I’ve been following your blog for several months now and I just need to point out the fact that you have a real credibility problem. The yarns you spin just can’t possibly be true. If they were, you’d probably be either incarcerated or institutionalized by now. Furthermore, I think it’s pretty arrogant that it’s all about you and your experience, as if that gives you the right to shove this rubbish down our throats. Who do you think you are anyway? Business is about profit, not people. This ‘people’ stuff is a waste of time.
CIO in Chicago
Dear CIO in Chicago,
Thank you for your candid and thoughtful feedback. It is clear that you spent a considerable amount of time organizing your thoughts and articulating them for me in such a succinct fashion. I am afraid, however, that I must disagree with you on most of your points. In fact, all of the personal vignettes are completely factual. I am neither embarrassed by nor do I apologize for having lived an interesting life. As to arrogance, it had never occurred to me before that sharing my own insights could be considered arrogant since I am the person closest to them. And that seems consistent with the nature of experience. Once one has experienced something, even if it is the insight of someone else, it becomes ones own experience as well. I’m not likely to be foolish enough to attempt escape from that particular paradox any time soon. From your grammar and your use of single quotation marks, I suspect that you are either a programmer or an MBA. It occurs to me that perhaps you should un-follow Parnassus Musings and seek enlightenment somewhere else. An elegant suggestion as to where that might be eludes me.
Ever your servant,
When I first discovered your blog, I was very excited to find it. Here was a site (I thought) devoted to Business Intelligence and I looked forward to a stream of great technical tips and tools. Instead, all you publish are these poor man’s “Ask Abby” type articles, dispensing advice on topics that are not relevant to BI at all. You really need to find some focus or get someone else to write these for you.
Dear PC Doug,
I am always happy to hear from my readers, particularly if it is in the form of feedback. On the one hand, your criticism hits home because such was what I had in mind when I first set out on this project. The reality is, most people involved in BI do not understand much of the technical side. I found this out when I sent several articles out for BI professionals to critique ahead of publication. The overwhelming response was that the technical articles were too narrow in viewpoint for my practice and that if I published very many of them I would likely have a readership base of about five people. Instead, I have opted for topics of more pan-applicability. That is to say, I am attempting to draw business users, analysts, and executives into a leading practice discussion. As to the somewhat “self-help” format, all I can say is that it is not easy to keep the publishing pipeline filled while maintaining quality, even with a semi-monthly cadence. I must use the ideas as they come to me and they come to me largely through people. QED, that is why the focus on people.
I am a little surprised that you do not think that people topics are relevant to BI. You are the second reader to suggest such a concept and I am confused, quite frankly. People run businesses and people have intelligence, not technology. What you assert is akin to suggesting that an article about salmon and their habits is irrelevant in a fishing magazine, where only discussions about rods and reels and lures should appear. Such an assertion is ludicrous. If you are truly stuck for technical reading, I have a pile of documentation from past IT projects that I use for a doorstop. I would be happy to send you the entire mess gratis.
I really have to hand it to you. You take the prize for sheer bald-faced temerity. On the one hand you publish a rant on good grammar full of errors of fact as well as grammatical gaffs aplenty. Then you turn around and invent terms such as “pan-applicable.” There should be rules on the Internet to protect readers from irresponsible people like you who have deluded themselves into thinking that they can write.
G. R. Harris
Thank you so much for your considered feedback. I have read your thoughts through several times, interspersed with an equal number of double bourbon shots. As I mentioned in The Grammar Nag, I am no saint when it comes to my abuse of the English tongue. And while I appreciate that you have a point of view and are willing to express it publicly, I consider it to be ill informed. I research all my articles thoroughly as well as have them proofread by others prior to publication. This includes the article in question. As for terms such as “pan-applicable,” they describe perfectly the important big-picture concepts about which I write and I stand by my right to invent them as opposed to corrupting the meaning of an already existing term that does not clearly express my meaning. May I suggest that a subscription to The Reader’s Digest might be more to your liking?
How in the world did you come up with a name as ridiculous as BIMuse? And for that matter, what does Parnassus this and Parnassus that have to do with anything let alone Business Intelligence?
Please stop sending me your feedback. I know it is you and I know you think you could do this better. May I suggest that you write your own blog?
Seriously, and with apologies to Mom, feedback is good and we are now more than nine months into this venture. What feedback do you have for BIMuse? Are there particular topics you might like to see me cover in the future?