematics-science/mathematics-mathematics-science/pure-mathematics/
statistics https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/mathematics-science/mathematics-mathematics-science/statistics-mathematics/
physics https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/mathematics-science/physics-mathematics-science/
project management https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/project-management/
international projects https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/project-management/international-projects/
outsourcing https://peterjamesthomas.com/category/project-management/outsourcing-project-management/
acuate data quality http://acuate.typepad.com/acuate-data-quality/
beyenetwork http://www.beyenetwork.com
bogorad on business http://bizvortex.wordpress.com/
breakthrough analysis by seth grimes at intelligent enterprise http://www.intelligententerprise.com/movabletype/blog/sgrimes.html
business intelligence news by marcus borba http://mjfb-books.blogspot.com/
dale roberts' business intelligence now and the future http://businessintelligencetoday.blogspot.com/
george tomko’s cio rant http://www.ciorant.com/
information management http://www.information-management.com/
inside the biz with jill dyché http://www.jilldyche.com
it business alignment (it2b) http://itbusinessalignment.wordpress.com/
james taylor’s decision management on ebizq.net http://www.ebizq.net/blogs/decision_management/
judith hurwitz’s blog http://jshurwitz.wordpress.com/
knowledge works http://knowledgeworks.wordpress.com/
market strategies for it suppliers – merv adrian http://mervadrian.wordpress.com
michael sandberg's data visualization blog http://datavizblog.com/
neil raden’s blog at intelligent enterprise http://www.intelligententerprise.com/blog/nraden.html
obsessive-compulsive data quality by jim harris http://www.ocdqblog.com/
phil simon's virtual soapbox http://www.philsimonsystems.com/
sarah burnett’s blog http://sarahburnett.blogspot.com/
shawn rogers – the business intelligence brief http://blogs.enterprisemanagement.com/shawnrogers/
smartdatacollective http://smartdatacollective.com/
the boulder bi brain trust http://boulderbibraintrust.org/brain_trust_blog/
the business intelligence blog http://www.thebiblog.com/
the data warehousing information center http://www.dwinfocenter.org
the it-finance connection http://www.it-financeconnection.com/
this form https://peterthomas.wordpress.com/about-this-site/please-add-my-site-to-the-recommended-list/
contact details https://peterthomas.wordpress.com/about-this-site/contact/
report problems https://peterthomas.wordpress.com/about-this-site/problems-and-browser-compatibility/
blog at wordpress.com. https://en-gb.wordpress.com/?ref=footer_blog
twitter http://twitter.com/peterjthomas
linkedin http://linkedin.com/in/peterjamesthomas
tumblr http://peterjamesthomas.tumblr.com/
peter james thomas https://peterjamesthomas.com/
blog at wordpress.com. https://en-gb.wordpress.com/?ref=footer_blog

Zdjęcia

Zdjęcia 51
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT 3
Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE 5
Korzystanie Obraz ALT i TITLE atrybutu dla każdego obrazu.

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu TITLE

https://peterthomas.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/peter-thomas-h130.jpg
https://peterthomas.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/rss-orange.png
https://s2.wp.com/wp-content/mu-plugins/post-flair/sharing/images/loading.gif
https://sb.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=7518284&c3=&c4=&c5=&c6=&c15=&cv=2.0&cj=1
https://pixel.wp.com/b.gif?v=noscript

Zdjęcia bez atrybutu ALT

https://peterthomas.files.wordpress.com/2011/12/rss-orange.png
https://sb.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=7518284&c3=&c4=&c5=&c6=&c15=&cv=2.0&cj=1
https://pixel.wp.com/b.gif?v=noscript

Ranking:


Alexa Traffic
Daily Global Rank Trend
Daily Reach (Percent)









Majestic SEO











Text on page:

skip to content peter james thomas expert in the data to information to insight to action journey / mathematician / blogger / speaker menu home about this site site map problems and browser compatibility please add my site to the recommended list career information executive biography experience validus holdings greene king element six (de beers) chubb international chubb insurance company of europe the emir project emir user feedback cedardata plc education professional education academic education awards financial sector technology award cognos uk award media & seminars media vendor case studies presss interviews & quotes videos cognos video testimonial informatica video testimonial computing / accountancy age “webinar” smart data collective – “podcast” microsoft bi video interview seminars keynote articles creative commons contact details how to be surprisingly popular 22 february 201722 february 2017 peter james thomas statistics algorithm, machine learning, nature.com, polling, wisdom of the crowd introduction this article is about the wisdom of the crowd [1], or more particularly its all too frequent foolishness. i am going to draw on a paper recently published in nature by a cross-disciplinary team from the massachusetts institute of technology and princeton university. the authors are dražen prelec, h. sebastian seung and john mccoy. the paper’s title is a solution to the single-question crowd wisdom problem [2]. rather than reinvent the wheel, here is a section from the abstract (with my emphasis): once considered provocative, the notion that the wisdom of the crowd is superior to any individual has become itself a piece of crowd wisdom, leading to speculation that online voting may soon put credentialed experts out of business. recent applications include political and economic forecasting, evaluating nuclear safety, public policy, the quality of chemical probes, and possible responses to a restless volcano. algorithms for extracting wisdom from the crowd are typically based on a democratic voting procedure. […] however, democratic methods have serious limitations. they are biased for shallow, lowest common denominator information, at the expense of novel or specialized knowledge that is not widely shared. the problems the authors describe some compelling examples of where a crowd-based approach ignores the aforementioned specialised knowledge. i’ll cover a couple of these in a second, but let me first add my own. suppose we ask 1,000 people to come up with an estimate of the mass of a proton. one of these people happens to have won the nobel prize for physics the previous year. is the average of the estimates provided by the 1,000 people likely to be more accurate, or is the estimate of the one particularly qualified person going to be superior? there is an obvious answer to this question [3]. lest it be thought that the above flaw in the wisdom of the crowd is confined to populations including a nobel laureate, i’ll reproduce a much more quotidian example from the nature paper [4]. [..] imagine that you have no knowledge of us geography and are confronted with questions such as: philadelphia is the capital of pennsylvania, yes or no? and, columbia is the capital of south carolina, yes or no? you pose them to many people, hoping that majority opinion will be correct. [in an actual exercise the team carried out] this works for the columbia question, but most people endorse the incorrect answer (yes) for the philadelphia question. most respondents may only recall that philadelphia is a large, historically significant city in pennsylvania, and conclude that it is the capital. the minority who vote no probably possess an additional piece of evidence, that the capital is harrisburg. a large panel will surely include such individuals. the failure of majority opinion cannot be blamed on an uninformed panel or flawed reasoning, but represents a defect in the voting method itself. i’m both a good and bad example here. i know the capital of pennsylvania is harrisburg because i have specialist knowledge [5]. however my acquaintance with south carolina is close to zero. i’d therefore get the first question right and have a 50 / 50 chance on the second (all other things being equal of course). my assumption is that columbia is, in general, much more well-known than harrisburg for some reason. the authors go on to cover the technique that is often used to try to address this type of problem in surveys. respondents are also asked how confident they are about their answer. thus a tentative “yes” carries less weight than a definitive “yes”. however, as the authors point out, such an approach only works if correct responses are strongly correlated with respondent confidence. as is all too evident from real life, people are often both wrong and very confident about their opinion [6]. the authors extended their philadelphia / columbia study to apply confidence weightings, but with no discernible improvement. a surprisingly popular solution as well as identifying the problem, the authors suggest a solution and later go on to demonstrate its efficacy. again quoting from the paper’s abstract: here we propose the following alternative to a democratic vote: select the answer that is more popular than people predict. we show that this principle yields the best answer under reasonable assumptions about voter behaviour, while the standard ‘most popular’ or ‘most confident’ principles fail under exactly those same assumptions. let’s use the examples of capitals of states again here (as the authors do in the paper). as well as asking respondents, “philadelphia is the capital of pennsylvania, yes or no?” you also ask them “what percentage of people in this survey will answer ‘yes’ to this question?” the key is then to compare the actual survey answers with the predicted survey answers. as shown in the above exhibit, in the authors’ study, when people were asked whether or not columbia is the capital of south carolina, those who replied “yes” felt that the majority of respondents would agree with them. those who replied “no” symmetrically felt that the majority of people would also reply “no”. so no surprises there. both groups felt that the crowd would agree with their response. however, in the case of whether or not philadelphia is the capital of pennsylvania there is a difference. while those who replied “yes” also felt that the majority of people would agree with them, amongst those who replied “no”, there was a belief that the majority of people surveyed would reply “yes”. this is a surprise. people who make the correct response to this question feel that the wisdom of the crowd will be incorrect. in the columbia example, what people predict will be the percentage of people replying “yes” tracks with the actual response rate. in the philadelphia example, what people predict will be the percentage of people replying “yes” is significantly less than the actual proportion of people making this response [7]. thus a response of “no” to “philadelphia is the capital of pennsylvania, yes or no?” is surprisingly popular. the methodology that the authors advocate would then lead to the surprisingly popular answer (i.e. “no”) actually being correct; as indeed it is. because there is no surprisingly popular answer in the columbia example, then the result of a democratic vote stands; which is again correct. to reiterate: a surprisingly popular response will overturn the democratic verdict, if there is no surprisingly popular response, the democratic verdict is unmodified. as well as confirming the superiority of the surprisingly popular approach (as opposed to either weighted or non-weighted democratic votes) with questions about state capitals, the authors went on to apply their new technique in a range of other areas [8]. study 1 used 50 us state capitals questions, repeating the format [described above] with different populations [9]. study 2 employed 80 general knowledge questions. study 3 asked professional dermatologists to diagnose 80 skin lesion images as benign or malignant. study 4 presented 90 20th century artworks [see the images above] to laypeople and art professionals, and asked them to predict the correct market price category. taking all responses across the four studies into account [10], the central findings were as follows [11]: we first test pairwise accuracies of four algorithms: majority vote, surprisingly popular (sp), confidence-weighted vote, and max. confidence, which selects the answer endorsed with highest average confidence. across all items, the sp algorithm reduced errors by 21.3% relative to simple majority vote (p < 0.0005 by two-sided matched-pair sign test). across the items on which confidence was measured, the reduction was: 35.8% relative to majority vote (p < 0.001), 24.2% relative to confidence-weighted vote (p = 0.0107) and 22.2% relative to max. confidence (p < 0.13). the authors go on to further kick the tyres [12] on these results [13] without drawing any conclusions that deviate considerably from the ones they first present and which are reproduced above. the surprising finding is that the surprisingly popular algorithm significantly out-performs the algorithms normally used in wisdom of the crowd polling. this is a major result, in theory at least. some thoughts at the end of the abstract, the authors state that: like traditional voting, [the surprisingly popular algorithm] accepts unique problems, such as panel decisions about scientific or artistic merit, and legal or historical disputes. the potential application domain is thus broader than that covered by machine learning […]. given the – justified – attention that has been given to machine learning in recent years, this is a particularly interesting claim. more broadly, sp seems to bring much needed nuance to the wisdom of the crowd. it recognises that the crowd may often be right, but also allows better informed minorities to override the crowd opinion in specific cases. it does this robustly in all of the studies that the authors conducted. it will be extremely interesting to see this novel algorithm deployed in anger, i.e. in a non-theoretical environment. if its undoubted promise is borne out – and the evidence to date suggests that it will be – then statisticians will have a new and powerful tool in their arsenal and a range of predictive activities will be improved. the scope of applicability of the sp technique is as wide as that of any wisdom of the crowd approach and, to repeat the comments made by the authors in their abstract, has recently included: […] political and economic forecasting, evaluating nuclear safety, public policy, the quality of chemical probes, and possible responses to a restless volcano if the author’s initial findings are repeated in “live” situations, then the refinement to the purely democratic approach that sp brings should elevate an already useful approach to being an indispensable one in many areas. i will let the authors have a penultimate word [14]: although democratic methods of opinion aggregation have been influential and productive, they have underestimated collective intelligence in one respect. people are not limited to stating their actual beliefs; they can also reason about beliefs that would arise under hypothetical scenarios. such knowledge can be exploited to recover truth even when traditional voting methods fail. if respondents have enough evidence to establish the correct answer, then the surprisingly popular principle will yield that answer; more generally, it will produce the best answer in light of available evidence. these claims are theoretical and do not guarantee success in practice, as actual respondents will fall short of ideal. however, it would be hard to trust a method [such as majority vote or confidence-weighted vote] if it fails with ideal respondents on simple problems like [the philadelphia one]. to our knowledge, the method proposed here is the only one that passes this test. the ultimate thought i will present in this article is an entirely speculative one. the authors posit that their method could be applied to “potentially controversial topics, such as political and environmental forecasts”, while cautioning that manipulation should be guarded against. their suggestion leads me wonder what impact on the results of opinion polls a suitably formed surprisingly popular questionnaire would have had in the run up to both the recent uk european union referendum and the plebiscite for the us presidency. of course it is now impossible to tell, but maybe some polling organisations will begin to incorporate this new approach going forward. it can hardly make things worse. notes [1] according to wikipedia, the phenomenon that: a large group’s aggregated answers to questions involving quantity estimation, general world knowledge, and spatial reasoning has generally been found to be as good as, and often better than, the answer given by any of the individuals within the group. the authors of the nature paper question whether this is true in all circumstances. [2] prelec, d., seung, h.s., mccoy, j., (2017). a solution to the single-question crowd wisdom problem. nature 541, 532–535. you can view a full version of this paper care of springer nature sharedit at the following link. shareit is springer’s content sharing initiative. direct access to the article on nature’s site (here) requires a subscription to the journal. [3] this example is perhaps an interesting rejoinder to the increasing lack of faith in experts in the general population, something i covered in toast. of course the answer is approximately: 1.6726219 × 10-27 kg. [4] i have lightly edited this section but abjured the regular bracketed ellipses (more than one […] as opposed to conic sections as i note elsewhere). this is both for reasons of readability and also as i have not yet got to some points that the authors were making in this section. the original text is a click away. [5] my wife is from this state. [6] indeed it sometimes seems that the more wrong the opinion, the more certain that people believe it to be right. here the reader is free to insert whatever political example fits best with their worldview. [7] because many people replying “no” felt that a majority would disagree with them. [8] again i have lightly edited this text. [9] to provide a bit of detail, here the team created a questionnaire with 50 separate questions sets of the type: {most populous city in a state} is the capital of {state}: yes or no? how confident are you in your answer (50- 100%)? what percentage of people surveyed will respond “yes” to this question? (1 – 100%) this was completed by 83 people split between groups of undergraduate and graduate students at both mit and princeton. again see the paper for further details. [10] and eliding some nuances such as some responses being binary (yes/no) and others a range (e.g. the dermatologists were asked to rate the chance of malignancy on a six point scale from “absolutely uncertain to absolutely certain”). also respondents were asked to provide their confidence in some studies and not others. [11] once more with some light editing. [12] this is a technical term employed in scientific circles an i apologise if my use of jargon confuses some readers. [13] again please see the actual paper for details. [14] modified very slightly by my last piece of editing. follow @peterjthomas share this:click to print (opens in new window)click to email (opens in new window)click to share on twitter (opens in new window)click to share on linkedin (opens in new window)click to share on whatsapp (opens in new window)share on facebook (opens in new window)click to share on tumblr (opens in new window)click to share on reddit (opens in new window)click to share on pinterest (opens in new window)click to share on google+ (opens in new window)click to share on pocket (opens in new window)like this:like loading... leave a comment a sweeter spot for the cdo? 20 february 201720 february 2017 peter james thomas chief data officer atscale, bruno aziza i recently commented on an article by bruno aziza (@brunoaziza) from atscale [1]. as mentioned in this earlier piece, bruno and i have known each other for a while. after i published my article – and noting my interest in all things cdo [2] – he dropped me a line, drawing my attention to a further piece he had penned: cdos: they are not who you think they are. as with most things bruno writes, i’d suggest it merits taking a look. here i’m going to pick up on just a few pieces. first of all, bruno cites gartner saying that: […] they found that there were about 950 cdos in the world already. in one way that’s a big figure, in another, it is a small fraction of the at least medium-sized companies out there. so it seems that penetration of the cdo role still has some way to go. bruno goes on to list a few things which he believes a cdo is not (e.g. a compliance officer, a finance expert etc.) and suggests that the cdo role works best when reporting to the ceo [3], noting that: […] every ceo that’s not analytically driven will have a hard time gearing its company to success these days. he closes by presenting the image i reproduce below: and adding the explanatory note: the cdo is at the intersection of innovation, compliance and data expertise. when all he/she just does is compliance, it’s danger. they will find resistance at first and employees will question the value the cdo office adds to the company’s bottom line. first of all kudos for a correct use of the term venn diagram [4]. second i agree that the role of cdo is one which touches on many different areas. in each of these, while as bruno says, the cdo may not need to be an expert, a working knowledge would be advantageous [5]. third i wholeheartedly support the assertion that a cdo who focusses primarily on compliance (important as that may well be) will fail to get traction. it is only by blending compliance work with the leveraging of data for commercial advantage in which organisations will see value in what a cdo does. finally, bruno’s diagram put me in mind of the one i introduced in the chief data officer “sweet spot”. in this article, the image i presented touched each of the principle points of a compass (north, south, east and west). my assertion was that the cdo needed to sit at the sweet spot between respectively data synthesis / data compliance and business expertise / technical expertise. at the end of this piece, i suggested that in reality the intervening compass points (north west, south east, north east and south west) should also appear, reflecting other spectrums that the cdo needs to straddle. below i have extended my earlier picture to include these other points and labeled the additional extremities between which i think any successful cdo must sit. hopefully i have done this in a way that is consistent with bruno’s venn diagram. the north east / south west axis is one i mentioned in passing in my earlier text. while in my experience business is seldom anything but usual, bau has slipped into the lexicon and it’s pointless to pretend that it hasn’t. equally change has come to mean big and long-duration change, rather than the hundreds of small changes that tend to make up bau. in any case, regardless of the misleading terminology, the cdo must be au fait with both types of activity. the north west / south east axis is new and inspired by bruno’s diagram. in today’s business climate, i believe that the successful cdo must be both innovative and have an ability to deliver on ideas that he or she generates. as i have mentioned before, finding someone who sits at the nexus of either bruno’s diagram or mine is not a trivial exercise. equally, being a cdo is not a simple job; then very few worthwhile things are easy to achieve in my experience. notes [1] do any technologies grow up or do they only come of age? [2] a selection of cdo-centric articles, in chronological order: is the time ripe for appointing a chief business intelligence officer? * 5 themes from a chief data officer forum 5 more themes from a chief data officer forum themes from a chief data officer forum – the 180 day perspective at this point i think i may have realised that i was turning into a hybrid of enid blyton and j. k. rowling and so decided that some different article titles were in order… alphabet soup * at least that’s the term i was using to describe what is now called a chief data officer back in 2009. [3] theme #1 in 5 themes from a chief data officer forum [4] i have got this wrong myself in these very pages, e.g. in a single version of the truth?, in the section titled ordo ab chao. i really, really ought to know better! [5] i covered some of what i see as being requirements of the job in wanted – chief data officer. follow @peterjthomas share this:click to print (opens in new window)click to email (opens in new window)click to share on twitter (opens in new window)click to share on linkedin (opens in new window)click to share on whatsapp (opens in new window)share on facebook (opens in new window)click to share on tumblr (opens in new window)click to share on reddit (opens in new window)click to share on pinterest (opens in new window)click to share on google+ (opens in new window)click to share on pocket (opens in new window)like this:like loading... 1 comment predictions about prediction 13 february 201712 february 2017 peter james thomas business analytics, business intelligence, data management, data science eckerson group, wayne eckerson “prediction and explanation are exactly symmetrical. explanations are, in effect, predictions about what has happened; predictions are explanations about what’s going to happen.” – john rogers searle the above image is from eckerson group‘s article predictions for 2017. eckerson group’s founder and principal consultant, wayne eckerson (@weckerson), is someone whose ideas i have followed on-line for several years; indeed i’m rather surprised i have not posted about his work here before today. as was possibly said by a variety of people, “prediction is very difficult, especially about the future” [1]. i did turn my hand to crystal ball gazing back in 2009 [2], but the eckerson group’s attempt at futurology is obviously much more up-to-date. as per my review of bruno aziza’s thoughts on the atscale blog, i’m not going to cut and paste the text that wayne and his associates have penned wholesale, instead i’d recommend reading the original article. here though are a number of points that caught my eye, together with some commentary of my own (the latter appears in italics below). i’ll split these into the same groups that wayne & co. use and also stick to their indexing, hence the occasional gaps in numbering. where i have elided text, i trust that i have not changed the intended meaning: data management 1. the enterprise data marketplace becomes a priority. as companies begin to recognize the undesirable side effects of self-service they are looking for ways to reap self-service benefits without suffering the downside. […] the enterprise data marketplace returns us to the single-source vision that was once touted as the real benefit of enterprise data warehouses. i’ve always thought of self-service as something of a cop-out. it tends to avoid data teams doing anything as arduous (and in some cases out of their comfort zone) as understanding what makes a business tick and getting to grips with the key questions that an organisation needs to answer in order to be successful [3]. with this messy and human-centric stuff out of the way, the data team can retreat into the comfort of nice orderly technological matters or friendly statistical models. however, what eckerson group describe here is “an amazon-like data marketplace”, which it seems to me has more of a chance of being successful. however, such a marketplace will only function if it embodies the same focus on key business questions and how they are answered. the paradigm within which such questions are framed may be different, more community based and more federated for example, but the questions will still be of paramount importance. 3. new kinds of data governance organizations and practices emerge. long-standing, command-and-control data governance practices fail to meet the challenges of big data and of data democratization. […] i think that this is overdue. to date data governance, where it is implemented at all, tends to be too police-like. i entirely agree that there are circumstances in which a data governance team or body needs to be able to put its foot down [4], but if all that data governance does is police-work, then it will ultimately fail. instead good data governance needs to recognise that it is part of a much more fluid set of processes [5], whose aim is to add business value; to facilitate things being done as well as sometimes to stop the wrong path being taken. data science 1. self-service and automated predictive analytics tools will cause some embarrassing mistakes. business users now have the opportunity to use predictive models but they may not recognize the limits of the models themselves. […] i think this is a very valid point. as well as not understanding the limitations of some models [6], there is not widespread understanding of statistics in many areas of business. the concept of a central prediction surrounded by different outcomes with different probabilities is seldom seen in commercial circles [7]. in addition there seems to be a lack of appreciation of how big an impact the statistical methodology employed can have on what a model tells you [8]. business analytics 1. modern analytic platforms dominate bi. business intelligence (bi) has evolved from purpose-built tools in the 1990s to bi suites in the 2000s to self-service visualization tools in the 2010s. going forward, organizations will replace tools and suites with modern analytics platforms that support all modes of bi and all types of users […] again, if it comes to fruition, such consolidation is overdue. ideally the tools and technologies will blend into the background, good data-centric work is never about the technology and always about the content and the efforts involved in ensuring that it is relevant, accurate, consistent and timely [9]. also information is often of most use when it is made available to people taking decisions at the precise point that they need it. this observation highlights the need for data to be integrated into systems and digital estates instead of simply being bound to an analytical hub. so some food for thought from wayne and his associates. the points they make (including those which i haven’t featured in this article) are serious and well-thought-out ones. it will be interesting to see how things have moved on by the beginning of 2018. notes [1] according to wikiquotes, this has most famously been attributed to danish theoretical physicist and father of quantum mechanics, niels bohr (in teaching and learning elementary social studies (1970) by arthur k. ellis, p. 431). however it has also been ascribed to various humourists, the danish poet piet hein: “det er svært at spå – især om fremtiden” and danish cartoonist storm p (robert storm petersen). perhaps it is best to say that a dane made the comment and leave it at that. of course similar words have also been said to have been originated by yogi berra, but then that goes for most malapropisms you could care to mention. as mr berra himself says “i really didn’t say everything i said”. [2] see trends in business intelligence. i have to say that several of these have come to pass, albeit sometimes in different ways to the ones i envisaged back then. [3] for a brief review of what is necessary see what should companies consider before investing in a business intelligence solution? [4] i wrote about the unpleasant side effects of a change programmes unfettered by appropriate data governance in bumps in the road, for example. [5] i describe such a set of processes in data management as part of the data to action journey. [6] i explore some simmilar territory to that presented by eckerson group in data visualisation – a scientific treatment. [7] my favourite counterexample is provided by the bank of england. an inflation prediction from the bank of england illustrating the fairly obvious fact that uncertainty increases in proportion to time from now. [8] this is an area i cover in an inconvenient truth. [9] i cover this assertion more fully in a bad workman blames his [business intelligence] tools. follow @peterjthomas share this:click to print (opens in new window)click to email (opens in new window)click to share on twitter (opens in new window)click to share on linkedin (opens in new window)click to share on whatsapp (opens in new window)share on facebook (opens in new window)click to share on tumblr (opens in new window)click to share on reddit (opens in new window)click to share on pinterest (opens in new window)click to share on google+ (opens in new window)click to share on pocket (opens in new window)like this:like loading... leave a comment 20 risks that beset data programmes 6 february 201722 february 2017 peter james thomas cultural transformation, data management, data quality, education, outsourcing, project management this article draws extensively on elements of the framework i use to both highlight and manage risks on data programmes. it has its genesis in work that i did early in 2012 (but draws on experience from the years before this). i have tried to refresh the content since then to reflect new thinking and new developments in the data arena. introduction what are my motivations in publishing this article? well i have both designed and implemented data and information programmes for over 17 years. in the majority of cases my programme work has been a case of executing a data strategy that i had developed myself [1]. while i have generally been able to steer these programmes to a successful outcome [2], there have been both bumps in the road and the occasional blind alley, requiring a u-turn and another direction to be selected. i have also been able to observe data programmes that ran in parallel to mine in different parts of various organisations. finally, i have often been asked to come in and address issues with an existing data programme; something that appears to happens all too often. in short i have seen a lot of what works and what does not work. having also run other types of programmes [3], i can also attest to data programmes being different. failure to recognise this difference and thus approaching a data programme just like any other piece of work is one major cause of issues [4]. before i get into my list proper, i wanted to pause to highlight a further couple of mistakes that i have seen made more than once; ones that are more generic in nature and thus don’t appear on my list of 20 risks. the first is to assume that the way that an organisation’s data is controlled and leveraged can be improved in a sustainable way by just kicking off a programme. what is more important in my experience is to establish a data function, which will then help with both the governance and exploitation of data. this data function, ideally sitting under a cdo, will of course want to initiate a range of projects, from improving data quality, to sprucing up reporting, to establishing better analytical capabilities. best practice is to gather these activities into a programme, but things work best if the data function is established first, owns such a programme and actively partakes in its execution. as well as the issue of ongoing versus transitory accountability for data and the undoubted damage that poorly coordinated change programmes can inflict on data assets, another driver for first establishing a data function is that data needs will always be there. on the governance side, new systems will be built, bought and integrated, bringing new data challenges. on the analytical side, there will always be new questions to be answered, or old ones to be reevaluated. while data-centric efforts will generate many projects with start and end dates, the broad stream of data work continues on in a way that, for example, the implementation of a new b2c capability does not. the second is to believe that you will add lasting value by outsourcing anything but targeted elements of your data programme. this is not to say that there is no place for such arrangements, which i have used myself many times, just that one of the lasting benefits of gimlet-like focus on data is the ip that is built up in the data team; ip that in my experience can be leveraged in many different and beneficial ways, becoming a major asset to the organisation [5]. having made these introductory comments, let’s get on to the main list, which is divided into broadly chronological sections, relating to stages of the programme. the 10 risks which i believe are either most likely to materialise, or which will probably have the greatest impact are highlighted in pale yellow. up-front risks risk potential impact 1. not appreciating the size of work for both business and technology resources. team is set up to fail – it is neither responsive enough to business needs (resulting in yet more “unofficial” repositories and additional fragmentation), nor is appropriate progress is made on its central objective. 2. not establishing a dedicated team. the team never escapes from “the day job” or legacy / bau issues; the past prevents the future from being built. 3. not establishing a unified and collaborative team. team is plagued by people pursuing their own agendas and trashing other people’s approaches, this consumes management time on non-value-added activities, leads to infighting and dissipates energy. 4. staff lack skills and prior experience of data programmes. time spent educating people rather than getting on with work. sub-optimal functionality, slippages, later performance problems, higher ongoing support costs. 5. not establishing an appropriate management / governance structure. programme is not aligned with business needs, is not able to get necessary time with business users and cannot negotiate the inevitable obstacles that block its way. as a result, the programme gets “stuck in the mud”. 6. failing to recognise ongoing local needs when centralising. local business units do not have their pressing needs attended to and so lose confidence in the programme and instead go their own way. this leads to duplication of effort, increased costs and likely programme failure. with risk 2 an analogy is trying to build a house in your spare time. if work can only be done in evenings or at the weekend, then this is going to take a long time. nevertheless organisations too frequently expect data programmes to be absorbed in existing headcount and fitted in between people’s day jobs. we can we extend the building metaphor to cover risk 4. if you are going to build your own house, it would help that you understand carpentry, plumbing, electricals and brick-laying and also have a grasp on the design fundamentals of how to create a structure that will withstand wind rain and snow. too often companies embark on data programmes with staff who have a bit of a background in reporting or some related area and with managers who have never been involved in a data programme before. this is clearly a recipe for disaster. risk 5 reminds us that governance is also important – both to ensure that the programme stays focussed on business needs and also to help the team to negotiate the inevitable obstacles. this comes back to a successful data programme needing to be more than just a technology project. programme execution risks risk potential impact 7. poor programme management. the programme loses direction. time is expended on non-core issues. milestones are missed. expenditure escalates beyond budget. 8. poor programme communication. stakeholders have no idea what is happening [6]. the programme is viewed as out of touch / not pertinent to business issues. steering does not understand what is being done or why. prospective users have no interest in the programme. 9. big bang approach. too much time goes by without any value being created. the eventual big bang is instead a damp squib. large sums of money are spent without any benefits. 10. endless search for the perfect solution / adherence to overly theoretical approaches. programme constantly polishes rocks rather than delivering. data models reflect academic purity rather than real-world performance and maintenance needs. 11. lack of focus on interim deliverables. business units become frustrated and seek alternative ways to meet their pressing needs. this leads to greater fragmentation and reputational damage to programme. 12. insufficient time spent understanding source system data and how data is transformed as it flows between systems. data capabilities that do not reflect business transactions with fidelity. there is inconsistency with reports directly drawn from source systems. reconciliation issues arise (see next point). 13. poor reconciliation. if analytical capabilities do not tell a consistent story, they will not be credible and will not be used. 14. strong approach to data quality. data facilities are seen as inaccurate because of poor data going into them. data facilities do not match actual business events due to either massaging of data or exclusion of transactions with invalid attributes. probably the single most common cause of failure with data programmes – and indeed or erp projects and acquisitions and any other type of complex endeavour – is risk 7, poor programme management. not only do programme managers have to be competent, they should also be steeped in data matters and have a good grasp of the factors that differentiate data programmes from more general work. relating to the other highlighted risks in this section, the programme could spend two years doing work without surfacing anything much and then, when they do make their first delivery, this is a dismal failure. in the same vein, exclusive focus on strategic capabilities could prevent attention being paid to pressing business needs. at the other end of the spectrum, interim deliveries could spiral out of control, consuming all of the data team’s time and meaning that the strategic objective is never reached. a better approach is that targeted and prioritised interims help to address pressing business needs, but also inform more strategic work. from the other perspective, progress on strategic work-streams should be leveraged whenever it can be, perhaps in less functional manners that the eventual solution, but good enough and also helping to make sure that the final deliveries are spot on [7]. user requirement risks risk potential impact 15. not enough up-front focus on understanding key business decisions and the information necessary to take them. analytic capabilities do not focus on what people want or need, leading to poor adoption and benefits not being achieved. 16. in the absence of the above, the programme becoming a technology-driven one. the business gets what it or change think that they need, not what is actually needed. there is more focus on shiny toys than on actionable information. the programme forgets the needs of its customers. 17. a focus on replicating what the organisation already has but in better tools, rather than creating what it wants. beautiful data visualisations that tell you close to nothing. long lists of existing reports with their fields cross-referenced to each other and a new solution that is essentially the lowest common denominator of what is already in place; a step backwards. the other most common reasons for data programme failure is a lack of focus on user needs and insufficient time spent with business people to ensure that systems reflect their requirements [8]. integration risk risk potential impact 18. lack of leverage of new data capabilities in front-end / digital systems. these systems are less effective. the data team is jealous about its capabilities being the only way that users should get information, rather than adopting a more pragmatic and value-added approach. it is important for the data team to realise that their work, however important, is just one part of driving a business forward. opportunities to improve other system facilities by the leverage of new data structures should be taken wherever possible. deployment risks risk potential impact 19. education is an afterthought, training is technology- rather than business-focused. people neither understand the capabilities of new analytical tools, nor how to use them to derive business value. again this leads to poor adoption and little return on investment. 20. declaring success after initial implementation and training. without continuing to water the immature roots, the plant withers. early adoption rates fall and people return to how they were getting information pre-launch. this means that the benefits of the programme not realised. finally excellent technical work needs to be complemented with equal attention to business-focussed education, training using real-life scenarios and assiduous follow up. these things will make or break the programme [9]. summary. of course i don’t claim that the above list is exhaustive. you could successfully mitigate all of the above risks on your data programme, but still get sunk by some other unforeseen problem arising. there is a need to be flexible and to adapt to both events and how your organisation operates; there are no guarantees and no foolproof recipes for success [10]. my recommendation to data professionals is to develop your own approach to risk management based on your own experience, your own style and the culture within which you are operating. if just a few of the items on my list of risks can be usefully amalgamated into this, then i will feel that this article has served its purpose. if you are embarking on a data programme, maybe your first one, then be warned that these are hard and your reserves of perseverance will be tested. i’d suggest leveraging whatever tools you can find in trying to forge ahead. it is also maybe worth noting that, somewhat contrary to my point that data programmes are different, a few of the risks that i highlight above could be tweaked to apply to more general programmes as well. hopefully the things that i have learnt over the last couple of decades of running data programmes will be something that can be of assistance to you in your own work. notes [1] for my thoughts on developing data (or interchangeably) information strategies see: forming an information strategy: part i – general strategy forming an information strategy: part ii – situational analysis and forming an information strategy: part iii – completing the strategy or the cliffsnotes versions of these on linkedin: information strategy: 1) general strategy information strategy: 2) situational analysis and information strategy: 3) completing the strategy [2] indeed sometimes an award-winning one. [3] an abridged list would include: erp design, development and implementation erp selection and implementation crm design, development and implementation crm selection and implementation integration of acquired companies outsourcing of systems maintenance and support [4] for an examination of this area you can start with a more appropriate metaphor for business intelligence projects. while written back in 2008-9 the content of this article is as pertinent today as it was back then. [5] i cover this area in greater detail in is outsourcing business intelligence a good idea? [6] probably a bad idea to make this stakeholder unhappy (see also themes from a chief data officer forum – the 180 day perspective, note [3]). [7] see vision vs pragmatism, holistic vs incremental approaches to bi and tactical meandering for further background on this area. [8] this area is treated in the strategy articles appearing in note [1] above. in addition, some potential approaches to elements of effective requirements gathering are presented in scaling-up performance management and developing an international bi strategy. [9] of pertinence here is my trilogy on the cultural transformation aspects of information programmes: marketing change education and cultural transformation sustaining cultural change [10] something i stress forcibly in recipes for success? follow @peterjthomas share this:click to print (opens in new window)click to email (opens in new window)click to share on twitter (opens in new window)click to share on linkedin (opens in new window)click to share on whatsapp (opens in new window)share on facebook (opens in new window)click to share on tumblr (opens in new window)click to share on reddit (opens in new window)click to share on pinterest (opens in new window)click to share on google+ (opens in new window)click to share on pocket (opens in new window)like this:like loading... 1 comment toast 1 february 20171 february 2017 peter james thomas biology, data science, mathematics & science, physics, statistics anita makri, david spiegelhalter, food standards agency, nature.com, public trust in science, university of cambridge foreword this blog touches on a wide range of topics, including social media, cultural transformation, general technology and – last but not least – sporting analogies. however, its primary focus has always been on data and information-centric matters in a business context. having said this, all but the more cursory of readers will have noted the prevalence of pieces with a mathematical or scientific bent. to some extent this is a simple reflection of the author’s interests and experience, but a stronger motivation is often to apply learnings from different fields to the business data arena. this article is probably more scientific in subject matter than most, but i will also look to highlight some points pertinent to commerce towards the end. introduction the topic i want to turn my attention to in this article is public trust in science. this is a subject that has consumed many column inches in recent years. one particular area of focus has been climate science, which, for fairly obvious political reasons, has come in for even more attention than other scientific disciplines of late. it would be distracting to get into the arguments about climate change and humanity’s role in it here [1] and in a sense this is just the latest in a long line of controversies that have somehow become attached to science. an obvious second example here is the misinformation circling around both the efficacy and side effects of vaccinations [2]. in both of these cases, it seems that at least a sizeable minority of people are willing to query well-supported scientific findings. in some ways, this is perhaps linked to the general mistrust of “experts” and “elites” [3] that was explicitly to the fore in the uk’s european union referendum debate [4]. “people in this country have had enough of experts” – michael gove [5], at this point uk justice secretary and one of the main proponents of the leave campaign, speaking on sky news, june 2016. mr gove was talking about economists who held a different point of view to his own. however, his statement has wider resonance and cannot be simply dismissed as the misleading sound-bite of an experienced politician seeking to press his own case. it does indeed appear that in many places around the world experts are trusted much less than they used to be and that includes scientists. “many political upheavals of recent years, such as the rise of populist parties in europe, donald trump’s nomination for the american presidency and britain’s vote to leave the eu, have been attributed to a revolt against existing elites.” – the buttonwood column, the economist, september 2016. why has this come to be? a brief [6] history of the public perception of science note: this section is focussed on historical developments in the public’s trust in science. if the reader would like to skip on to more toast-centric content, then please click here. answering questions about the erosion of trust in politicians and the media is beyond the scope of this humble blog. wondering what has happened to trust in science is firmly in its crosshairs. one part of the answer is that – for some time – scientists were held in too much esteem and the pendulum was inevitably going to swing back the other way. for a while the pace of scientific progress and the miracles of technology which this unleashed placed science on a pedestal from which there was only one direction of travel. during this period in which science was – in general – uncritically held in great regard, the messy reality of actual science was never really highlighted. the very phrase “scientific facts” is actually something of an oxymoron. what we have is instead scientific theories. useful theories are consistent with existing observations and predict new phenomena. however – as i explained in patterns patterns everywhere – a theory is only as good as the latest set of evidence and some cherished scientific theories have been shown to be inaccurate; either in general, or in some specific circumstances [7]. however saying “we have a good model that helps us explain many aspects of a phenomenon and predict more, but it doesn’t cover everything and there are some uncertainties” is a little more of a mouthful than “we have discovered that…”. there have been some obvious landmarks along the way to science’s current predicament. the unprecedented destruction unleashed by the team working on the manhattan project at first made the scientists involved appear god-like. it also seemed to suggest that the path to great power status was through growing or acquiring the best physicists. however, as the prolonged misery caused in japan by the twin nuclear strikes became more apparent and as the cold war led to generations living under the threat of mutually assured destruction, the standing attached by the general public to physicists began to wane; the god-like mantle began to slip. while much of our modern world and its technology was created off the back of now fairly old theories like quantum chromodynamics and – most famously – special and general relativity, the actual science involved became less and less accessible to the man or woman in the street. for all the (entirely justified) furore about the detection of the higgs boson, few people would be able to explain much about what it is and how it fits into the standard model of particle physics. in the area of medicine and pharmacology, the thalidomide tragedy, where a drug prescribed to help pregnant women suffering from morning sickness instead led to terrible birth defects in more than 10,000 babies, may have led to more stringent clinical trials, but also punctured the air of certainty that had surrounded the development of the latest miracle drug. while medical science and related disciplines have vastly improved the health of much of the globe, the glacial progress in areas such as oncology has served as a reminder of the fallibility of some scientific endeavours. in a small way, the technical achievements of that apogee of engineering, nasa, were undermined by loss of crafts and astronauts. most notably the challenger and columbia fatalities served to further remove the glossy veneer that science had acquired in the 1940s to 1960s. lest it be thought at this point that i am decrying science, or even being anti-scientific, nothing could be further from the truth. i firmly believe that the ever growing body of scientific knowledge is one of humankind’s greatest achievements, if not its greatest. from our unpromising vantage point on an unremarkable little planet in our equally common-all-garden galaxy we have been able to grasp many of the essential truths about the whole universe from the incomprehensibly gigantic to the most infinitesimal constituent of a sub-atomic particle. however, it seems that many people do not fully embrace the grandeur of our achievements, or indeed in many cases the unexpected beauty and harmony that they have revealed [8]. it is to the task of understanding this viewpoint that i am addressing my thoughts. more recently, the austerity that has enveloped much of the developed world since the 2008 financial crisis has had two reinforcing impacts on science in many countries. first funding has often been cut, leading to pressure on research programmes and scientists increasingly having to make an economic case for their activities; a far cry from the 1950s. second, income has been effectively stagnant for the vast majority of people, this means that scientific expenditure can seem something of a luxury and also fuels the anti-elite feelings cited by the economist earlier in this article. into this seeming morass steps anita makri, “editor/writer/producer and former research scientist”. in a recent nature article she argues that the form of science communicated in popular media leaves the public vulnerable to false certainty. i reproduce some of her comments here: “much of the science that the public knows about and admires imparts a sense of wonder and fun about the world, or answers big existential questions. it’s in the popularization of physics through the television programmes of physicist brian cox and in articles about new fossils and quirky animal behaviour on the websites of newspapers. it is sellable and familiar science: rooted in hypothesis testing, experiments and discovery. although this science has its place, it leaves the public […] with a different, outdated view to that of scientists of what constitutes science. people expect science to offer authoritative conclusions that correspond to the deterministic model. when there’s incomplete information, imperfect knowledge or changing advice — all part and parcel of science — its authority seems to be undermined. […] a popular conclusion of that shifting scientific ground is that experts don’t know what they’re talking about.” – anita makri, give the public the tools to trust scientists, nature, january 2017. i’ll come back to anita’s article again later. food safety – the dangers lurking in toast after my speculations about the reasons why science is held in less esteem than once was the case, i’ll return to more prosaic matters; namely food and specifically that humble staple of many a breakfast table, toast. food science has often fared no better than its brother disciplines. the scientific guidance issued to people wanting to eat healthily can sometimes seem to gyrate wildly. for many years fat was the source of all evil, more recently sugar has become public enemy number one. red wine was meant to have beneficial effects on heart health, then it was meant to be injurious; i’m not quite sure what the current advice consists of. as makri states above, when advice changes as dramatically as it can do in food science, people must begin to wonder whether the scientists really know anything at all. so where does toast fit in? well the governmental body charged with providing advice about food in the uk is called the food standards agency. they describe their job as “using our expertise and influence so that people can trust that the food they buy and eat is safe and honest.” while the fsa do sterling work in areas such as publicly providing ratings of food hygiene for restaurants and the like, their most recent campaign is one which seems at best ill-advised and at worst another nail in the public perception of the reliability of scientific advice. such things matter because they contribute to the way that people view science in general. if scientific advice about food is seen as unsound, surely there must be questions around scientific advice about climate change, or vaccinations. before i am accused of belittling the fsa’s efforts, let’s consider the campaign in question, which is called go for gold and encourages people to consume less acrylamide. here is some of what the fsa has to say about the matter: “today, the food standards agency (fsa) is launching a campaign to ‘go for gold’, helping people understand how to minimise exposure to a possible carcinogen called acrylamide when cooking at home. acrylamide is a chemical that is created when many foods, particularly starchy foods like potatoes and bread, are cooked for long periods at high temperatures, such as when baking, frying, grilling, toasting and roasting. the scientific consensus is that acrylamide has the potential to cause cancer in humans. […] as a general rule of thumb, aim for a golden yellow colour or lighter when frying, baking, toasting or roasting starchy foods like potatoes, root vegetables and bread.” – food standards agency, families urged to ‘go for gold’ to reduce acrylamide consumption, january 2017. the go for gold campaign was picked up by various media outlets in the uk. for example the bbc posted an article on its web-site which opened by saying: “bread, chips and potatoes should be cooked to a golden yellow colour, rather than brown, to reduce our intake of a chemical which could cause cancer, government food scientists are warning.” – bbc, browned toast and potatoes are ‘potential cancer risk’, say food scientists, january 2017. the bbc has been obsessed with neutrality on all subjects recently [9], but in this case they did insert the reasonable counterpoint that: “however, cancer research uk [10] said the link was not proven in humans.” acrylamide is certainly a nasty chemical. amongst other things, it is used in polyacrylamide gel electrophoresis, a technique used in biochemistry. if biochemists mix and pour their own gels, they have to monitor their exposure and there are time-based and lifetime limits as to how often they can do such procedures [11]. acrylamide has also been shown to lead to cancer in mice. so what could be more reasonable that the fsa’s advice? food safety – a statistical / risk based approach earlier i introduced anita makri, it is time to meet our second protagonist, david spiegelhalter, winton professor for the public understanding of risk in the statistical laboratory, centre for mathematical sciences, university of cambridge [12]. professor spiegelhalter has penned a response to the fsa’s go for gold campaign. i feel that this merits reading in entirety, but here are some highlights: “very high doses [of acrylamide] have been shown to increase the risk of mice getting cancer. the iarc (international agency for research on cancer) considers it a ‘probable human carcinogen’, putting it in the same category as many chemicals, red meat, being a hairdresser and shift-work. however, there is no good evidence of harm from humans consuming acrylamide in their diet: cancer research uk say that ‘at the moment, there is no strong evidence linking acrylamide and cancer.’ this is not for want of trying. a massive report from the european food standards agency (efsa) lists 16 studies and 36 publications, but concludes ‘in the epidemiological studies available to date, aa intake was not associated with an increased risk of most common cancers, including those of the gi or respiratory tract, breast, prostate and bladder. a few studies suggested an increased risk for renal cell, and endometrial (in particular in never-smokers) and ovarian cancer, but the evidence is limited and inconsistent. moreover, one study suggested a lower survival in non-smoking women with breast cancer with a high pre-diagnostic exposure to aa but more studies are necessary to confirm this result. (p185)’ […] [based on the efsa study] adults with the highest consumption of acrylamide could consume 160 times as much and still only be at a level that toxicologists think unlikely to cause increased tumours in mice. […] this all seems rather reassuring, and may explain why it’s been so difficult to observe any effect of acrylamide in diet.” – david spiegelhalter, opinion: how dangerous is burnt toast?, university of cambridge, january 2017. indeed, professor spiegelhalter, an esteemed statistician, also points out that most studies will adopt the standard criteria for statistical significance. given that such significance levels are often set at 5%, then this means that: “[as] each study is testing an association with a long list of cancers […], we would expect 1 in 20 of these associations to be positive by chance alone.” he closes his article by stating – not unreasonably – that the fsa’s time and attention might be better spent on areas where causality between an agent and morbidity is well-established, for example obesity. my assumption is that the fsa has a limited budget and has to pick and choose what food issues to weigh in on. even if we accept for the moment that there is some slight chance of a causal link between the consumption of low levels of acrylamide and cancer, there are plenty of other areas in which causality is firmly established; obesity as mentioned by professor spiegelhalter, excessive use of alcohol, even basic kitchen hygiene. it is hard to understand why the fsa did not put more effort into these and instead focussed on an area where the balance of scientific judgement is that there is unlikely to be an issue. having a mathematical background perhaps biases me, but i tend to side with professor spiegelhalter’s point of view. i don’t want to lay the entire blame for the poor view that some people have of science at the fsa’s door, but i don’t think campaigns like go for gold help very much either. the apocryphal rational man or woman will probably deduce that there is not an epidemic of acrylamide poisoning in progress. this means that they may question what the experts at the fsa are going on about. in turn this reduces respect for other – perhaps more urgent – warnings about food and drink. such a reaction is also likely to colour how the same rational person thinks about “expert” advice in general. all of this can contribute to further cracks appearing in the public edifice of science, an outcome i find very unfortunate. so what is to be done? a call for a new and more honest approach to science communications as promised i’ll return to anita makri’s thoughts in the same article referenced above: “it’s more difficult to talk about science that’s inconclusive, ambivalent, incremental and even political — it requires a shift in thinking and it does carry risks. if not communicated carefully, the idea that scientists sometimes ‘don’t know’ can open the door to those who want to contest evidence. […] scientists can influence what’s being presented by articulating how this kind of science works when they talk to journalists, or when they advise on policy and communication projects. it’s difficult to do, because it challenges the position of science as a singular guide to decision making, and because it involves owning up to not having all of the answers all the time while still maintaining a sense of authority. but done carefully, transparency will help more than harm. it will aid the restoration of trust, and clarify the role of science as a guide.” the scientific method is meant to be about honesty. you record what you see, not what you want to see. if the data don’t support your hypothesis, you discard or amend your hypothesis. the peer-review process is meant to hold scientists to the highest levels of integrity. what makri seems to be suggesting is for scientists to turn their lenses on themselves and how they communicate their work. being honest where there is doubt may be scary, but not as scary as being caught out pushing certainty where no certainty is currently to be had. epilogue at the beginning of this article, i promised that i would bring things back to a business context. with lots of people with phds in numerate sciences now plying their trade as data scientists and the like, there is an attempt to make commerce more scientific [13]. understandably, the average member of a company will have less of an appreciation of statistics and statistical methods that their data scientists do. this can lead to data science seeming like magic; the philosopher’s stone [14]. there are obvious parallels here with how physicists were seen in the period immediately after the second world war. earlier in the text, i mused about what factors may have led to a deterioration in how the public views science and scientists. i think that there is much to be learnt from the issues i have covered in this article. if data scientists begin to try to peddle absolute truth and perfect insight (both of which, it is fair to add, are often expected from them by non-experts), as opposed to ranges of outcomes and probabilities, then the same decline in reputation probably awaits them. instead it would be better if data scientists heeded anita makri’s words and tried to always be honest about what they don’t know as well as what they do. notes [1] save to note that there really is no argument in scientific circles. as ever randall munroe makes the point pithily in his earth temperature timeline – https://xkcd.com/1732/. for a primer on the area, you could do worse than watching the royal society‘s video: [2] for the record, my daughter has had every vaccine known to the uk and us health systems and i’ve had a bunch of them recently as well. [3] most scientists i know would be astonished that they are considered part of the amorphous, ill-defined and obviously malevolent global “elite”. then “elite” is just one more proxy for “the other” something which it is not popular to be in various places in the world at present. [4] or what passed for debate in these post-truth times. [5] mr gove studied english at lady margaret hall, oxford, where he was also president of the oxford union. clearly oxford produces less experts than it used to in previous eras. [6] one that is also probably wildly inaccurate and certainly incomplete. [7] so newton’s celebrated theory of gravitation is “wrong” but actually works perfectly well in most circumstances. the the rutherford–bohr model, where atoms are little solar systems, with the nucleus circled by electrons much as the planets circle the sun is “wrong”, but actually does serve to explain a number of things; if sadly not the orbital angular momentum of electrons. [8] someone should really write a book about that – watch this space! [9] not least in the aforementioned eu referendum where it felt the need to follow the views of the vast majority of economists with those of the tiny minority, implying that the same weight be attached to both points of view. for example, 99.9999% of people believe the world to be round, but in the interests of balance my mate jim reckons it is flat. [10] according to their web-site: “the world’s leading charity dedicated to beating cancer through research”. [11] as attested to personally by the only proper scientist in our family. [12] unlike oxford (according to mr gove anyway), cambridge clearly still aspires to creating experts. [13] by this i mean proper science and not pseudo-science like management theory and the like. [14] in the original, non-j.k. rowling sense of the phrase. follow @peterjthomas share this:click to print (opens in new window)click to email (opens in new window)click to share on twitter (opens in new window)click to share on linkedin (opens in new window)click to share on whatsapp (opens in new window)share on facebook (opens in new window)click to share on tumblr (opens in new window)click to share on reddit (opens in new window)click to share on pinterest (opens in new window)click to share on google+ (opens in new window)click to share on pocket (opens in new window)like this:like loading... 1 comment do any technologies grow up or do they only come of age? 26 january 201726 january 2017 peter james thomas big data, cloud computing, data governance atscale, bruno aziza i must of course start by offering my apologies to that doyen of data experts, stephen king, for mangling his words to suit the purposes of this article [1]. the atscale big data maturity survey for 2016 came to my attention through a connection (see disclosure below). the survey covers “responses from more than 2,550 big data professionals, across more than 1,400 companies and 77 countries” and builds on their 2015 survey. i won’t use the word clickbait [2], but most of the time documents like this lead you straight to a form where you can add your contact details to the organisation’s marketing database. indeed you, somewhat inevitably, have to pay the piper to read the full survey. however atscale are to be commended for at least presenting some of the high-level findings before asking you for the full entry price. these headlines appear in an article on their blog. i won’t cut and paste the entire text, but a few points that stood out for me included: close to 70% [of respondents] have been using big data for more than a year (vs. 59% last year) more than 53% of respondents are using cloud for their big data deployment today and 14% of respondents have all their big data in the cloud business intelligence is [the] #1 workload for big data with 75% of respondents planning on using bi on big data accessibility, security and governance have become the fastest growing areas of concern year-over-year, with governance growing most at 21% organizations who have deployed spark [3] in production are 85% more likely to achieve value bullet 3 is perhaps notable as big data is often positioned – perhaps erroneously – as supporting analytics as opposed to “traditional bi” [4]. on the contrary, it appears that a lot of people are employing it in very “traditional” ways. on reflection this is hardly surprising as many organisations have as yet failed to get the best out of the last wave of information-related technology [5], let alone the current one. however, perhaps the two most significant trends are the shift from on-premises big data to cloud big data and the increased importance attached to data governance. the latter was perhaps more of a neglected area in the earlier and more free-wheeling era of big data. the rise in concerns about big data governance is probably the single greatest pointer towards the increasing maturity of the area. it will be interesting to see what the atscale survey of 2017 has to say in 12 months. disclosure: the contact in question is bruno aziza (@brunoaziza), atscale’s chief marketing officer. while i have no other connections with atscale, bruno and i did make the following video back in 2011 when both of us were at other companies. notes [1] excerpted from the gunslinger. [2] oops! [3] apache hadoop – which has become almost synonymous with big data – has two elements, the hadoop distributed file store (hdfs, the piece which deals with storage) and mapreduce (which does processing of data). apache spark was developed to improve upon the speed of the mapreduce approach where the same data is accessed many times, as can happen in some queries and algorithms. this is achieved in part by holding some or all of the data to be accessed in memory. spark works with hdfs and also other distributed file systems, such as apache cassandra. [4] how phrases from the past come around again! [5] some elements of the technology have changed, but the vast majority of the issues i covered in “why business intelligence projects fail” hold as true today as they did back in 2009 when i wrote this piece. follow @peterjthomas share this:click to print (opens in new window)click to email (opens in new window)click to share on twitter (opens in new window)click to share on linkedin (opens in new window)click to share on whatsapp (opens in new window)share on facebook (opens in new window)click to share on tumblr (opens in new window)click to share on reddit (opens in new window)click to share on pinterest (opens in new window)click to share on google+ (opens in new window)click to share on pocket (opens in new window)like this:like loading... 2 comments nucleosynthesis and data visualisation 24 january 201724 january 2017 peter james thomas chemistry, data visualisation, physics astrophysics, jennifer johnson, mendeleev, periodic table © jennifer johnson, sloan digital sky survey, http://www.sdss.org/ (click to view a larger size) the periodic table, is one of the truly iconic scientific images [1], albeit one with a variety of forms. in the picture above, the normal periodic table has been repurposed in a novel manner to illuminate a different field of scientific enquiry. this version was created by professor jennifer johnson (@jajohnson51) of the ohio state university and the sloan digital sky survey (sdss). it comes from an article on the sdss blog entitled origin of the elements in the solar system; i’d recommend reading the original post. the historical perspective a modern rendering of the periodic table appears above. it probably is superfluous to mention, but the periodic table is a visualisation of an underlying principle about elements; that they fall into families with similar properties and that – if appropriately arranged – patterns emerge with family members appearing at regular intervals. thus the alkali metals [2], all of which share many important characteristics, form a column on the left-hand extremity of the above table; the noble gases [3] form a column on the far right; and, in between, other families form further columns. given that the underlying principle driving the organisation of the periodic table is essentially a numeric one, we can readily see that it is not just a visualisation, but a data visualisation. this means that professor johnson and her colleagues are using an existing data visualisation to convey new information, a valuable technique to have in your arsenal. one of the original forms of the periodic table appears above, alongside its inventor, dmitri mendeleev. as with most things in science [4], my beguilingly straightforward formulation of “its inventor” is rather less clear-cut in practice. mendeleev’s work – like newton’s before him – rested “on the shoulders of giants” [5]. however, as with many areas of scientific endeavour, the chain of contributions winds its way back a long way and specifically to one of the greatest exponents of the scientific method [6], antoine lavoisier. the later law of triads [7], was another significant step along the path and – to mix a metaphor – many other scientists provided pieces of the jigsaw puzzle that mendeleev finally assembled. indeed around the same time as mendeleev published his ideas [8], so did the much less celebrated julius meyer; meyer and mendeleev’s work shared several characteristics. the epithet of inventor attached to mendeleev for two main reasons: his leaving of gaps in his table, pointing the way to as yet undiscovered elements; and his ordering of table entries according to family behaviour rather than atomic mass [9]. none of this is to take away from mendeleev’s seminal work, it is wholly appropriate that his name will always be linked with his most famous insight. instead it is my intention is to demonstrate that the the course of true science never did run smooth [10]. the johnson perspective since its creation – and during its many reformulations – the periodic table has acted as a pointer for many areas of scientific enquiry. why do elements fall into families in this way? how many elements are there? is it possible to achieve the alchemists’ dream and transmute one element into another? however, the question which professor johnson’s diagram addresses is another one, why is there such an abundance of elements and where did they all come from? the term nucleosynthesis that appears in the title of this article covers processes by which different atoms are formed from either base nucleons (protons and neutrons) or the combination of smaller atoms. it is nucleosynthesis which attempts to answer the question we are now considering. there are different types. our current perspective on where everything in the observable universe came from is of course the big bang [11]. this rather tidily accounts for the abundance of element 1, hydrogen, and much of that of element 2, helium. this is our first type of nucleosynthesis, big bang nucleosynthesis. however, it does not explain where all of the heavier elements came from [12]. the first part of the answer is from processes of nuclear fusion in stars. the most prevalent form of this is the fusion of hydrogen to form helium (accounting for the remaining helium atoms), but this process continues creating heavier elements, albeit in ever decreasing quantities. this is stellar nucleosynthesis and refers to those elements created in stars during their normal lives. while readers may be ready to accept the creation of these heavier elements in stars, an obvious question is how come they aren’t in stars any longer? the answer lies in what happens at the end of the life of a star. this is something that depends on a number of factors, but particularly its mass and also whether or not it is associated with another star, e.g. in a binary system. broadly speaking, higher mass stars tend to go out with a bang [13], lower mass ones with various kinds of whimpers. the exception to the latter is where the low mass star is coupled to another star, arrangements which can also lead to a considerable explosion as well [14]. of whatever type, violent or passive, star deaths create all of the rest of the heavier elements. supernovae are also responsible for releasing many heavy elements in to interstellar space, and this process is tagged explosive nucleosynthesis. into this relatively tidy model of nucleosynthesis intrudes the phenomenon of cosmic ray fission, by which cosmic rays [15] impact on heavier elements causing them to split into smaller constituents. we believe that this process is behind most of the beryllium and boron in the universe as well as some of the lithium. there are obviously other mechanisms at work like radioactive decay, but the vast majority of elements are created either in stars or during the death of stars. i have elided many of the details of nucleosynthesis here, it is a complicated and evolving field. what professor johnson’s graphic achieves is to reflect current academic thinking around which elements are produced by which type of process. the diagram certainly highlights the fact that the genesis of the elements is a complex story. perhaps less prosaically, it also encapulates carl sagan‘s famous aphorism, the one that professor johnson quotes at the beginning of her article and which i will use to close mine. we are made of starstuff. notes [1] see data visualisation – a scientific treatment for a perspective on another member of this select group. [2] lithium, sodium, potassium, rubidium, caesium and francium (hydrogen sometimes is shown as topping this list as well). [3] helium, argon, neon, krypton, xenon and radon. [4] watch this space for an article pertinent to this very subject. [5] isaac newton on 15th february 1676. in a letter to robert hooke; but employing a turn of phrase which had been in use for many years. [6] and certainly the greatest scientist ever to be beheaded. [7] döbereiner, j. w. (1829) “an attempt to group elementary substances according to their analogies”. annalen der physik und chemie. [8] in truth somewhat earlier. [9] the emergence of atomic number as the organising principle behind the ordering of elements happened somewhat later, vindicating mendeleev’s approach. we have: atomic mass ≅ number of protons in the nucleus of an element + number of neutrons whereas: atomic number = number of protons only the number of neutrons can jump about between successive elements meaning that arranging them in order of atomic mass gives a different result from atomic number. [10] with apologies to the bard. [11] i really can’t conceive that anyone who has read this far needs the big bang further expounded to them, but if so, then giyf. [12] we think that the big bang also created some quantities of lithium and several other heavier elements, as covered in professor johnson’s diagram. [13] generally some type of core collapse supernova. [14] type-ia supernovae are a phenomenon that allow us to accurately measure the size of the universe and how this is changing. [15] cosmic rays are very high energy particles that originate from outside of the solar system and consist mostly of very fast moving protons (aka hydrogen nuclei) and other atomic nuclei similarly stripped of their electrons. follow @peterjthomas share this:click to print (opens in new window)click to email (opens in new window)click to share on twitter (opens in new window)click to share on linkedin (opens in new window)click to share on whatsapp (opens in new window)share on facebook (opens in new window)click to share on tumblr (opens in new window)click to share on reddit (opens in new window)click to share on pinterest (opens in new window)click to share on google+ (opens in new window)click to share on pocket (opens in new window)like this:like loading... leave a comment post navigation ← older posts welcome to: peterjamesthomas.com, a site which covers my thoughts on the confluence of business, technology and change. search for: feedburner subscription subscribe in a reader subscribe by e-mail wordpress subscription enter your email address to receive notifications of new posts by email. join 4,086 other followers follow me on: view my profile on: last 20 articles how to be surprisingly popular a sweeter spot for the cdo? predictions about prediction 20 risks that beset data programmes toast do any technologies grow up or do they only come of age? nucleosynthesis and data visualisation bumps in the road the big data universe metamorphosis alphabet soup indiana jones and the anomalies of data the chief data officer “sweet spot” more statistics and medicine curiouser and curiouser – the limits of brexit voting analysis how age was a critical factor in brexit a tale of two [brexit] data visualisations showing uncertainty in a data visualisation themes from a chief data officer forum – the 180 day perspective data management as part of the data to action journey categories business intelligence (135) bi and the economic crisis (15) business analytics (24) business intelligence competency centres (2) dashboards (4) data visualisation (10) data warehousing (26) enterprise performance management (31) infographics (5) management information (41) sas bi / ba controversy (7) chief data officer (27) data governance (10) data management (7) data quality (13) data science (8) cultural transformation (46) change management (34) education (9) general (184) business (109) management (13) site update (25) social media (32) blogging (15) linkedin (5) twitter (13) strategy (4) technology (136) big data (7) cloud computing (2) industry commentary (40) amazon (1) balanced insight (1) erp (2) google (9) ibm (7) cognos (4) informatica (1) microsoft (12) oracle (8) hyperion (3) sap (3) businessobjects (3) sas (7) sun (4) oracle and sun (4) systems integration (1) text analytics (2) it business alignment (55) mathematics & science (31) astronomy (1) biology (8) chemistry (1) mathematics (21) pure mathematics (5) statistics (14) physics (6) project management (33) international projects (4) outsourcing (3) recommended sites acuate data quality beyenetwork bogorad on business breakthrough analysis by seth grimes at intelligent enterprise business intelligence news by marcus borba dale roberts' business intelligence now and the future george tomko’s cio rant information management inside the biz with jill dyché it business alignment (it2b) james taylor’s decision management on ebizq.net judith hurwitz’s blog knowledge works market strategies for it suppliers – merv adrian michael sandberg's data visualization blog neil raden’s blog at intelligent enterprise obsessive-compulsive data quality by jim harris phil simon's virtual soapbox sarah burnett’s blog shawn rogers – the business intelligence brief smartdatacollective the boulder bi brain trust the business intelligence blog the data warehousing information center the it-finance connection if you would like your site to be added to my recommended site list, please submit your details on this form. contact details report problems blog at wordpress.com. twitter linkedin tumblr peter james thomas blog at wordpress.com. post to cancel send to email address your name your email address cancel post was not sent - check your email addresses! email check failed, please try again sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email. %d bloggers like this:


Here you find all texts from your page as Google (googlebot) and others search engines seen it.

Words density analysis:

Numbers of all words: 13981

One word

Two words phrases

Three words phrases

the - 7.37% (1031)
and - 2.29% (320)
that - 1.45% (203)
for - 1.44% (202)
are - 1.37% (191)
her - 1.29% (181)
his - 1.18% (165)
data - 1.11% (155)
this - 1.03% (144)
per - 0.81% (113)
all - 0.76% (106)
not - 0.74% (103)
new - 0.74% (103)
out - 0.64% (90)
with - 0.64% (89)
have - 0.61% (85)
here - 0.61% (85)
open - 0.57% (79)
wind - 0.57% (79)
man - 0.56% (78)
(opens - 0.55% (77)
share - 0.54% (76)
art - 0.54% (76)
one - 0.54% (76)
click - 0.53% (74)
our - 0.53% (74)
der - 0.51% (71)
some - 0.48% (67)
age - 0.48% (67)
red - 0.47% (66)
- 0.46% (64)
window)click - 0.45% (63)
can - 0.45% (63)
what - 0.45% (63)
form - 0.44% (62)
end - 0.44% (61)
more - 0.42% (59)
any - 0.41% (57)
use - 0.41% (57)
but - 0.41% (57)
ever - 0.41% (57)
will - 0.4% (56)
business - 0.4% (56)
how - 0.4% (56)
und - 0.39% (55)
programme - 0.39% (54)
era - 0.38% (53)
from - 0.37% (52)
you - 0.36% (51)
over - 0.36% (51)
people - 0.36% (50)
science - 0.34% (48)
has - 0.34% (47)
about - 0.32% (45)
rate - 0.32% (45)
like - 0.32% (45)
its - 0.31% (44)
see - 0.31% (44)
other - 0.31% (44)
which - 0.31% (43)
they - 0.3% (42)
work - 0.3% (42)
eat - 0.3% (42)
able - 0.29% (41)
there - 0.29% (41)
their - 0.29% (40)
way - 0.28% (39)
also - 0.28% (39)
article - 0.27% (38)
than - 0.24% (34)
time - 0.24% (34)
sit - 0.24% (33)
format - 0.24% (33)
low - 0.24% (33)
question - 0.24% (33)
now - 0.23% (32)
was - 0.23% (32)
them - 0.23% (32)
ran - 0.22% (31)
risk - 0.22% (31)
element - 0.22% (31)
scientific - 0.22% (31)
led - 0.22% (31)
many - 0.22% (31)
inform - 0.21% (30)
point - 0.21% (30)
most - 0.21% (30)
need - 0.21% (29)
come - 0.21% (29)
king - 0.21% (29)
been - 0.2% (28)
answer - 0.2% (28)
add - 0.19% (27)
big - 0.19% (27)
own - 0.19% (26)
part - 0.19% (26)
information - 0.18% (25)
under - 0.18% (25)
tell - 0.18% (25)
manage - 0.17% (24)
such - 0.17% (24)
elements - 0.17% (24)
your - 0.16% (23)
scientist - 0.16% (23)
know - 0.16% (23)
gove - 0.16% (23)
rest - 0.16% (23)
these - 0.16% (23)
then - 0.16% (23)
area - 0.16% (23)
cdo - 0.16% (22)
however - 0.16% (22)
food - 0.16% (22)
very - 0.16% (22)
get - 0.16% (22)
where - 0.16% (22)
into - 0.16% (22)
read - 0.16% (22)
being - 0.16% (22)
side - 0.16% (22)
general - 0.16% (22)
predict - 0.15% (21)
who - 0.15% (21)
would - 0.15% (21)
run - 0.15% (21)
management - 0.15% (21)
test - 0.15% (21)
2017 - 0.15% (21)
programmes - 0.15% (21)
approach - 0.15% (21)
off - 0.15% (21)
too - 0.15% (21)
well - 0.14% (20)
much - 0.14% (20)
less - 0.14% (20)
cover - 0.14% (20)
popular - 0.14% (20)
scientists - 0.14% (20)
high - 0.14% (20)
both - 0.14% (20)
back - 0.14% (19)
expert - 0.14% (19)
cry - 0.14% (19)
major - 0.14% (19)
war - 0.14% (19)
view - 0.14% (19)
different - 0.14% (19)
authors - 0.13% (18)
old - 0.13% (18)
star - 0.13% (18)
fore - 0.13% (18)
public - 0.13% (18)
when - 0.13% (18)
peter - 0.13% (18)
needs - 0.13% (18)
on. - 0.13% (18)
governance - 0.12% (17)
focus - 0.12% (17)
above - 0.12% (17)
thomas - 0.12% (17)
bruno - 0.12% (17)
system - 0.12% (17)
team - 0.12% (17)
light - 0.12% (17)
fail - 0.12% (17)
real - 0.12% (17)
may - 0.12% (17)
list - 0.12% (17)
example - 0.12% (17)
while - 0.12% (17)
[…] - 0.12% (17)
intelligence - 0.12% (17)
only - 0.11% (16)
majority - 0.11% (16)
yes - 0.11% (16)
seem - 0.11% (16)
interest - 0.11% (16)
office - 0.11% (16)
note - 0.11% (16)
things - 0.11% (16)
crowd - 0.11% (16)
though - 0.11% (16)
table - 0.11% (16)
mate - 0.11% (16)
blog - 0.11% (16)
surprising - 0.11% (16)
link - 0.11% (16)
change - 0.11% (16)
lead - 0.11% (16)
however, - 0.11% (16)
first - 0.11% (16)
follow - 0.11% (16)
mean - 0.11% (15)
ought - 0.11% (15)
sure - 0.11% (15)
[3] - 0.11% (15)
officer - 0.11% (15)
actual - 0.11% (15)
respond - 0.11% (15)
call - 0.11% (15)
analytic - 0.11% (15)
[1] - 0.11% (15)
cancer - 0.11% (15)
acrylamide - 0.11% (15)
often - 0.11% (15)
this: - 0.11% (15)
nor - 0.11% (15)
sent - 0.11% (15)
let - 0.11% (15)
going - 0.11% (15)
appear - 0.1% (14)
certain - 0.1% (14)
strategy - 0.1% (14)
rather - 0.1% (14)
does - 0.1% (14)
surprisingly - 0.1% (14)
recent - 0.1% (14)
mit - 0.1% (14)
think - 0.1% (14)
technology - 0.1% (14)
response - 0.1% (14)
year - 0.1% (14)
chief - 0.1% (14)
comment - 0.1% (14)
risks - 0.1% (14)
[5] - 0.1% (14)
email - 0.1% (14)
she - 0.1% (14)
questions - 0.1% (14)
[2] - 0.1% (14)
east - 0.1% (14)
cause - 0.1% (14)
[4] - 0.1% (14)
just - 0.1% (14)
were - 0.1% (14)
survey - 0.09% (13)
long - 0.09% (13)
fsa - 0.09% (13)
ways - 0.09% (13)
again - 0.09% (13)
rise - 0.09% (13)
make - 0.09% (13)
understand - 0.09% (13)
respondent - 0.09% (13)
turn - 0.09% (13)
reason - 0.09% (13)
used - 0.09% (13)
case - 0.09% (13)
even - 0.09% (13)
capital - 0.09% (13)
had - 0.09% (13)
say - 0.09% (13)
trust - 0.09% (13)
success - 0.09% (13)
thought - 0.09% (13)
visualisation - 0.09% (13)
group - 0.09% (13)
vote - 0.09% (13)
ones - 0.09% (13)
try - 0.09% (13)
organisation - 0.09% (12)
sign - 0.09% (12)
world - 0.09% (12)
type - 0.09% (12)
systems - 0.09% (12)
knowledge - 0.09% (12)
wisdom - 0.09% (12)
could - 0.09% (12)
number - 0.09% (12)
piece - 0.09% (12)
take - 0.09% (12)
project - 0.09% (12)
linked - 0.09% (12)
day - 0.09% (12)
john - 0.09% (12)
set - 0.09% (12)
issue - 0.09% (12)
state - 0.09% (12)
site - 0.09% (12)
pose - 0.09% (12)
method - 0.09% (12)
ask - 0.09% (12)
respondents - 0.09% (12)
erp - 0.09% (12)
develop - 0.08% (11)
toast - 0.08% (11)
idea - 0.08% (11)
phil - 0.08% (11)
times - 0.08% (11)
mass - 0.08% (11)
nature - 0.08% (11)
air - 0.08% (11)
tool - 0.08% (11)
prediction - 0.08% (11)
synthesis - 0.08% (11)
same - 0.08% (11)
problem - 0.08% (11)
should - 0.08% (11)
suggest - 0.08% (11)
present - 0.08% (11)
confidence - 0.08% (11)
areas - 0.08% (11)
experts - 0.08% (11)
put - 0.08% (11)
perhaps - 0.08% (11)
seems - 0.08% (11)
tend - 0.08% (11)
full - 0.08% (11)
want - 0.08% (11)
professor - 0.08% (11)
model - 0.08% (11)
line - 0.08% (11)
james - 0.08% (11)
february - 0.08% (11)
place - 0.08% (11)
period - 0.08% (11)
user - 0.07% (10)
scale - 0.07% (10)
did - 0.07% (10)
further - 0.07% (10)
help - 0.07% (10)
[8] - 0.07% (10)
another - 0.07% (10)
indeed - 0.07% (10)
[9] - 0.07% (10)
potential - 0.07% (10)
good - 0.07% (10)
[7] - 0.07% (10)
create - 0.07% (10)
great - 0.07% (10)
points - 0.07% (10)
experience - 0.07% (10)
using - 0.07% (10)
instead - 0.07% (10)
paper - 0.07% (10)
correct - 0.07% (10)
impact - 0.07% (10)
nucleosynthesis - 0.07% (10)
linkedin - 0.07% (10)
johnson - 0.07% (10)
tools - 0.07% (10)
fit - 0.07% (10)
press - 0.07% (10)
fun - 0.07% (10)
either - 0.07% (10)
process - 0.07% (10)
highlight - 0.07% (10)
studies - 0.07% (10)
those - 0.07% (10)
text - 0.07% (10)
probably - 0.07% (10)
[6] - 0.07% (10)
establish - 0.07% (10)
best - 0.07% (10)
post - 0.07% (10)
obvious - 0.07% (10)
market - 0.06% (9)
standing - 0.06% (9)
twitter - 0.06% (9)
algorithm - 0.06% (9)
two - 0.06% (9)
address - 0.06% (9)
gel - 0.06% (9)
philadelphia - 0.06% (9)
weigh - 0.06% (9)
course - 0.06% (9)
something - 0.06% (9)
achieve - 0.06% (9)
advice - 0.06% (9)
happen - 0.06% (9)
effect - 0.06% (9)
works - 0.06% (9)
word - 0.06% (9)
between - 0.06% (9)
mendeleev - 0.06% (9)
years - 0.06% (9)
evidence - 0.06% (9)
section - 0.06% (9)
issues - 0.06% (9)
better - 0.06% (9)
base - 0.06% (9)
once - 0.06% (9)
eckerson - 0.06% (9)
action - 0.06% (9)
never - 0.06% (9)
detail - 0.06% (9)
poor - 0.06% (9)
democratic - 0.06% (9)
before - 0.06% (9)
range - 0.06% (9)
study - 0.06% (9)
value - 0.06% (9)
find - 0.06% (9)
atscale - 0.06% (9)
enter - 0.06% (8)
[10] - 0.06% (8)
really - 0.06% (8)
earlier - 0.06% (8)
produce - 0.06% (8)
origin - 0.06% (8)
standard - 0.06% (8)
truth - 0.06% (8)
covered - 0.06% (8)
fully - 0.06% (8)
don’t - 0.06% (8)
attention - 0.06% (8)
solution - 0.06% (8)
consist - 0.06% (8)
made - 0.06% (8)
atomic - 0.06% (8)
reflect - 0.06% (8)
road - 0.06% (8)
gold - 0.06% (8)
education - 0.06% (8)
january - 0.06% (8)
few - 0.06% (8)
book - 0.06% (8)
believe - 0.06% (8)
created - 0.06% (8)
google - 0.06% (8)
capabilities - 0.06% (8)
opinion - 0.06% (8)
second - 0.06% (8)
lose - 0.06% (8)
why - 0.06% (8)
stars - 0.06% (8)
leave - 0.06% (8)
weight - 0.06% (8)
search - 0.06% (8)
sap - 0.06% (8)
“yes” - 0.06% (8)
main - 0.06% (8)
south - 0.06% (8)
tumblr - 0.06% (8)
diagram - 0.06% (8)
result - 0.06% (8)
cut - 0.06% (8)
makri - 0.06% (8)
consider - 0.06% (8)
notes - 0.06% (8)
columbia - 0.06% (8)
perspective - 0.06% (8)
media - 0.06% (8)
last - 0.06% (8)
quality - 0.06% (8)
periodic - 0.06% (8)
begin - 0.05% (7)
particular - 0.05% (7)
based - 0.05% (7)
report - 0.05% (7)
asked - 0.05% (7)
fits - 0.05% (7)
seen - 0.05% (7)
recently - 0.05% (7)
principle - 0.05% (7)
analytics - 0.05% (7)
select - 0.05% (7)
theme - 0.05% (7)
show - 0.05% (7)
fact - 0.05% (7)
bang - 0.05% (7)
common - 0.05% (7)
give - 0.05% (7)
campaign - 0.05% (7)
support - 0.05% (7)
is, - 0.05% (7)
sometimes - 0.05% (7)
grow - 0.05% (7)
matter - 0.05% (7)
aid - 0.05% (7)
window)like - 0.05% (7)
date - 0.05% (7)
science, - 0.05% (7)
each - 0.05% (7)
always - 0.05% (7)
physics - 0.05% (7)
whatsapp - 0.05% (7)
successful - 0.05% (7)
loading... - 0.05% (7)
likely - 0.05% (7)
function - 0.05% (7)
facebook - 0.05% (7)
understanding - 0.05% (7)
west - 0.05% (7)
become - 0.05% (7)
human - 0.05% (7)
print - 0.05% (7)
this:click - 0.05% (7)
aziza - 0.05% (7)
order - 0.05% (7)
projects - 0.05% (7)
window)share - 0.05% (7)
serve - 0.05% (7)
google+ - 0.05% (7)
include - 0.05% (7)
companies - 0.05% (7)
political - 0.05% (7)
pocket - 0.05% (7)
because - 0.05% (7)
increase - 0.05% (7)
least - 0.05% (7)
@peterjthomas - 0.05% (7)
anita - 0.05% (7)
work. - 0.05% (7)
spiegelhalter - 0.05% (7)
pinterest - 0.05% (7)
reddit - 0.05% (7)
won - 0.05% (7)
this:like - 0.05% (7)
details - 0.05% (7)
lack - 0.04% (6)
themes - 0.04% (6)
recommend - 0.04% (6)
comes - 0.04% (6)
done - 0.04% (6)
video - 0.04% (6)
current - 0.04% (6)
explain - 0.04% (6)
enterprise - 0.04% (6)
entire - 0.04% (6)
benefit - 0.04% (6)
compliance - 0.04% (6)
still - 0.04% (6)
reader - 0.04% (6)
ability - 0.04% (6)
every - 0.04% (6)
single - 0.04% (6)
hold - 0.04% (6)
appears - 0.04% (6)
deliver - 0.04% (6)
came - 0.04% (6)
image - 0.04% (6)
spot - 0.04% (6)
articles - 0.04% (6)
statistics - 0.04% (6)
around - 0.04% (6)
mentioned - 0.04% (6)
[11] - 0.04% (6)
statistical - 0.04% (6)
it’s - 0.04% (6)
must - 0.04% (6)
[14] - 0.04% (6)
content - 0.04% (6)
problems - 0.04% (6)
term - 0.04% (6)
17. - 0.04% (6)
forum - 0.04% (6)
strategy: - 0.04% (6)
(4) - 0.04% (6)
thoughts - 0.04% (6)
that: - 0.04% (6)
certainty - 0.04% (6)
important - 0.04% (6)
today - 0.04% (6)
wrong - 0.04% (6)
felt - 0.04% (6)
having - 0.04% (6)
describe - 0.04% (6)
existing - 0.04% (6)
research - 0.04% (6)
thus - 0.04% (6)
(1) - 0.04% (6)
finding - 0.04% (6)
heavier - 0.04% (6)
cultural - 0.04% (6)
voting - 0.04% (6)
example, - 0.04% (6)
agency - 0.04% (6)
possible - 0.04% (6)
greatest - 0.04% (6)
lies - 0.04% (6)
“no” - 0.04% (6)
agree - 0.04% (6)
without - 0.04% (6)
reduce - 0.04% (6)
implementation - 0.04% (6)
leading - 0.04% (6)
[12] - 0.04% (6)
responses - 0.04% (6)
[13] - 0.04% (6)
i’ll - 0.04% (6)
chemical - 0.04% (6)
analytical - 0.04% (6)
close - 0.04% (6)
according - 0.04% (6)
failure - 0.04% (6)
pennsylvania - 0.04% (6)
improve - 0.04% (6)
draw - 0.04% (6)
appropriate - 0.04% (6)
one. - 0.04% (6)
hard - 0.04% (6)
through - 0.04% (5)
professional - 0.04% (5)
significant - 0.04% (5)
decision - 0.04% (5)
large - 0.04% (5)
job - 0.04% (5)
predictions - 0.04% (5)
anything - 0.04% (5)
ground - 0.04% (5)
sweet - 0.04% (5)
self-service - 0.04% (5)
them. - 0.04% (5)
return - 0.04% (5)
reply - 0.04% (5)
leverage - 0.04% (5)
benefits - 0.04% (5)
mine - 0.04% (5)
expect - 0.04% (5)
[4]. - 0.04% (5)
after - 0.04% (5)
final - 0.04% (5)
cases - 0.04% (5)
increased - 0.04% (5)
no? - 0.04% (5)
effort - 0.04% (5)
small - 0.04% (5)
role - 0.04% (5)
circle - 0.04% (5)
europe - 0.04% (5)
chance - 0.04% (5)
equal - 0.04% (5)
technique - 0.04% (5)
please - 0.04% (5)
plying - 0.04% (5)
source - 0.04% (5)
said - 0.04% (5)
i’d - 0.04% (5)
cloud - 0.04% (5)
safe - 0.04% (5)
north - 0.04% (5)
transformation - 0.04% (5)
2017. - 0.04% (5)
universe - 0.04% (5)
whether - 0.04% (5)
later - 0.04% (5)
development - 0.04% (5)
fsa’s - 0.04% (5)
here. - 0.04% (5)
rain - 0.04% (5)
means - 0.04% (5)
key - 0.04% (5)
consistent - 0.04% (5)
answers - 0.04% (5)
shown - 0.04% (5)
wayne - 0.04% (5)
i’m - 0.04% (5)
vast - 0.04% (5)
king, - 0.04% (5)
particularly - 0.04% (5)
actually - 0.04% (5)
leads - 0.04% (5)
special - 0.04% (5)
standards - 0.04% (5)
level - 0.04% (5)
organisations - 0.04% (5)
physicist - 0.04% (5)
programme. - 0.04% (5)
university - 0.04% (5)
various - 0.04% (5)
learning - 0.04% (5)
honest - 0.04% (5)
given - 0.04% (5)
formed - 0.04% (5)
adopt - 0.04% (5)
interesting - 0.04% (5)
access - 0.04% (5)
bit - 0.04% (5)
models - 0.04% (5)
provide - 0.04% (5)
users - 0.04% (5)
wide - 0.04% (5)
posit - 0.04% (5)
reasons - 0.04% (5)
aim - 0.04% (5)
early - 0.04% (5)
title - 0.04% (5)
forms - 0.04% (5)
enough - 0.04% (5)
fall - 0.04% (5)
addition - 0.04% (5)
attached - 0.04% (5)
establishing - 0.04% (5)
account - 0.04% (5)
spent - 0.04% (5)
weighted - 0.04% (5)
progress - 0.04% (5)
(7) - 0.04% (5)
practice - 0.04% (5)
care - 0.04% (5)
size - 0.04% (5)
presented - 0.04% (5)
ready - 0.04% (5)
column - 0.04% (5)
original - 0.04% (5)
relative - 0.04% (5)
direct - 0.04% (5)
outsourcing - 0.04% (5)
spiegelhalter, - 0.04% (5)
broad - 0.04% (5)
meant - 0.03% (4)
several - 0.03% (4)
strategic - 0.03% (4)
economist - 0.03% (4)
involved - 0.03% (4)
called - 0.03% (4)
requirement - 0.03% (4)
oxford - 0.03% (4)
science. - 0.03% (4)
above, - 0.03% (4)
climate - 0.03% (4)
theories - 0.03% (4)
me, - 0.03% (4)
digital - 0.03% (4)
(in - 0.03% (4)
fair - 0.03% (4)
step - 0.03% (4)
safety - 0.03% (4)
necessary - 0.03% (4)
strong - 0.03% (4)
during - 0.03% (4)
modern - 0.03% (4)
e.g. - 0.03% (4)
little - 0.03% (4)
finally - 0.03% (4)
outcome - 0.03% (4)
difficult - 0.03% (4)
held - 0.03% (4)
shift - 0.03% (4)
matters - 0.03% (4)
certainly - 0.03% (4)
makri, - 0.03% (4)
effects - 0.03% (4)
built - 0.03% (4)
families - 0.03% (4)
consume - 0.03% (4)
past - 0.03% (4)
design - 0.03% (4)
build - 0.03% (4)
mathematics - 0.03% (4)
health - 0.03% (4)
performance - 0.03% (4)
pressing - 0.03% (4)
way. - 0.03% (4)
growing - 0.03% (4)
kind - 0.03% (4)
marketplace - 0.03% (4)
talk - 0.03% (4)
pace - 0.03% (4)
somewhat - 0.03% (4)
subject - 0.03% (4)
processes - 0.03% (4)
[2], - 0.03% (4)
attempt - 0.03% (4)
far - 0.03% (4)
perfect - 0.03% (4)
harm - 0.03% (4)
potatoes - 0.03% (4)
sense - 0.03% (4)
background - 0.03% (4)
article. - 0.03% (4)
recognise - 0.03% (4)
pertinent - 0.03% (4)
cambridge - 0.03% (4)
touch - 0.03% (4)
analysis - 0.03% (4)
circumstances - 0.03% (4)
focussed - 0.03% (4)
related - 0.03% (4)
approaches - 0.03% (4)
[1]. - 0.03% (4)
reproduce - 0.03% (4)
abstract - 0.03% (4)
simple - 0.03% (4)
hydrogen - 0.03% (4)
rant - 0.03% (4)
commended - 0.03% (4)
phenomenon - 0.03% (4)
information, - 0.03% (4)
that’s - 0.03% (4)
factor - 0.03% (4)
harris - 0.03% (4)
theory - 0.03% (4)
phrase - 0.03% (4)
apply - 0.03% (4)
protons - 0.03% (4)
yet - 0.03% (4)
traditional - 0.03% (4)
award - 0.03% (4)
suit - 0.03% (4)
confident - 0.03% (4)
field - 0.03% (4)
assumption - 0.03% (4)
percentage - 0.03% (4)
generally - 0.03% (4)
right - 0.03% (4)
couple - 0.03% (4)
[9]. - 0.03% (4)
[8]. - 0.03% (4)
(3) - 0.03% (4)
opposed - 0.03% (4)
text. - 0.03% (4)
estimate - 0.03% (4)
is. - 0.03% (4)
life - 0.03% (4)
[7]. - 0.03% (4)
already - 0.03% (4)
replied - 0.03% (4)
feel - 0.03% (4)
version - 0.03% (4)
uncertain - 0.03% (4)
contact - 0.03% (4)
technical - 0.03% (4)
across - 0.03% (4)
central - 0.03% (4)
findings - 0.03% (4)
helium - 0.03% (4)
historical - 0.03% (4)
getting - 0.03% (4)
got - 0.03% (4)
sun - 0.03% (4)
comments - 0.03% (4)
activities - 0.03% (4)
below - 0.03% (4)
specific - 0.03% (4)
famous - 0.03% (4)
ideal - 0.03% (4)
economic - 0.03% (4)
international - 0.03% (4)
types - 0.03% (4)
bruno’s - 0.03% (4)
theoretical - 0.03% (4)
nuclear - 0.03% (4)
mendeleev’s - 0.03% (4)
atoms - 0.03% (4)
technologies - 0.03% (4)
including - 0.03% (4)
cannot - 0.03% (4)
methods - 0.03% (4)
proper - 0.03% (4)
bring - 0.03% (4)
company - 0.03% (4)
insight - 0.03% (4)
expertise - 0.03% (4)
[5]. - 0.03% (4)
algorithms - 0.03% (4)
(2) - 0.03% (4)
wonder - 0.03% (4)
pennsylvania, - 0.03% (4)
brexit - 0.02% (3)
colour - 0.02% (3)
humans - 0.02% (3)
root - 0.02% (3)
years. - 0.02% (3)
broadly - 0.02% (3)
taking - 0.02% (3)
yellow - 0.02% (3)
one, - 0.02% (3)
repeat - 0.02% (3)
employed - 0.02% (3)
images - 0.02% (3)
highlighted - 0.02% (3)
since - 0.02% (3)
skin - 0.02% (3)
thinking - 0.02% (3)
inventor - 0.02% (3)
effective - 0.02% (3)
vantage - 0.02% (3)
appearing - 0.02% (3)
above. - 0.02% (3)
leveraged - 0.02% (3)
improved - 0.02% (3)
decisions - 0.02% (3)
[the - 0.02% (3)
essential - 0.02% (3)
needed - 0.02% (3)
johnson’s - 0.02% (3)
lot - 0.02% (3)
whole - 0.02% (3)
programme, - 0.02% (3)
established - 0.02% (3)
ongoing - 0.02% (3)
developed - 0.02% (3)
forming - 0.02% (3)
mice - 0.02% (3)
items - 0.02% (3)
novel - 0.02% (3)
start - 0.02% (3)
highest - 0.02% (3)
name - 0.02% (3)
direction - 0.02% (3)
promise - 0.02% (3)
predictive - 0.02% (3)
bbc - 0.02% (3)
confidence-weighted - 0.02% (3)
cancer, - 0.02% (3)
replying - 0.02% (3)
served - 0.02% (3)
bad - 0.02% (3)
table, - 0.02% (3)
inaccurate - 0.02% (3)
facilities - 0.02% (3)
posts - 0.02% (3)
allow - 0.02% (3)
(see - 0.02% (3)
fat - 0.02% (3)
harrisburg - 0.02% (3)
due - 0.02% (3)
systems. - 0.02% (3)
carolina - 0.02% (3)
behaviour - 0.02% (3)
realise - 0.02% (3)
work, - 0.02% (3)
interim - 0.02% (3)
needs. - 0.02% (3)
lithium - 0.02% (3)
events - 0.02% (3)
panel - 0.02% (3)
approach. - 0.02% (3)
conclusion - 0.02% (3)
as: - 0.02% (3)
16. - 0.02% (3)
adoption - 0.02% (3)
- 0.02% (3)
and, - 0.02% (3)
older - 0.02% (3)
people, - 0.02% (3)
correct. - 0.02% (3)
hypothesis - 0.02% (3)
lists - 0.02% (3)
fast - 0.02% (3)
meaning - 0.02% (3)
integration - 0.02% (3)
minority - 0.02% (3)
additional - 0.02% (3)
factors - 0.02% (3)
endeavour - 0.02% (3)
lest - 0.02% (3)
neutrons - 0.02% (3)
“the - 0.02% (3)
break - 0.02% (3)
belief - 0.02% (3)
house - 0.02% (3)
ray - 0.02% (3)
trying - 0.02% (3)
up. - 0.02% (3)
exposure - 0.02% (3)
cosmic - 0.02% (3)
claim - 0.02% (3)
there. - 0.02% (3)
gets - 0.02% (3)
making - 0.02% (3)
foods - 0.02% (3)
happens - 0.02% (3)
professionals - 0.02% (3)
prior - 0.02% (3)
on: - 0.02% (3)
future - 0.02% (3)
groups - 0.02% (3)
extend - 0.02% (3)
following - 0.02% (3)
clearly - 0.02% (3)
robert - 0.02% (3)
wordpress - 0.02% (3)
loses - 0.02% (3)
reasonable - 0.02% (3)
newton - 0.02% (3)
training - 0.02% (3)
space - 0.02% (3)
recipe - 0.02% (3)
person - 0.02% (3)
metaphor - 0.02% (3)
let’s - 0.02% (3)
capitals - 0.02% (3)
states - 0.02% (3)
provided - 0.02% (3)
rates - 0.02% (3)
structure - 0.02% (3)
average - 0.02% (3)
grasp - 0.02% (3)
shared - 0.02% (3)
180 - 0.02% (3)
achievements - 0.02% (3)
pick - 0.02% (3)
policy - 0.02% (3)
computing - 0.02% (3)
communication - 0.02% (3)
known - 0.02% (3)
physicists - 0.02% (3)
noting - 0.02% (3)
vision - 0.02% (3)
all, - 0.02% (3)
atscale, - 0.02% (3)
saying - 0.02% (3)
goes - 0.02% (3)
quotes - 0.02% (3)
reporting - 0.02% (3)
sky - 0.02% (3)
text, - 0.02% (3)
covers - 0.02% (3)
cognos - 0.02% (3)
news - 0.02% (3)
spark - 0.02% (3)
latter - 0.02% (3)
challenges - 0.02% (3)
[5], - 0.02% (3)
whatever - 0.02% (3)
file - 0.02% (3)
topic - 0.02% (3)
elements, - 0.02% (3)
body - 0.02% (3)
split - 0.02% (3)
introduction - 0.02% (3)
meet - 0.02% (3)
collective - 0.02% (3)
chemistry - 0.02% (3)
organizations - 0.02% (3)
apache - 0.02% (3)
machine - 0.02% (3)
different, - 0.02% (3)
disciplines - 0.02% (3)
latest - 0.02% (3)
circles - 0.02% (3)
connection - 0.02% (3)
2016 - 0.02% (3)
path - 0.02% (3)
solar - 0.02% (3)
bau - 0.02% (3)
equally - 0.02% (3)
“we - 0.02% (3)
happened - 0.02% (3)
firmly - 0.02% (3)
recommended - 0.02% (3)
requirements - 0.02% (3)
esteem - 0.02% (3)
diagram. - 0.02% (3)
patterns - 0.02% (3)
map - 0.02% (3)
myself - 0.02% (3)
ideas - 0.02% (3)
someone - 0.02% (3)
age? - 0.02% (3)
selection - 0.02% (3)
journey - 0.02% (3)
electrons - 0.02% (3)
explanation - 0.02% (3)
communicate - 0.02% (3)
review - 0.02% (3)
doubt - 0.02% (3)
academic - 0.02% (3)
reading - 0.02% (3)
assertion - 0.02% (3)
like. - 0.02% (3)
penned - 0.02% (3)
added - 0.02% (3)
unlike - 0.02% (3)
obviously - 0.02% (3)
absolute - 0.02% (3)
mind - 0.02% (3)
2009 - 0.02% (3)
member - 0.02% (3)
suggested - 0.02% (3)
watch - 0.02% (3)
write - 0.02% (3)
along - 0.02% (3)
views - 0.02% (3)
particle - 0.02% (3)
marketing - 0.02% (3)
brief - 0.02% (3)
bumps - 0.02% (3)
(13) - 0.02% (3)
causal - 0.02% (3)
highlights - 0.02% (3)
moment - 0.02% (3)
group’s - 0.02% (3)
accept - 0.02% (3)
fairly - 0.02% (3)
normal - 0.02% (3)
beginning - 0.02% (3)
polling - 0.02% (3)
maybe - 0.02% (3)
danish - 0.02% (3)
look - 0.02% (3)
referendum - 0.02% (3)
union - 0.02% (3)
efforts - 0.02% (3)
(8) - 0.02% (3)
albeit - 0.02% (3)
entirely - 0.02% (3)
david - 0.02% (3)
everything - 0.02% (3)
“i - 0.02% (3)
levels - 0.02% (3)
words - 0.02% (3)
superior - 0.02% (3)
similar - 0.02% (3)
individual - 0.02% (3)
ultimate - 0.02% (3)
european - 0.02% (3)
sdss - 0.02% (3)
social - 0.02% (3)
sas - 0.02% (3)
readers - 0.02% (3)
available - 0.02% (3)
blame - 0.02% (3)
lay - 0.02% (3)
subscription - 0.02% (3)
increasing - 0.02% (3)
lightly - 0.02% (3)
creating - 0.02% (3)
lower - 0.02% (3)
tract, - 0.02% (3)
mathematical - 0.02% (3)
him - 0.02% (3)
law - 0.02% (3)
respect - 0.02% (3)
valid - 0.02% (3)
useful - 0.02% (3)
limits - 0.02% (3)
published - 0.02% (3)
view. - 0.02% (3)
jennifer - 0.02% (3)
balance - 0.02% (3)
true - 0.02% (3)
found - 0.02% (3)
pieces - 0.02% (3)
within - 0.02% (3)
emerge - 0.02% (3)
consumption - 0.02% (3)
family - 0.02% (3)
limited - 0.02% (3)
(5) - 0.02% (3)
cancel - 0.01% (2)
discovered - 0.01% (2)
loss - 0.01% (2)
miracle - 0.01% (2)
incomplete - 0.01% (2)
check - 0.01% (2)
wordpress.com. - 0.01% (2)
nothing - 0.01% (2)
(10) - 0.01% (2)
changing - 0.01% (2)
offer - 0.01% (2)
(31) - 0.01% (2)
undermined - 0.01% (2)
spot” - 0.01% (2)
became - 0.01% (2)
destruction - 0.01% (2)
intelligent - 0.01% (2)
woman - 0.01% (2)
medicine - 0.01% (2)
curiouser - 0.01% (2)
alignment - 0.01% (2)
drug - 0.01% (2)
warehousing - 0.01% (2)
seeming - 0.01% (2)
women - 0.01% (2)
pure - 0.01% (2)
critical - 0.01% (2)
sites - 0.01% (2)
join - 0.01% (2)
email. - 0.01% (2)
crisis - 0.01% (2)
achievements, - 0.01% (2)
god-like - 0.01% (2)
2008 - 0.01% (2)
constituent - 0.01% (2)
began - 0.01% (2)
oracle - 0.01% (2)
communicated - 0.01% (2)
biz - 0.01% (2)
amazon - 0.01% (2)
leaves - 0.01% (2)
(9) - 0.01% (2)
planet - 0.01% (2)
subscribe - 0.01% (2)
(15) - 0.01% (2)
power - 0.01% (2)
biology - 0.01% (2)
web-site - 0.01% (2)
authority - 0.01% (2)
achieved - 0.01% (2)
door - 0.01% (2)
carefully, - 0.01% (2)
employing - 0.01% (2)
failed - 0.01% (2)
alone - 0.01% (2)
importance - 0.01% (2)
pointer - 0.01% (2)
referenced - 0.01% (2)
makri’s - 0.01% (2)
promised - 0.01% (2)
hadoop - 0.01% (2)
distributed - 0.01% (2)
mapreduce - 0.01% (2)
accessed - 0.01% (2)
holding - 0.01% (2)
concern - 0.01% (2)
hdfs - 0.01% (2)
about. - 0.01% (2)
rational - 0.01% (2)
visualisation, - 0.01% (2)
johnson, - 0.01% (2)
obesity - 0.01% (2)
sloan - 0.01% (2)
slight - 0.01% (2)
manner - 0.01% (2)
budget - 0.01% (2)
causality - 0.01% (2)
cancers - 0.01% (2)
association - 0.01% (2)
testing - 0.01% (2)
“traditional - 0.01% (2)
advise - 0.01% (2)
enquiry. - 0.01% (2)
do. - 0.01% (2)
newton’s - 0.01% (2)
wildly - 0.01% (2)
“elite” - 0.01% (2)
worse - 0.01% (2)
“wrong” - 0.01% (2)
temperature - 0.01% (2)
systems, - 0.01% (2)
argument - 0.01% (2)
reputation - 0.01% (2)
nucleus - 0.01% (2)
expected - 0.01% (2)
[14]. - 0.01% (2)
stone - 0.01% (2)
electrons. - 0.01% (2)
round, - 0.01% (2)
entry - 0.01% (2)
jim - 0.01% (2)
sciences - 0.01% (2)
scary - 0.01% (2)
apologies - 0.01% (2)
maturity - 0.01% (2)
themselves - 0.01% (2)
disclosure - 0.01% (2)
record - 0.01% (2)
survey. - 0.01% (2)
won’t - 0.01% (2)
straight - 0.01% (2)
guide - 0.01% (2)
position - 0.01% (2)
do, - 0.01% (2)
significance - 0.01% (2)
underlying - 0.01% (2)
nuclei - 0.01% (2)
treatment - 0.01% (2)
frying, - 0.01% (2)
baking, - 0.01% (2)
arrangements - 0.01% (2)
cooked - 0.01% (2)
bread, - 0.01% (2)
starchy - 0.01% (2)
supernovae - 0.01% (2)
carcinogen - 0.01% (2)
‘go - 0.01% (2)
rays - 0.01% (2)
[15] - 0.01% (2)
behind - 0.01% (2)
graphic - 0.01% (2)
produced - 0.01% (2)
general. - 0.01% (2)
star, - 0.01% (2)
contribute - 0.01% (2)
like, - 0.01% (2)
hygiene - 0.01% (2)
quantities - 0.01% (2)
influence - 0.01% (2)
providing - 0.01% (2)
core - 0.01% (2)
heart - 0.01% (2)
measure - 0.01% (2)
specifically - 0.01% (2)
prosaic - 0.01% (2)
energy - 0.01% (2)
originate - 0.01% (2)
scientists, - 0.01% (2)
toasting - 0.01% (2)
humans. - 0.01% (2)
unlikely - 0.01% (2)
[12]. - 0.01% (2)
elements; - 0.01% (2)
formulation - 0.01% (2)
efsa - 0.01% (2)
confirm - 0.01% (2)
breast - 0.01% (2)
associated - 0.01% (2)
meyer - 0.01% (2)
category - 0.01% (2)
pointing - 0.01% (2)
ordering - 0.01% (2)
away - 0.01% (2)
cancer. - 0.01% (2)
creation - 0.01% (2)
[of - 0.01% (2)
addresses - 0.01% (2)
golden - 0.01% (2)
stars. - 0.01% (2)
roasting - 0.01% (2)
gold’ - 0.01% (2)
stellar - 0.01% (2)
celebrated - 0.01% (2)
intake - 0.01% (2)
government - 0.01% (2)
fusion - 0.01% (2)
abundance - 0.01% (2)
mix - 0.01% (2)
nucleosynthesis. - 0.01% (2)
[11]. - 0.01% (2)
mice. - 0.01% (2)
smaller - 0.01% (2)
centre - 0.01% (2)
death - 0.01% (2)
skip - 0.01% (2)
unleashed - 0.01% (2)
100%) - 0.01% (2)
edited - 0.01% (2)
regular - 0.01% (2)
conic - 0.01% (2)
sections - 0.01% (2)
free - 0.01% (2)
insert - 0.01% (2)
sets - 0.01% (2)
state} - 0.01% (2)
question? - 0.01% (2)
graduate - 0.01% (2)
requires - 0.01% (2)
details. - 0.01% (2)
binary - 0.01% (2)
others - 0.01% (2)
(e.g. - 0.01% (2)
absolutely - 0.01% (2)
editing. - 0.01% (2)
modified - 0.01% (2)
sweeter - 0.01% (2)
cdo? - 0.01% (2)
(@brunoaziza) - 0.01% (2)
toast. - 0.01% (2)
springer - 0.01% (2)
merits - 0.01% (2)
evidence. - 0.01% (2)
volcano - 0.01% (2)
author’s - 0.01% (2)
initial - 0.01% (2)
areas. - 0.01% (2)
although - 0.01% (2)
stating - 0.01% (2)
beliefs - 0.01% (2)
arise - 0.01% (2)
fail. - 0.01% (2)
yield - 0.01% (2)
guarantee - 0.01% (2)
circumstances. - 0.01% (2)
short - 0.01% (2)
knowledge, - 0.01% (2)
test. - 0.01% (2)
topics, - 0.01% (2)
questionnaire - 0.01% (2)
forward. - 0.01% (2)
hardly - 0.01% (2)
reasoning - 0.01% (2)
individuals - 0.01% (2)
group. - 0.01% (2)
piece, - 0.01% (2)
950 - 0.01% (2)
scope - 0.01% (2)
alphabet - 0.01% (2)
seldom - 0.01% (2)
change, - 0.01% (2)
changes - 0.01% (2)
case, - 0.01% (2)
misleading - 0.01% (2)
fait - 0.01% (2)
chronological - 0.01% (2)
realised - 0.01% (2)
rowling - 0.01% (2)
soup - 0.01% (2)
hopefully - 0.01% (2)
pages, - 0.01% (2)
titled - 0.01% (2)
wanted - 0.01% (2)
officer. - 0.01% (2)
management, - 0.01% (2)
“prediction - 0.01% (2)
explanations - 0.01% (2)
what’s - 0.01% (2)
rogers - 0.01% (2)
whose - 0.01% (2)
axis - 0.01% (2)
picture - 0.01% (2)
cdos - 0.01% (2)
working - 0.01% (2)
finance - 0.01% (2)
ceo - 0.01% (2)
[3], - 0.01% (2)
driven - 0.01% (2)
closes - 0.01% (2)
presenting - 0.01% (2)
note: - 0.01% (2)
expertise. - 0.01% (2)
venn - 0.01% (2)
touches - 0.01% (2)
leveraging - 0.01% (2)
west) - 0.01% (2)
commercial - 0.01% (2)
advantage - 0.01% (2)
finally, - 0.01% (2)
introduced - 0.01% (2)
“sweet - 0.01% (2)
article, - 0.01% (2)
compass - 0.01% (2)
reality - 0.01% (2)
(north - 0.01% (2)
east, - 0.01% (2)
included: - 0.01% (2)
arsenal - 0.01% (2)
variety - 0.01% (2)
examples - 0.01% (2)
forecasting, - 0.01% (2)
evaluating - 0.01% (2)
safety, - 0.01% (2)
policy, - 0.01% (2)
probes, - 0.01% (2)
restless - 0.01% (2)
serious - 0.01% (2)
lowest - 0.01% (2)
denominator - 0.01% (2)
aforementioned - 0.01% (2)
speculation - 0.01% (2)
second, - 0.01% (2)
own. - 0.01% (2)
1,000 - 0.01% (2)
nobel - 0.01% (2)
previous - 0.01% (2)
accurate, - 0.01% (2)
[3]. - 0.01% (2)
flaw - 0.01% (2)
populations - 0.01% (2)
carolina, - 0.01% (2)
business. - 0.01% (2)
itself - 0.01% (2)
question, - 0.01% (2)
microsoft - 0.01% (2)
blogger - 0.01% (2)
home - 0.01% (2)
six - 0.01% (2)
chubb - 0.01% (2)
emir - 0.01% (2)
financial - 0.01% (2)
seminars - 0.01% (2)
testimonial - 0.01% (2)
informatica - 0.01% (2)
smart - 0.01% (2)
interview - 0.01% (2)
considered - 0.01% (2)
201722 - 0.01% (2)
nature.com, - 0.01% (2)
[1], - 0.01% (2)
frequent - 0.01% (2)
princeton - 0.01% (2)
prelec, - 0.01% (2)
seung - 0.01% (2)
paper’s - 0.01% (2)
single-question - 0.01% (2)
[2]. - 0.01% (2)
exercise - 0.01% (2)
endorse - 0.01% (2)
suggests - 0.01% (2)
drawing - 0.01% (2)
above] - 0.01% (2)
questions. - 0.01% (2)
dermatologists - 0.01% (2)
professionals, - 0.01% (2)
price - 0.01% (2)
four - 0.01% (2)
vote, - 0.01% (2)
max. - 0.01% (2)
kick - 0.01% (2)
results - 0.01% (2)
conclusions - 0.01% (2)
methodology - 0.01% (2)
result, - 0.01% (2)
problems, - 0.01% (2)
application - 0.01% (2)
justified - 0.01% (2)
years, - 0.01% (2)
nuance - 0.01% (2)
informed - 0.01% (2)
deployed - 0.01% (2)
i.e. - 0.01% (2)
undoubted - 0.01% (2)
verdict - 0.01% (2)
proportion - 0.01% (2)
incorrect - 0.01% (2)
propose - 0.01% (2)
city - 0.01% (2)
conclude - 0.01% (2)
surely - 0.01% (2)
defect - 0.01% (2)
general, - 0.01% (2)
“yes”. - 0.01% (2)
confidence. - 0.01% (2)
[6]. - 0.01% (2)
extended - 0.01% (2)
demonstrate - 0.01% (2)
alternative - 0.01% (2)
significantly - 0.01% (2)
assumptions - 0.01% (2)
‘most - 0.01% (2)
exactly - 0.01% (2)
(as - 0.01% (2)
asking - 0.01% (2)
“philadelphia - 0.01% (2)
no?” - 0.01% (2)
them, - 0.01% (2)
amongst - 0.01% (2)
surveyed - 0.01% (2)
posted - 0.01% (2)
hand - 0.01% (2)
inevitably - 0.01% (2)
be, - 0.01% (2)
reconciliation - 0.01% (2)
used. - 0.01% (2)
match - 0.01% (2)
complex - 0.01% (2)
prevent - 0.01% (2)
deliveries - 0.01% (2)
consuming - 0.01% (2)
objective - 0.01% (2)
perspective, - 0.01% (2)
functional - 0.01% (2)
transactions - 0.01% (2)
helping - 0.01% (2)
need, - 0.01% (2)
tools, - 0.01% (2)
visualisations - 0.01% (2)
fields - 0.01% (2)
essentially - 0.01% (2)
18. - 0.01% (2)
value-added - 0.01% (2)
driving - 0.01% (2)
taken - 0.01% (2)
reports - 0.01% (2)
insufficient - 0.01% (2)
technology- - 0.01% (2)
embark - 0.01% (2)
needs, - 0.01% (2)
negotiate - 0.01% (2)
inevitable - 0.01% (2)
obstacles - 0.01% (2)
local - 0.01% (2)
units - 0.01% (2)
costs - 0.01% (2)
failure. - 0.01% (2)
spare - 0.01% (2)
time. - 0.01% (2)
managers - 0.01% (2)
fragmentation - 0.01% (2)
ensure - 0.01% (2)
execution - 0.01% (2)
management. - 0.01% (2)
issues. - 0.01% (2)
expenditure - 0.01% (2)
beyond - 0.01% (2)
eventual - 0.01% (2)
maintenance - 0.01% (2)
seek - 0.01% (2)
greater - 0.01% (2)
deployment - 0.01% (2)
scenarios - 0.01% (2)
staff - 0.01% (2)
speaking - 0.01% (2)
motivation - 0.01% (2)
commerce - 0.01% (2)
towards - 0.01% (2)
which, - 0.01% (2)
efficacy - 0.01% (2)
vaccinations - 0.01% (2)
debate - 0.01% (2)
experts” - 0.01% (2)
michael - 0.01% (2)
2016. - 0.01% (2)
reflection - 0.01% (2)
talking - 0.01% (2)
abstract, - 0.01% (2)
politician - 0.01% (2)
places - 0.01% (2)
scientists. - 0.01% (2)
presidency - 0.01% (2)
against - 0.01% (2)
perception - 0.01% (2)
humble - 0.01% (2)
blog. - 0.01% (2)
interests - 0.01% (2)
context. - 0.01% (2)
recipes - 0.01% (2)
situational - 0.01% (2)
[10]. - 0.01% (2)
experience, - 0.01% (2)
this, - 0.01% (2)
forge - 0.01% (2)
worth - 0.01% (2)
contrary - 0.01% (2)
well. - 0.01% (2)
learnt - 0.01% (2)
developing - 0.01% (2)
strategies - 0.01% (2)
completing - 0.01% (2)
agency, - 0.01% (2)
design, - 0.01% (2)
crm - 0.01% (2)
acquired - 0.01% (2)
projects. - 0.01% (2)
stakeholder - 0.01% (2)
incremental - 0.01% (2)
area. - 0.01% (2)
aspects - 0.01% (2)
20171 - 0.01% (2)
physics, - 0.01% (2)
higher - 0.01% (2)
people’s - 0.01% (2)
paste - 0.01% (2)
ideally - 0.01% (2)
limitations - 0.01% (2)
[6], - 0.01% (2)
surrounded - 0.01% (2)
outcomes - 0.01% (2)
probabilities - 0.01% (2)
appreciation - 0.01% (2)
platforms - 0.01% (2)
suites - 0.01% (2)
visualization - 0.01% (2)
blend - 0.01% (2)
down - 0.01% (2)
data-centric - 0.01% (2)
it. - 0.01% (2)
observation - 0.01% (2)
integrated - 0.01% (2)
simply - 0.01% (2)
famously - 0.01% (2)
attributed - 0.01% (2)
quantum - 0.01% (2)
bohr - 0.01% (2)
elementary - 0.01% (2)
[4], - 0.01% (2)
implemented - 0.01% (2)
berra - 0.01% (2)
i’ve - 0.01% (2)
associates - 0.01% (2)
caught - 0.01% (2)
commentary - 0.01% (2)
below). - 0.01% (2)
occasional - 0.01% (2)
gaps - 0.01% (2)
elided - 0.01% (2)
changed - 0.01% (2)
recognize - 0.01% (2)
suffering - 0.01% (2)
tends - 0.01% (2)
overdue. - 0.01% (2)
doing - 0.01% (2)
comfort - 0.01% (2)
makes - 0.01% (2)
tick - 0.01% (2)
messy - 0.01% (2)
stuff - 0.01% (2)
way, - 0.01% (2)
“an - 0.01% (2)
kinds - 0.01% (2)
practices - 0.01% (2)
storm - 0.01% (2)
says - 0.01% (2)
team. - 0.01% (2)
lasting - 0.01% (2)
function, - 0.01% (2)
data. - 0.01% (2)
gather - 0.01% (2)
owns - 0.01% (2)
damage - 0.01% (2)
side, - 0.01% (2)
generate - 0.01% (2)
stream - 0.01% (2)
continues - 0.01% (2)
that, - 0.01% (2)
targeted - 0.01% (2)
risks. - 0.01% (2)
times, - 0.01% (2)
beneficial - 0.01% (2)
ways, - 0.01% (2)
becoming - 0.01% (2)
asset - 0.01% (2)
list, - 0.01% (2)
relating - 0.01% (2)
up-front - 0.01% (2)
neither - 0.01% (2)
dedicated - 0.01% (2)
organisation’s - 0.01% (2)
mistakes - 0.01% (2)
trends - 0.01% (2)
education, - 0.01% (2)
then. - 0.01% (2)
wrote - 0.01% (2)
bank - 0.01% (2)
england - 0.01% (2)
uncertainty - 0.01% (2)
now. - 0.01% (2)
truth. - 0.01% (2)
beset - 0.01% (2)
transformation, - 0.01% (2)
quality, - 0.01% (2)
draws - 0.01% (2)
difference - 0.01% (2)
programmes. - 0.01% (2)
genesis - 0.01% (2)
tried - 0.01% (2)
developments - 0.01% (2)
arena. - 0.01% (2)
steer - 0.01% (2)
observe - 0.01% (2)
parallel - 0.01% (2)
parts - 0.01% (2)
attest - 0.01% (2)
economists - 0.01% (2)
of the - 0.73% (102)
at the - 0.59% (83)
in new - 0.55% (77)
(opens in - 0.55% (77)
in the - 0.46% (65)
new window)click - 0.45% (63)
share on - 0.45% (63)
window)click to - 0.45% (63)
that the - 0.41% (58)
to share - 0.4% (56)
to the - 0.3% (42)
that i - 0.2% (28)
i have - 0.19% (27)
on the - 0.19% (27)
this is - 0.19% (26)
here is - 0.16% (23)
a programme - 0.16% (23)
and the - 0.16% (22)
or the - 0.15% (21)
data programme - 0.14% (20)
the authors - 0.13% (18)
for the - 0.13% (18)
big data - 0.12% (17)
from the - 0.12% (17)
such a - 0.12% (17)
there is - 0.12% (17)
is the - 0.12% (17)
his article - 0.11% (16)
that a - 0.11% (16)
business intelligence - 0.11% (16)
this article - 0.11% (15)
as the - 0.11% (15)
and in - 0.1% (14)
surprisingly popular - 0.1% (14)
of people - 0.1% (14)
in this - 0.1% (14)
what i - 0.1% (14)
will be - 0.09% (13)
with a - 0.09% (13)
the data - 0.09% (13)
about the - 0.09% (13)
have a - 0.09% (13)
as well - 0.09% (12)
the crowd - 0.09% (12)
the programme - 0.09% (12)
data programmes - 0.09% (12)
data officer - 0.09% (12)
chief data - 0.09% (12)
with the - 0.09% (12)
is not - 0.09% (12)
of this - 0.09% (12)
data governance - 0.08% (11)
data visualisation - 0.08% (11)
such as - 0.07% (10)
the capital - 0.07% (10)
the same - 0.07% (10)
the fsa - 0.07% (10)
of data - 0.07% (10)
which i - 0.07% (10)
by the - 0.07% (10)
the public - 0.07% (10)
the cdo - 0.07% (10)
rather than - 0.07% (10)
is that - 0.07% (10)
february 2017 - 0.07% (10)
have been - 0.06% (9)
more than - 0.06% (9)
– the - 0.06% (9)
from a - 0.06% (9)
focus on - 0.06% (9)
a data - 0.06% (9)
all of - 0.06% (9)
able to - 0.06% (9)
majority of - 0.06% (9)
james thomas - 0.06% (9)
but the - 0.06% (9)
here are - 0.06% (9)
peter james - 0.06% (9)
to this - 0.06% (8)
to email - 0.06% (8)
and also - 0.06% (8)
going to - 0.06% (8)
the answer - 0.06% (8)
that is - 0.06% (8)
they are - 0.06% (8)
on linkedin - 0.06% (8)
that there - 0.06% (8)
wisdom of - 0.06% (8)
into the - 0.06% (8)
at this - 0.06% (8)
of these - 0.06% (8)
january 2017 - 0.06% (8)
there are - 0.06% (8)
a chief - 0.06% (8)
have no - 0.06% (8)
capital of - 0.06% (8)
what the - 0.06% (8)
periodic table - 0.06% (8)
of course - 0.06% (8)
of science - 0.06% (8)
one of - 0.06% (8)
well as - 0.06% (8)
what is - 0.06% (8)
notes [1] - 0.05% (7)
pocket (opens - 0.05% (7)
google+ (opens - 0.05% (7)
@peterjthomas share - 0.05% (7)
pinterest (opens - 0.05% (7)
this:click to - 0.05% (7)
email (opens - 0.05% (7)
and how - 0.05% (7)
do not - 0.05% (7)
reddit (opens - 0.05% (7)
tumblr (opens - 0.05% (7)
facebook (opens - 0.05% (7)
window)share on - 0.05% (7)
whatsapp (opens - 0.05% (7)
linkedin (opens - 0.05% (7)
it will - 0.05% (7)
twitter (opens - 0.05% (7)
the above - 0.05% (7)
print (opens - 0.05% (7)
window)like this:like - 0.05% (7)
on tumblr - 0.05% (7)
new window)like - 0.05% (7)
on pocket - 0.05% (7)
on google+ - 0.05% (7)
on pinterest - 0.05% (7)
this:like loading... - 0.05% (7)
on reddit - 0.05% (7)
part of - 0.05% (7)
on facebook - 0.05% (7)
new window)share - 0.05% (7)
on whatsapp - 0.05% (7)
on twitter - 0.05% (7)
number of - 0.05% (7)
to print - 0.05% (7)
share this:click - 0.05% (7)
follow @peterjthomas - 0.05% (7)
in many - 0.05% (7)
of what - 0.05% (7)
2017 peter - 0.05% (7)
of scientific - 0.05% (7)
led to - 0.04% (6)
that they - 0.04% (6)
i cover - 0.04% (6)
data to - 0.04% (6)
can be - 0.04% (6)
has been - 0.04% (6)
data management - 0.04% (6)
data and - 0.04% (6)
would be - 0.04% (6)
go for - 0.04% (6)
the surprising - 0.04% (6)
data team - 0.04% (6)
eckerson group - 0.04% (6)
the world - 0.04% (6)
likely to - 0.04% (6)
way that - 0.04% (6)
data quality - 0.04% (6)
many a - 0.04% (6)
information strategy: - 0.04% (6)
that it - 0.04% (6)
is and - 0.04% (6)
according to - 0.04% (6)
themes from - 0.04% (6)
heavier elements - 0.04% (6)
officer forum - 0.04% (6)
here the - 0.04% (6)
the periodic - 0.04% (6)
in which - 0.04% (6)
for gold - 0.04% (6)
out of - 0.04% (6)
the other - 0.04% (6)
is one - 0.04% (6)
big bang - 0.04% (6)
i think - 0.04% (5)
how to - 0.04% (5)
needs to - 0.04% (5)
cultural transformation - 0.04% (5)
bruno aziza - 0.04% (5)
in stars - 0.04% (5)
data science - 0.04% (5)
being a - 0.04% (5)
if the - 0.04% (5)
that this - 0.04% (5)
to make - 0.04% (5)
the wisdom - 0.04% (5)
some of - 0.04% (5)
professor johnson - 0.04% (5)
a business - 0.04% (5)
in some - 0.04% (5)
article is - 0.04% (5)
the original - 0.04% (5)
to data - 0.04% (5)
the team - 0.04% (5)
it does - 0.04% (5)
those who - 0.04% (5)
the go - 0.04% (5)
the surprisingly - 0.04% (5)
not be - 0.04% (5)
also be - 0.04% (5)
the actual - 0.04% (5)
lack of - 0.04% (5)
the one - 0.04% (5)
of pennsylvania - 0.04% (5)
potential impact - 0.04% (5)
this means - 0.04% (5)
of respondents - 0.04% (5)
the majority - 0.04% (5)
felt that - 0.04% (5)
i will - 0.04% (5)
an article - 0.04% (5)
use the - 0.04% (5)
back in - 0.04% (5)
food standards - 0.04% (5)
trust in - 0.04% (5)
type of - 0.04% (5)
at least - 0.04% (5)
seems to - 0.04% (5)
or no? - 0.04% (5)
yes or - 0.04% (5)
much of - 0.04% (5)
point that - 0.04% (5)
means that - 0.04% (5)
philadelphia is - 0.04% (5)
your own - 0.04% (5)
of new - 0.04% (5)
want to - 0.04% (5)
of acrylamide - 0.04% (5)
how the - 0.04% (5)
the way - 0.04% (5)
risk potential - 0.04% (5)
always be - 0.04% (5)
data is - 0.04% (5)
standards agency - 0.04% (5)
on data - 0.04% (5)
to say - 0.04% (5)
seems that - 0.03% (4)
attached to - 0.03% (4)
does not - 0.03% (4)
it would - 0.03% (4)
article on - 0.03% (4)
vast majority - 0.03% (4)
also been - 0.03% (4)
anita makri, - 0.03% (4)
on this - 0.03% (4)
[…] a - 0.03% (4)
january 2017. - 0.03% (4)
this area - 0.03% (4)
a different - 0.03% (4)
and as - 0.03% (4)
that in - 0.03% (4)
that an - 0.03% (4)
where a - 0.03% (4)
to more - 0.03% (4)
the end - 0.03% (4)
many areas - 0.03% (4)
to both - 0.03% (4)
the vast - 0.03% (4)
to get - 0.03% (4)
elements of - 0.03% (4)
data scientists - 0.03% (4)
the business - 0.03% (4)
cdo is - 0.03% (4)
it seems - 0.03% (4)
the at - 0.03% (4)
and implementation - 0.03% (4)
come to - 0.03% (4)
the scientific - 0.03% (4)
a good - 0.03% (4)
professor spiegelhalter - 0.03% (4)
the organisation - 0.03% (4)
than on - 0.03% (4)
think that - 0.03% (4)
should be - 0.03% (4)
is some - 0.03% (4)
where the - 0.03% (4)
establishing a - 0.03% (4)
pertinent to - 0.03% (4)
just a - 0.03% (4)
is also - 0.03% (4)
leads to - 0.03% (4)
much more - 0.03% (4)
a long - 0.03% (4)
data function - 0.03% (4)
have to - 0.03% (4)
you can - 0.03% (4)
a marketplace - 0.03% (4)
and so - 0.03% (4)
this lead - 0.03% (4)
must be - 0.03% (4)
believe that - 0.03% (4)
and no - 0.03% (4)
the best - 0.03% (4)
my experience - 0.03% (4)
one part - 0.03% (4)
into a - 0.03% (4)
them to - 0.03% (4)
the big - 0.03% (4)
meant to - 0.03% (4)
risks risk - 0.03% (4)
areas of - 0.03% (4)
say that - 0.03% (4)
email address - 0.03% (4)
end of - 0.03% (4)
to apply - 0.03% (4)
percentage of - 0.03% (4)
however, it - 0.03% (4)
agree with - 0.03% (4)
a large - 0.03% (4)
– and - 0.03% (4)
to see - 0.03% (4)
the paper - 0.03% (4)
begin to - 0.03% (4)
will have - 0.03% (4)
a range - 0.03% (4)
could be - 0.03% (4)
were as - 0.03% (4)
used in - 0.03% (4)
the sp - 0.03% (4)
who replied - 0.03% (4)
majority vote - 0.03% (4)
in your - 0.03% (4)
be the - 0.03% (4)
relative to - 0.03% (4)
as that - 0.03% (4)
is often - 0.03% (4)
this section - 0.03% (4)
range of - 0.03% (4)
piece of - 0.03% (4)
lead to - 0.03% (4)
to have - 0.03% (4)
approach to - 0.03% (4)
have not - 0.03% (4)
then the - 0.03% (4)
people are - 0.03% (4)
with an - 0.03% (4)
covered in - 0.03% (4)
as opposed - 0.03% (4)
is more - 0.02% (3)
new and - 0.02% (3)
the correct - 0.02% (3)
list of - 0.02% (3)
the future - 0.02% (3)
for data - 0.02% (3)
will always - 0.02% (3)
difficult to - 0.02% (3)
me, but - 0.02% (3)
having a - 0.02% (3)
the greatest - 0.02% (3)
team is - 0.02% (3)
to business - 0.02% (3)
which is - 0.02% (3)
not establishing - 0.02% (3)
time spent - 0.02% (3)
seen a - 0.02% (3)
confidence-weighted vote - 0.02% (3)
come of - 0.02% (3)
the beginning - 0.02% (3)
the need - 0.02% (3)
leading to - 0.02% (3)
for example, - 0.02% (3)
any technologies - 0.02% (3)
grow up - 0.02% (3)
they only - 0.02% (3)
has become - 0.02% (3)
you could - 0.02% (3)
business analytics - 0.02% (3)
what a - 0.02% (3)
who have - 0.02% (3)
the last - 0.02% (3)
the latter - 0.02% (3)
have the - 0.02% (3)
set of - 0.02% (3)
made the - 0.02% (3)
to date - 0.02% (3)
couple of - 0.02% (3)
programmes to - 0.02% (3)
all the - 0.02% (3)
to further - 0.02% (3)
process is - 0.02% (3)
most common - 0.02% (3)
something that - 0.02% (3)
that – - 0.02% (3)
the road - 0.02% (3)
that their - 0.02% (3)
mr gove - 0.02% (3)
that has - 0.02% (3)
but also - 0.02% (3)
in all - 0.02% (3)
risks that - 0.02% (3)
what they - 0.02% (3)
in data - 0.02% (3)
bumps in - 0.02% (3)
side effects - 0.02% (3)
to recognise - 0.02% (3)
was not - 0.02% (3)
their own - 0.02% (3)
strategy: part - 0.02% (3)
the following - 0.02% (3)
science and - 0.02% (3)
a democratic - 0.02% (3)
while the - 0.02% (3)
and information - 0.02% (3)
the strategy - 0.02% (3)
forming an - 0.02% (3)
an information - 0.02% (3)
close to - 0.02% (3)
into this - 0.02% (3)
more general - 0.02% (3)
that data - 0.02% (3)
feel that - 0.02% (3)
were asked - 0.02% (3)
a sense - 0.02% (3)
you are - 0.02% (3)
180 day - 0.02% (3)
the standard - 0.02% (3)
to that - 0.02% (3)
used to - 0.02% (3)
the second - 0.02% (3)
something of - 0.02% (3)
of view - 0.02% (3)
been shown - 0.02% (3)
this point - 0.02% (3)
the general - 0.02% (3)
is perhaps - 0.02% (3)
the latest - 0.02% (3)
the first - 0.02% (3)
more of - 0.02% (3)
thus a - 0.02% (3)
however, as - 0.02% (3)
and have - 0.02% (3)
and – - 0.02% (3)
university of - 0.02% (3)
are often - 0.02% (3)
david spiegelhalter, - 0.02% (3)
whether or - 0.02% (3)
pennsylvania, yes - 0.02% (3)
people to - 0.02% (3)
ways to - 0.02% (3)
they do - 0.02% (3)
science in - 0.02% (3)
scientific advice - 0.02% (3)
what people - 0.02% (3)
any other - 0.02% (3)
has to - 0.02% (3)
this leads - 0.02% (3)
of focus - 0.02% (3)
that people - 0.02% (3)
people replying - 0.02% (3)
than the - 0.02% (3)
poor programme - 0.02% (3)
back to - 0.02% (3)
of pennsylvania, - 0.02% (3)
or some - 0.02% (3)
if you - 0.02% (3)
to take - 0.02% (3)
be more - 0.02% (3)
people predict - 0.02% (3)
that you - 0.02% (3)
people would - 0.02% (3)
would agree - 0.02% (3)
i don’t - 0.02% (3)
attention to - 0.02% (3)
of that - 0.02% (3)
don’t know - 0.02% (3)
return to - 0.02% (3)
to trust - 0.02% (3)
is just - 0.02% (3)
about food - 0.02% (3)
or not - 0.02% (3)
with business - 0.02% (3)
but in - 0.02% (3)
make the - 0.02% (3)
for many - 0.02% (3)
the columbia - 0.02% (3)
what it - 0.02% (3)
sure that - 0.02% (3)
in their - 0.02% (3)
held in - 0.02% (3)
all too - 0.02% (3)
a comment - 0.02% (3)
need to - 0.02% (3)
and not - 0.02% (3)
and his - 0.02% (3)
a number - 0.02% (3)
asked to - 0.02% (3)
points that - 0.02% (3)
loading... leave - 0.02% (3)
to their - 0.02% (3)
my thoughts - 0.02% (3)
answer is - 0.02% (3)
your email - 0.02% (3)
the more - 0.02% (3)
atomic mass - 0.02% (3)
enterprise data - 0.02% (3)
with their - 0.02% (3)
effects of - 0.02% (3)
the image - 0.02% (3)
i covered - 0.02% (3)
by which - 0.02% (3)
that of - 0.02% (3)
nucleosynthesis and - 0.02% (3)
image i - 0.02% (3)
professor johnson’s - 0.02% (3)
it can - 0.02% (3)
sweet spot - 0.02% (3)
leave a - 0.02% (3)
see the - 0.02% (3)
cdo must - 0.02% (3)
predictions about - 0.02% (3)
in order - 0.02% (3)
is from - 0.02% (3)
the atscale - 0.02% (3)
been in - 0.02% (3)
most famous - 0.02% (3)
bruno’s diagram - 0.02% (3)
of nucleosynthesis - 0.02% (3)
in 2009 - 0.02% (3)
atscale, bruno - 0.02% (3)
both the - 0.02% (3)
one that - 0.02% (3)
thoughts on - 0.02% (3)
types of - 0.02% (3)
this process - 0.02% (3)
loading... 1 - 0.02% (3)
day perspective - 0.02% (3)
how they - 0.02% (3)
technologies grow - 0.02% (3)
do they - 0.02% (3)
may have - 0.02% (3)
may be - 0.02% (3)
and more - 0.02% (3)
he had - 0.02% (3)
only come - 0.02% (3)
the 180 - 0.02% (3)
they have - 0.02% (3)
and data - 0.02% (3)
as with - 0.02% (3)
of age? - 0.02% (3)
to meet - 0.02% (3)
blog at - 0.02% (3)
to action - 0.02% (3)
forum – - 0.02% (3)
the time - 0.02% (3)
tend to - 0.02% (3)
do any - 0.02% (3)
my attention - 0.02% (3)
the term - 0.02% (3)
can also - 0.02% (3)
chance of - 0.02% (3)
to establish - 0.02% (3)
a solution - 0.02% (3)
an obvious - 0.02% (3)
of elements - 0.02% (3)
contact details - 0.02% (3)
cosmic ray - 0.02% (3)
answer in - 0.02% (3)
ever to - 0.01% (2)
the nature - 0.01% (2)
member of - 0.01% (2)
then it - 0.01% (2)
was meant - 0.01% (2)
the tools - 0.01% (2)
have elided - 0.01% (2)
to ‘go - 0.01% (2)
exposure to - 0.01% (2)
impact on - 0.01% (2)
the current - 0.01% (2)
starchy foods - 0.01% (2)
like potatoes - 0.01% (2)
can do - 0.01% (2)
of atomic - 0.01% (2)
attempt to - 0.01% (2)
the like, - 0.01% (2)
the average - 0.01% (2)
about climate - 0.01% (2)
be thought - 0.01% (2)
a much - 0.01% (2)
to reflect - 0.01% (2)
public perception - 0.01% (2)
and specifically - 0.01% (2)
i’ll return - 0.01% (2)
either in - 0.01% (2)
fact that - 0.01% (2)
a scientific - 0.01% (2)
was the - 0.01% (2)
more recently - 0.01% (2)
1,000 people - 0.01% (2)
in toast - 0.01% (2)
food safety - 0.01% (2)
lest it - 0.01% (2)
visualisation – - 0.01% (2)
many of - 0.01% (2)
during the - 0.01% (2)
distributed file - 0.01% (2)
of protons - 0.01% (2)
data warehousing - 0.01% (2)
video testimonial - 0.01% (2)
at first - 0.01% (2)
it also - 0.01% (2)
the path - 0.01% (2)
to great - 0.01% (2)
(10) data - 0.01% (2)
of our - 0.01% (2)
are some - 0.01% (2)
the back - 0.01% (2)
most famously - 0.01% (2)
uncertainty in - 0.01% (2)
actual science - 0.01% (2)
man or - 0.01% (2)
“sweet spot” - 0.01% (2)
sun (4) - 0.01% (2)
and there - 0.01% (2)
the cdo? - 0.01% (2)
and predict - 0.01% (2)
a while - 0.01% (2)
at wordpress.com. - 0.01% (2)
there was - 0.01% (2)
science was - 0.01% (2)
in great - 0.01% (2)
consistent with - 0.01% (2)
of evidence - 0.01% (2)
it business - 0.01% (2)
in general, - 0.01% (2)
intelligent enterprise - 0.01% (2)
“we have - 0.01% (2)
aspects of - 0.01% (2)
a phenomenon - 0.01% (2)
mathematics & - 0.01% (2)
to explain - 0.01% (2)
spot for - 0.01% (2)
conclusions that - 0.01% (2)
but most - 0.01% (2)
cosmic rays - 0.01% (2)
this article. - 0.01% (2)
the universe - 0.01% (2)
size of - 0.01% (2)
phenomenon that - 0.01% (2)
the form - 0.01% (2)
leaves the - 0.01% (2)
the economist - 0.01% (2)
be surprisingly - 0.01% (2)
of her - 0.01% (2)
meaning that - 0.01% (2)
south carolina, - 0.01% (2)
science has - 0.01% (2)
of neutrons - 0.01% (2)
earlier in - 0.01% (2)
city in - 0.01% (2)
a sweeter - 0.01% (2)
areas such - 0.01% (2)
model of - 0.01% (2)
posts by - 0.01% (2)
to help - 0.01% (2)
have led - 0.01% (2)
[5]. however - 0.01% (2)
voting method - 0.01% (2)
cannot be - 0.01% (2)
the solar - 0.01% (2)
or even - 0.01% (2)
if not - 0.01% (2)
and other - 0.01% (2)
in our - 0.01% (2)
since the - 0.01% (2)
and thus - 0.01% (2)
majority opinion - 0.01% (2)
acrylamide has - 0.01% (2)
research uk - 0.01% (2)
to cause - 0.01% (2)
form a - 0.01% (2)
of technology - 0.01% (2)
to try - 0.01% (2)
be better - 0.01% (2)
underlying principle - 0.01% (2)
anita makri’s - 0.01% (2)
column on - 0.01% (2)
in his - 0.01% (2)
the issues - 0.01% (2)
systems and - 0.01% (2)
a column - 0.01% (2)
i know - 0.01% (2)
just one - 0.01% (2)
into families - 0.01% (2)
which it - 0.01% (2)
if data - 0.01% (2)
and economic - 0.01% (2)
reading the - 0.01% (2)
in nature - 0.01% (2)
information, a - 0.01% (2)
is for - 0.01% (2)
scientists to - 0.01% (2)
but not - 0.01% (2)
as being - 0.01% (2)
existing data - 0.01% (2)
we can - 0.01% (2)
text, i - 0.01% (2)
an attempt - 0.01% (2)
appreciation of - 0.01% (2)
statistics and - 0.01% (2)
table is - 0.01% (2)
nuclear safety, - 0.01% (2)
forecasting, evaluating - 0.01% (2)
perspective a - 0.01% (2)
and certainly - 0.01% (2)
is meant - 0.01% (2)
the past - 0.01% (2)
crowd is - 0.01% (2)
their big - 0.01% (2)
jennifer johnson, - 0.01% (2)
– as - 0.01% (2)
wisdom problem - 0.01% (2)
when i - 0.01% (2)
area in - 0.01% (2)
the entire - 0.01% (2)
or all - 0.01% (2)
many times, - 0.01% (2)
governance is - 0.01% (2)
the increasing - 0.01% (2)
single-question crowd - 0.01% (2)
question is - 0.01% (2)
respondents are - 0.01% (2)
the full - 0.01% (2)
i’d recommend - 0.01% (2)
and princeton - 0.01% (2)
is “wrong” - 0.01% (2)
the elements - 0.01% (2)
but actually - 0.01% (2)
the the - 0.01% (2)
of business. - 0.01% (2)
watch this - 0.01% (2)
digital sky - 0.01% (2)
sloan digital - 0.01% (2)
different field - 0.01% (2)
the paper’s - 0.01% (2)
a variety - 0.01% (2)
apologies to - 0.01% (2)
on their - 0.01% (2)
i won’t - 0.01% (2)
most of - 0.01% (2)
what you - 0.01% (2)
scientific method - 0.01% (2)
the heavier - 0.01% (2)
associated with - 0.01% (2)
of risk - 0.01% (2)
estimate of - 0.01% (2)
a response - 0.01% (2)
heavier elements, - 0.01% (2)
the risk - 0.01% (2)
as many - 0.01% (2)
an increased - 0.01% (2)
so what - 0.01% (2)
risk of - 0.01% (2)
those of - 0.01% (2)
increased risk - 0.01% (2)
the aforementioned - 0.01% (2)
suggested a - 0.01% (2)
common denominator - 0.01% (2)
i introduced - 0.01% (2)
in mice. - 0.01% (2)
unlikely to - 0.01% (2)
to reduce - 0.01% (2)
e.g. in - 0.01% (2)
cancer in - 0.01% (2)
a golden - 0.01% (2)
yellow colour - 0.01% (2)
standards agency, - 0.01% (2)
for gold’ - 0.01% (2)
the mass - 0.01% (2)
to how - 0.01% (2)
another star, - 0.01% (2)
golden yellow - 0.01% (2)
food scientists - 0.01% (2)
and potatoes - 0.01% (2)
2017. the - 0.01% (2)
lies in - 0.01% (2)
february 201722 - 0.01% (2)
only be - 0.01% (2)
form of - 0.01% (2)
with most - 0.01% (2)
to anita - 0.01% (2)
of chemical - 0.01% (2)
however, the - 0.01% (2)
possible to - 0.01% (2)
– perhaps - 0.01% (2)
the quality - 0.01% (2)
public policy, - 0.01% (2)
— it - 0.01% (2)
probes, and - 0.01% (2)
presented by - 0.01% (2)
scientific enquiry. - 0.01% (2)
table has - 0.01% (2)
because it - 0.01% (2)
mendeleev’s work - 0.01% (2)
along the - 0.01% (2)
such an - 0.01% (2)
of view. - 0.01% (2)
came from - 0.01% (2)
atoms are - 0.01% (2)
been so - 0.01% (2)
or more - 0.01% (2)
particularly its - 0.01% (2)
acrylamide in - 0.01% (2)
professor spiegelhalter, - 0.01% (2)
are different - 0.01% (2)
is testing - 0.01% (2)
abundance of - 0.01% (2)
long list - 0.01% (2)
appears in - 0.01% (2)
possible responses - 0.01% (2)
my assumption - 0.01% (2)
the moment - 0.01% (2)
consumption of - 0.01% (2)
other areas - 0.01% (2)
i’d suggest - 0.01% (2)
replied “yes” - 0.01% (2)
science is - 0.01% (2)
be able - 0.01% (2)
of big - 0.01% (2)
democratic methods - 0.01% (2)
areas. i - 0.01% (2)
being an - 0.01% (2)
is overdue. - 0.01% (2)
where it - 0.01% (2)
restless volcano - 0.01% (2)
but if - 0.01% (2)
kinds of - 0.01% (2)
all that - 0.01% (2)
being done - 0.01% (2)
they may - 0.01% (2)
the limits - 0.01% (2)
[…] i - 0.01% (2)
of some - 0.01% (2)
understanding of - 0.01% (2)
with different - 0.01% (2)
of opinion - 0.01% (2)
within which - 0.01% (2)
a lack - 0.01% (2)
recognize the - 0.01% (2)
the text - 0.01% (2)
that wayne - 0.01% (2)
recommend reading - 0.01% (2)
the occasional - 0.01% (2)
gaps in - 0.01% (2)
only one - 0.01% (2)
the method - 0.01% (2)
[…] the - 0.01% (2)
key business - 0.01% (2)
of self-service - 0.01% (2)
tends to - 0.01% (2)
hard to - 0.01% (2)
of their - 0.01% (2)
the key - 0.01% (2)
an organisation - 0.01% (2)
way, the - 0.01% (2)
respondents have - 0.01% (2)
in addition - 0.01% (2)
of how - 0.01% (2)
review of - 0.01% (2)
management, data - 0.01% (2)
change programmes - 0.01% (2)
of processes - 0.01% (2)
management as - 0.01% (2)
bank of - 0.01% (2)
an area - 0.01% (2)
cover this - 0.01% (2)
beset data - 0.01% (2)
recent years, - 0.01% (2)
the evidence - 0.01% (2)
has its - 0.01% (2)
tried to - 0.01% (2)
thinking and - 0.01% (2)
data arena. - 0.01% (2)
information programmes - 0.01% (2)
generally been - 0.01% (2)
the potential - 0.01% (2)
a successful - 0.01% (2)
see what - 0.01% (2)
everything i - 0.01% (2)
big an - 0.01% (2)
of most - 0.01% (2)
as wide - 0.01% (2)
tools in - 0.01% (2)
it comes - 0.01% (2)
tools and - 0.01% (2)
work is - 0.01% (2)
the technology - 0.01% (2)
involved in - 0.01% (2)
to people - 0.01% (2)
have also - 0.01% (2)
scope of - 0.01% (2)
highlights the - 0.01% (2)
wayne and - 0.01% (2)
be interesting - 0.01% (2)
attributed to - 0.01% (2)
has also - 0.01% (2)
storm p - 0.01% (2)
suggests that - 0.01% (2)
and paste - 0.01% (2)
[2], but - 0.01% (2)
often been - 0.01% (2)
each of - 0.01% (2)
may not - 0.01% (2)
article by - 0.01% (2)
is only - 0.01% (2)
aziza i - 0.01% (2)
data for - 0.01% (2)
in what - 0.01% (2)
the chief - 0.01% (2)
points of - 0.01% (2)
of cdo - 0.01% (2)
east and - 0.01% (2)
sweeter spot - 0.01% (2)
comment a - 0.01% (2)
north east - 0.01% (2)
scientific circles - 0.01% (2)
the north - 0.01% (2)
south west - 0.01% (2)
axis is - 0.01% (2)
as mentioned - 0.01% (2)
the role - 0.01% (2)
my earlier - 0.01% (2)
list a - 0.01% (2)
to pick - 0.01% (2)
most things - 0.01% (2)
first of - 0.01% (2)
a small - 0.01% (2)
companies out - 0.01% (2)
cdo role - 0.01% (2)
some way - 0.01% (2)
after i - 0.01% (2)
agree that - 0.01% (2)
a compliance - 0.01% (2)
bruno and - 0.01% (2)
that: […] - 0.01% (2)
he closes - 0.01% (2)
i reproduce - 0.01% (2)
compliance and - 0.01% (2)
does is - 0.01% (2)
second i - 0.01% (2)
mentioned in - 0.01% (2)
is seldom - 0.01% (2)
turn my - 0.01% (2)
as good - 0.01% (2)
lightly edited - 0.01% (2)
course the - 0.01% (2)
something i - 0.01% (2)
example is - 0.01% (2)
requires a - 0.01% (2)
version of - 0.01% (2)
nature paper - 0.01% (2)
about prediction - 0.01% (2)
people believe - 0.01% (2)
data management, - 0.01% (2)
organisations will - 0.01% (2)
wayne eckerson - 0.01% (2)
what has - 0.01% (2)
eckerson group’s - 0.01% (2)
variety of - 0.01% (2)
is very - 0.01% (2)
european union - 0.01% (2)
to some - 0.01% (2)
5 themes - 0.01% (2)
anything but - 0.01% (2)
someone who - 0.01% (2)
with some - 0.01% (2)
confidence in - 0.01% (2)
for further - 0.01% (2)
with both - 0.01% (2)
north west - 0.01% (2)
/ south - 0.01% (2)
is new - 0.01% (2)
this question? - 0.01% (2)
called a - 0.01% (2)
people surveyed - 0.01% (2)
how confident - 0.01% (2)
to provide - 0.01% (2)
edited this - 0.01% (2)
have lightly - 0.01% (2)
that some - 0.01% (2)
alphabet soup - 0.01% (2)
is now - 0.01% (2)
there have - 0.01% (2)
come in - 0.01% (2)
of trust - 0.01% (2)
over the - 0.01% (2)
for success - 0.01% (2)
data professionals - 0.01% (2)
few of - 0.01% (2)
the items - 0.01% (2)
has served - 0.01% (2)
then to - 0.01% (2)
trying to - 0.01% (2)
general strategy - 0.01% (2)
a need - 0.01% (2)
or no?” - 0.01% (2)
part ii - 0.01% (2)
analysis and - 0.01% (2)
examples of - 0.01% (2)
situational analysis - 0.01% (2)
completing the - 0.01% (2)
design, development - 0.01% (2)
development and - 0.01% (2)
taking a - 0.01% (2)
data programme, - 0.01% (2)
selection and - 0.01% (2)
correct response - 0.01% (2)
necessary to - 0.01% (2)
to poor - 0.01% (2)
adoption and - 0.01% (2)
above, the - 0.01% (2)
one. the - 0.01% (2)
not what - 0.01% (2)
is actually - 0.01% (2)
is essentially - 0.01% (2)
on your - 0.01% (2)
programme failure - 0.01% (2)
the case - 0.01% (2)
a more - 0.01% (2)
to improve - 0.01% (2)
to use - 0.01% (2)
replied “no” - 0.01% (2)
with them. - 0.01% (2)
benefits of - 0.01% (2)
implementation crm - 0.01% (2)
for an - 0.01% (2)
example, what - 0.01% (2)
talking about - 0.01% (2)
try to - 0.01% (2)
example here - 0.01% (2)
that was - 0.01% (2)
union referendum - 0.01% (2)
have had - 0.01% (2)
authors go - 0.01% (2)
the main - 0.01% (2)
for some - 0.01% (2)
are also - 0.01% (2)
around the - 0.01% (2)
much less - 0.01% (2)
assumption is - 0.01% (2)
things being - 0.01% (2)
perception of - 0.01% (2)
developments in - 0.01% (2)
the reader - 0.01% (2)
would like - 0.01% (2)
climate change - 0.01% (2)
area of - 0.01% (2)
best answer - 0.01% (2)
[6]. the - 0.01% (2)
probably a - 0.01% (2)
a surprisingly - 0.01% (2)
appearing in - 0.01% (2)
performance management - 0.01% (2)
of information - 0.01% (2)
recipes for - 0.01% (2)
1 february - 0.01% (2)
public trust - 0.01% (2)
one particular - 0.01% (2)
touches on - 0.01% (2)
cultural transformation, - 0.01% (2)
not least - 0.01% (2)
focus has - 0.01% (2)
is all - 0.01% (2)
towards the - 0.01% (2)
i want - 0.01% (2)
to turn - 0.01% (2)
in less - 0.01% (2)
is never - 0.01% (2)
an existing - 0.01% (2)
and prior - 0.01% (2)
ip that - 0.01% (2)
be leveraged - 0.01% (2)
becoming a - 0.01% (2)
popular response - 0.01% (2)
the size - 0.01% (2)
is made - 0.01% (2)
on its - 0.01% (2)
data programmes. - 0.01% (2)
to either - 0.01% (2)
5. not - 0.01% (2)
business needs, - 0.01% (2)
business users - 0.01% (2)
and cannot - 0.01% (2)
negotiate the - 0.01% (2)
inevitable obstacles - 0.01% (2)
business units - 0.01% (2)
pressing needs - 0.01% (2)
the democratic - 0.01% (2)
your data - 0.01% (2)
programme and - 0.01% (2)
data function, - 0.01% (2)
lot of - 0.01% (2)
and what - 0.01% (2)
the ones - 0.01% (2)
of work - 0.01% (2)
to highlight - 0.01% (2)
a further - 0.01% (2)
items on - 0.01% (2)
which will - 0.01% (2)
example, the - 0.01% (2)
the governance - 0.01% (2)
data quality, - 0.01% (2)
across the - 0.01% (2)
programme, but - 0.01% (2)
function is - 0.01% (2)
of other - 0.01% (2)
questions about - 0.01% (2)
and end - 0.01% (2)
columbia example, - 0.01% (2)
instead go - 0.01% (2)
the percentage - 0.01% (2)
data facilities - 0.01% (2)
is instead - 0.01% (2)
search for - 0.01% (2)
data capabilities - 0.01% (2)
that do - 0.01% (2)
analytical capabilities - 0.01% (2)
they will - 0.01% (2)
will not - 0.01% (2)
transactions with - 0.01% (2)
too much - 0.01% (2)
probably the - 0.01% (2)
– is - 0.01% (2)
predict will - 0.01% (2)
from more - 0.01% (2)
relating to - 0.01% (2)
replying “yes” - 0.01% (2)
much and - 0.01% (2)
pressing business - 0.01% (2)
the eventual - 0.01% (2)
the programme. - 0.01% (2)
to build - 0.01% (2)
too often - 0.01% (2)
be done - 0.01% (2)
then this - 0.01% (2)
no surprisingly - 0.01% (2)
in between - 0.01% (2)
to cover - 0.01% (2)
are going - 0.01% (2)
indeed it - 0.01% (2)
create a - 0.01% (2)
bit of - 0.01% (2)
interest in - 0.01% (2)
popular answer - 0.01% (2)
ensure that - 0.01% (2)
on business - 0.01% (2)
needs and - 0.01% (2)
team to - 0.01% (2)
a technology - 0.01% (2)
“philadelphia is - 0.01% (2)
not understand - 0.01% (2)
for their - 0.01% (2)
(opens in new - 0.55% (77)
in new window)click - 0.45% (63)
new window)click to - 0.45% (63)
window)click to share - 0.4% (56)
to share on - 0.4% (56)
chief data officer - 0.09% (12)
this is a - 0.07% (10)
peter james thomas - 0.06% (9)
is the capital - 0.06% (8)
the capital of - 0.06% (8)
of the crowd - 0.06% (8)
as well as - 0.06% (8)
wisdom of the - 0.06% (8)
share on linkedin - 0.05% (7)
window)share on facebook - 0.05% (7)
new window)like this:like - 0.05% (7)
pocket (opens in - 0.05% (7)
on google+ (opens - 0.05% (7)
share on pinterest - 0.05% (7)
reddit (opens in - 0.05% (7)
on pinterest (opens - 0.05% (7)
on tumblr (opens - 0.05% (7)
google+ (opens in - 0.05% (7)
share on whatsapp - 0.05% (7)
a chief data - 0.05% (7)
linkedin (opens in - 0.05% (7)
share on pocket - 0.05% (7)
window)like this:like loading... - 0.05% (7)
on twitter (opens - 0.05% (7)
window)click to email - 0.05% (7)
all of the - 0.05% (7)
this:click to print - 0.05% (7)
share on reddit - 0.05% (7)
share this:click to - 0.05% (7)
twitter (opens in - 0.05% (7)
on reddit (opens - 0.05% (7)
to email (opens - 0.05% (7)
to print (opens - 0.05% (7)
@peterjthomas share this:click - 0.05% (7)
on whatsapp (opens - 0.05% (7)
in new window)like - 0.05% (7)
on pocket (opens - 0.05% (7)
share on google+ - 0.05% (7)
pinterest (opens in - 0.05% (7)
share on tumblr - 0.05% (7)
print (opens in - 0.05% (7)
facebook (opens in - 0.05% (7)
new window)share on - 0.05% (7)
whatsapp (opens in - 0.05% (7)
in new window)share - 0.05% (7)
on linkedin (opens - 0.05% (7)
tumblr (opens in - 0.05% (7)
share on twitter - 0.05% (7)
email (opens in - 0.05% (7)
follow @peterjthomas share - 0.05% (7)
on facebook (opens - 0.05% (7)
there is no - 0.05% (7)
one of the - 0.04% (6)
themes from a - 0.04% (6)
go for gold - 0.04% (6)
data officer forum - 0.04% (6)
from a chief - 0.04% (6)
food standards agency - 0.04% (5)
this article is - 0.04% (5)
this means that - 0.04% (5)
the data team - 0.04% (5)
the surprisingly popular - 0.04% (5)
on to the - 0.04% (5)
the majority of - 0.04% (5)
february 2017 peter - 0.04% (5)
the wisdom of - 0.04% (5)
part of the - 0.04% (5)
risk potential impact - 0.04% (5)
trust in science - 0.03% (4)
in my experience - 0.03% (4)
risks risk potential - 0.03% (4)
that it is - 0.03% (4)
that the majority - 0.03% (4)
those who replied - 0.03% (4)
percentage of people - 0.03% (4)
of this article - 0.03% (4)
vast majority of - 0.03% (4)
of the data - 0.03% (4)
as opposed to - 0.03% (4)
i have no - 0.03% (4)
more of a - 0.02% (3)
the big bang - 0.02% (3)
of the answer - 0.02% (3)
the end of - 0.02% (3)
leave a comment - 0.02% (3)
whether or not - 0.02% (3)
– the 180 - 0.02% (3)
in the data - 0.02% (3)
bumps in the - 0.02% (3)
to action journey - 0.02% (3)
out of the - 0.02% (3)
side effects of - 0.02% (3)
i have not - 0.02% (3)
back in 2009 - 0.02% (3)
this:like loading... 1 - 0.02% (3)
of the periodic - 0.02% (3)
an article on - 0.02% (3)
a data programme - 0.02% (3)
to say that - 0.02% (3)
not establishing a - 0.02% (3)
at the end - 0.02% (3)
only come of - 0.02% (3)
this leads to - 0.02% (3)
or do they - 0.02% (3)
technologies grow up - 0.02% (3)
forming an information - 0.02% (3)
strategy: part i - 0.02% (3)
information strategy: part - 0.02% (3)
a number of - 0.02% (3)
loading... 1 comment - 0.02% (3)
at the fsa’s - 0.02% (3)
seems to be - 0.02% (3)
of pennsylvania, yes - 0.02% (3)
your email address - 0.02% (3)
and have a - 0.02% (3)
pennsylvania, yes or - 0.02% (3)
any technologies grow - 0.02% (3)
they only come - 0.02% (3)
officer forum – - 0.02% (3)
the 180 day - 0.02% (3)
the answer is - 0.02% (3)
capital of pennsylvania, - 0.02% (3)
it would be - 0.02% (3)
loading... leave a - 0.02% (3)
of what i - 0.02% (3)
would agree with - 0.02% (3)
a range of - 0.02% (3)
that the authors - 0.02% (3)
will be the - 0.01% (2)
an attempt to - 0.01% (2)
there is not - 0.01% (2)
of science as - 0.01% (2)
the scientific method - 0.01% (2)
is meant to - 0.01% (2)
at the beginning - 0.01% (2)
a business context. - 0.01% (2)
the issues i - 0.01% (2)
may have led - 0.01% (2)
an increased risk - 0.01% (2)
in the columbia - 0.01% (2)
it is not - 0.01% (2)
as good as - 0.01% (2)
for a while - 0.01% (2)
in the world - 0.01% (2)
a surprisingly popular - 0.01% (2)
the columbia example, - 0.01% (2)
surprisingly popular answer - 0.01% (2)
those of the - 0.01% (2)
leaves the public - 0.01% (2)
some of what - 0.01% (2)
many of the - 0.01% (2)
“philadelphia is the - 0.01% (2)
in areas such - 0.01% (2)
the food standards - 0.01% (2)
and the like, - 0.01% (2)
public perception of - 0.01% (2)
scientific advice about - 0.01% (2)
what people predict - 0.01% (2)
the fsa has - 0.01% (2)
yes or no?” - 0.01% (2)
to ‘go for - 0.01% (2)
foods like potatoes - 0.01% (2)
a golden yellow - 0.01% (2)
the items on - 0.01% (2)
starchy foods like - 0.01% (2)
‘go for gold’ - 0.01% (2)
cancer research uk - 0.01% (2)
that the fsa’s - 0.01% (2)
no surprisingly popular - 0.01% (2)
of people are - 0.01% (2)
authors go on - 0.01% (2)
posts by email. - 0.01% (2)
the nature paper - 0.01% (2)
notes [1] according - 0.01% (2)
e.g. in a - 0.01% (2)
well as some - 0.01% (2)
i have elided - 0.01% (2)
that professor johnson - 0.01% (2)
watch this space - 0.01% (2)
number of protons - 0.01% (2)
that beset data - 0.01% (2)
to the single-question - 0.01% (2)
and data visualisation - 0.01% (2)
the chief data - 0.01% (2)
officer “sweet spot” - 0.01% (2)
of the sp - 0.01% (2)
a new and - 0.01% (2)
management as part - 0.01% (2)
it business alignment - 0.01% (2)
at intelligent enterprise - 0.01% (2)
blog at wordpress.com. - 0.01% (2)
of this is - 0.01% (2)
the heavier elements - 0.01% (2)
some of the - 0.01% (2)
but the vast - 0.01% (2)
cut and paste - 0.01% (2)
as big data - 0.01% (2)
the public perception - 0.01% (2)
of the last - 0.01% (2)
data and the - 0.01% (2)
be interesting to - 0.01% (2)
in scientific circles - 0.01% (2)
i have lightly - 0.01% (2)
elements of the - 0.01% (2)
nucleosynthesis and data - 0.01% (2)
the way to - 0.01% (2)
is one of - 0.01% (2)
a variety of - 0.01% (2)
of scientific enquiry. - 0.01% (2)
i’d recommend reading - 0.01% (2)
i covered in - 0.01% (2)
fall into families - 0.01% (2)
column on the - 0.01% (2)
periodic table appears - 0.01% (2)
areas of scientific - 0.01% (2)
developments in the - 0.01% (2)
of people would - 0.01% (2)
of people surveyed - 0.01% (2)
quality of chemical - 0.01% (2)
data to action - 0.01% (2)
visualisation – a - 0.01% (2)
the bank of - 0.01% (2)
bank of england - 0.01% (2)
that the above - 0.01% (2)
it be thought - 0.01% (2)
estimate of the - 0.01% (2)
responses to a - 0.01% (2)
probes, and possible - 0.01% (2)
public policy, the - 0.01% (2)
of south carolina, - 0.01% (2)
to be surprisingly - 0.01% (2)
evaluating nuclear safety, - 0.01% (2)
and economic forecasting, - 0.01% (2)
the crowd is - 0.01% (2)
the single-question crowd - 0.01% (2)
a solution to - 0.01% (2)
5 themes from - 0.01% (2)
20 risks that - 0.01% (2)
beset data programmes - 0.01% (2)
data management as - 0.01% (2)
been attributed to - 0.01% (2)
there have been - 0.01% (2)
the enterprise data - 0.01% (2)
columbia is the - 0.01% (2)
assumption is that - 0.01% (2)
the authors go - 0.01% (2)
to try to - 0.01% (2)
and paste the - 0.01% (2)
and his associates - 0.01% (2)
reading the original - 0.01% (2)
as the authors - 0.01% (2)
the best answer - 0.01% (2)
that an organisation - 0.01% (2)
will be interesting - 0.01% (2)
to meet the - 0.01% (2)
i think that - 0.01% (2)
needs to be - 0.01% (2)
a much more - 0.01% (2)
the limits of - 0.01% (2)
[…] i think - 0.01% (2)
in many areas - 0.01% (2)
tools in the - 0.01% (2)
that they need - 0.01% (2)
while i have - 0.01% (2)
i have seen - 0.01% (2)
here is the - 0.01% (2)
strategy: part ii - 0.01% (2)
one part of - 0.01% (2)
atscale, bruno aziza - 0.01% (2)
of course i - 0.01% (2)
201722 february 2017 - 0.01% (2)
few of the - 0.01% (2)
feel that this - 0.01% (2)
you in your - 0.01% (2)
who replied “no” - 0.01% (2)
spot for the - 0.01% (2)
situational analysis and - 0.01% (2)
leverage of new - 0.01% (2)
completing the strategy - 0.01% (2)
selection and implementation - 0.01% (2)
and implementation crm - 0.01% (2)
that the crowd - 0.01% (2)
[5] i cover - 0.01% (2)
food standards agency, - 0.01% (2)
capital of south - 0.01% (2)
public trust in - 0.01% (2)
about climate change - 0.01% (2)
my attention to - 0.01% (2)
a lack of - 0.01% (2)
on my list - 0.01% (2)
a way that - 0.01% (2)
the way that - 0.01% (2)
a programme, but - 0.01% (2)
if the data - 0.01% (2)
a data function - 0.01% (2)
this is not - 0.01% (2)
cdo is not - 0.01% (2)
successful cdo must - 0.01% (2)
believe that the - 0.01% (2)
the size of - 0.01% (2)
the inevitable obstacles - 0.01% (2)
poor adoption and - 0.01% (2)
the image i - 0.01% (2)
if you are - 0.01% (2)
in a data - 0.01% (2)
the cdo role - 0.01% (2)
of focus on - 0.01% (2)
as with most - 0.01% (2)
will not be - 0.01% (2)
sure that the - 0.01% (2)
capabilities do not - 0.01% (2)
to take a - 0.01% (2)

Here you can find chart of all your popular one, two and three word phrases. Google and others search engines means your page is about words you use frequently.

Copyright © 2015-2016 hupso.pl. All rights reserved. FB | +G | Twitter

Hupso.pl jest serwisem internetowym, w którym jednym kliknieciem możesz szybko i łatwo sprawdź stronę www pod kątem SEO. Oferujemy darmowe pozycjonowanie stron internetowych oraz wycena domen i stron internetowych. Prowadzimy ranking polskich stron internetowych oraz ranking stron alexa.