How’s the outlook?: Right location, wrong forecast…


I “had” to share Part 1 of this blog earlier, under the title “Who wants to pay for Professional vanity?“.

There is little I feel I can/should add to Part 2. Well, other than, READ IT and, if you have an interest in the “hard science” take on complexity, read more!

Risk introduced by modellers of risk management – part 2.

Management focus should be on balancing all the historical information to develop a pragmatic strategy. This challenge quickly becomes non-trivial when dealing with systems with high complexity. What are needed are tools that can identify patterns within data and seek out quickly those parameters which affect the behaviour of systems at a macroscopic level. Management focus should also be on identifying sources of uncertainty in order to mitigate or eliminate them. What are not needed are more models that pretend to predict risk. And of course, some common sense is always helpful.

Risk: Things that Cannot be Modelled Should not be Modelled


Ludwig Wittgenstein sustained that “what cannot be debated should not be debated”.

Ontonix say that what cannot be modelled should not be modelled. Otherwise one faces making massive investments with no tangible return. Based on our current understanding of physics and using our contemporary mathematics certain things are “impossible to model”.

Our (Ontonix) approach “flies in the face” of conventional wisdom but a host of high profile supporters are already advocating a shift of focus AWAY from risk modelling – using incomplete data to try to predict the future.

Ontonix are the first company to offer a model free means of Quantitative complexity analysis and management.