[Anne GUINARD]

[Pete] Resources associated to the meeting in April 2021:

• Your Logical Fallacy Is : https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/
• W3C on statements about statements: https://w3c.github.io/rdf-star/cg-spec/editors_draft.html
• The Admiralty Scale (also called the NATO System) is used to rank the reliability of a source and the credibility of an information – https://github.com/MISP/misp-taxonomies/tree/master/admiralty-scale
• Intelligence ranking from UK Police – https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/intelligence-management/intelligence-report/
• Repertory grids: http://paulsmart.cognosys.co.uk/pubs/2015/Knowledge Elicitation.pdf (page 18)
• Intro to Georg Kelly and his work: https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/16762642/an-introduction-to-geroge-kellys-personal-construct-psychology

 [Pete] Phrases heard:

• Cognitive vices
• Epistemic tolerance
• Epistemic health and wellbeing
• Human vs Computing agents
• Author vs Agent vs Owner
• Implicit epistemology from previous experience 
• Theory of Personal Constructs

[Paul] – Here are the links to the stuff on mandevillian intelligence, which was one of the topics we discussed in today’s meeting:

• Smart, P. R. (2018) Mandevillian Intelligence. Synthese, 195(9), 4169–4200. [link] 
   
• Smart, P. R. (2018) Mandevillian Intelligence: From Individual Vice to Collective Virtue. In A. J. Carter, A. Clark, J. Kallestrup, O. S. Palermos & D. Pritchard (Eds.), Socially Extended Epistemology (pp. 253–274). Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK. [link]

[Paul] – Links to stuff on Internet-extended knowledge include:

• Smart, P. R., & Clowes, R. W. (2021) Intellectual Virtues and Internet-Extended Knowledge. Social Epistemology Review and Reply Collective, 10(1), 7–21. [link]
   
• Smart, P. R. (submitted) Shedding Light on the Extended Mind: HoloLens, Holograms, and Internet-Extended Knowledge. Frontiers in Psychology. [link]

[Liz] – For those interested in the George Kelly theory of personal constructs please see attached an old paper of mine ((not published but used for teaching) which has some references. => Microsoft Word – Research Methods Report – Repertory Grid in Organization Studies Liz Varga FINAL (sharepoint.com)

[Anne GUINARD]

I think the DT toolkit report is a great artefact to mention in preparation for Jam 3. Its content resonates with many of the ideas mentioned in the posts above.
It was published in February 2021 by DT Hub members with the objective to aid organisations to consider the need for a digital twin and what it can be used for.

It touches on the following subjects:

What is a digital twin? @Gary Todd (Famiio) , on the necessity to provide hard numbers as evidence of successful DTs How to make a case for a digital twin? (a business case template is attached to the report) Sophistication levels: as you  mentioned @Teknick , it is important to identify the level of sophistication (capabilities of the DT: whether it is informative, predictive, prescriptive …) required to meet the use case for which it is being developed What are the main steps to develop and deploy a digital twin? Additionally, I wanted to mention the DT Toolkit Collaborative Workshop, which was developed as a follow on from the DT Toolkit report. It is intended to help organisations to run online workshops, bringing together colleagues to start to co-create the business case for a digital twin. This is a great conversation starter to drive internal buy-in and set clear action items to start the journey.

[Anne GUINARD]

On 20/09/2021 at 12:15, JoaoF said:

Hi @Anne thank you for sharing this great insight. It sounds like the process-model based methodology can work as an overall roadmap to identify and address roadblocks at different stages on the DT journey and help starting off the DT project.

You mention the definition of the information requirements as a major challenging step for organisations – is this the blocker you want us to take to the workshop? Thank you!

Indeed @JoaoF in the context of the first workshop, we would like to raise the definition of information requirements as a key challenge. We believe that applying a process-model based methodology can help organisations to overcome this challenge, by offering a systematic approach to identifying the information requirements and when information is most cost-effectively created. 

[Anne GUINARD]

Specifying the key decisions / interventions that your digital twin will make and the information needed to support them

A challenge that, as the IMF team, we would like to bring to the forefront:

The starting point of a digital twin (DT) project is an original issue or purpose, a use case or use cases the project needs to address. Once the original purpose for the DT project is outlined, we have found that a challenging step for organisations is to define the information requirements that will ensure that the DT (or DTs) resulting from the project collects the right information and information of the right quality to support the decisions/interventions it must take/make to be fit for purpose.

We believe that the following process-model based methodology provides an efficient route to specifying these information requirements:

• identify the core process(es), lifecycle processes (for instance periodic lifecycles like budgeting, asset lifecycles …), common processes (procurement, recruitment …) involved in the use case. You will likely need a DT (or DTs) of these core and lifecycle processes (or phases of them) and/or of the assets involved.
• develop the models of these processes to at least the level where you can identify the key decisions/interventions
  • specify the decisions/interventions that the DT will take/make
• develop and document the requirements for the information needed to support these decisions/interventions
  • specify the processes that the DT will use to create/capture the required data

Processes across organisations within a same industry and even across industries bear many commonalities. We believe that organisations would greatly benefit from the provision of standard process models that could be tailored to their specific context, helping them to identify the right information requirements for their DT projects.

[Anne GUINARD]

Many thanks to @Matthewand @Al_ and everybody on this chat for all your comments and questions.

We are now coming to the end of our live discussion, but we will keep this space open in case you have further thoughts or questions and will continue to monitor the discussion.

Thank you all very much again!

[Anne GUINARD]

Hello @Al_, to continue the discussion on tools further to @Helena‘s post … I am aware that you have begun to survey the landscape of existing tools to see if some of them may be helpful to determine information requirements … Would you like to share some of your findings?

[Anne GUINARD]

Hello @Al_and @Matthew, further to the presentation at the Gemini call on the 06/07, a question was asked about how the proposed approach to identify information requirements fits with existing approaches / standards. It would be great to hear your thoughts on this.

[Anne GUINARD]

Welcome to the start of today’s live Q&A chat with NDTp’s Matthew West and Al Cook dedicated to the Information Management Framework and in particular, the identification of Information Requirements. A big thank you to Matthew and Al for hosting the event.

Matthew and Al are waiting to take your thoughts and questions. Join the conversation . . .

[Anne GUINARD]

Recap on the DT toolkit workshop on the 30/10  and update on the current progress

 

THE WORKSHOP ON THE 30/10

During our DT toolkit workshop on the 30/10, thanks to the active contribution of the numerous (51) attendees, we sense-checked a draft use case framework consisting of 3 areas.

– We started with the presentation of the use case framework and its 3 areas:

              

[Anne GUINARD]

The DT Hub community identified in this document 28 uses cases,  among which 12 were considered as horizontal, high-value, use cases:

1. Open Sharing of Data

2. Asset Registration

3. Scenario Simulation

4. Occupant/User Management

5. Environmental Management

6. Traffic Management

7. Process Optimization

8. Asset Monitoring

9. Carbon Monitoring

10. Resource Management

11. Resilience Planning

12. Risk Management