Difference between revisions of "Success criteria"
| (2 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
A set of formally defined success criteria helps to determine the states of projects, therefore, can provide useful feedback to adjust or terminate a project. success criteria is similar to the [[test case]]s of a software function, that after certain computable function is performed, the results could be asserted ahead of time. These assertive statements can be considered as a primitive form of [[success criteria]]. | A set of formally defined success criteria helps to determine the states of projects, therefore, can provide useful feedback to adjust or terminate a project. success criteria is similar to the [[test case]]s of a software function, that after certain computable function is performed, the results could be asserted ahead of time. These assertive statements can be considered as a primitive form of [[success criteria]]. | ||
==A Mechanism to reach Certainty== | |||
In other parts of [[logic model]], statements can be defined using quantitative descriptions and they can be fuzzy or imprecise. In the section of [[success criteria]], information presented here must offer logical consistency, precision, and resource boundaries, in other words, when does this project stop. This kind of statements are naturally related to spacetime resources, and therefore can be formalized using more formal semantics. In the past, when most information about a project is written on paper, or remembered in human minds. In [[PKC]], especially equipped with [[Semantic MediaWiki]] features, every piece of information could be bound to a [[common clock]], which provides the ordering sequence of events. The data provided by the [[common clock]] is the penetraing namespace that could suggests some form of [[causal relation]]s and also offer a single source of truth to all data captured in [[PKC]]. | |||
<noinclude> | <noinclude> | ||
=References= | =References= | ||
<references/> | <references/> | ||
| Line 17: | Line 22: | ||
[[Category:Verification]] | [[Category:Verification]] | ||
[[Category:Validation]] | [[Category:Validation]] | ||
</noinclude> | </noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 06:08, 4 September 2021
Every project should have relevant success criteria defined locally. On the most abstract level, the success criteria of projects in general can be defined as follows:
- Soundness: A sound project should be able to demonstrate/prove its internal logical consistency.
- Precision: All activities and resources in a project are accounted for in precise measures.
- Terminable: A project should be able to reach a concluding state.
A set of formally defined success criteria helps to determine the states of projects, therefore, can provide useful feedback to adjust or terminate a project. success criteria is similar to the test cases of a software function, that after certain computable function is performed, the results could be asserted ahead of time. These assertive statements can be considered as a primitive form of success criteria.
A Mechanism to reach Certainty
In other parts of logic model, statements can be defined using quantitative descriptions and they can be fuzzy or imprecise. In the section of success criteria, information presented here must offer logical consistency, precision, and resource boundaries, in other words, when does this project stop. This kind of statements are naturally related to spacetime resources, and therefore can be formalized using more formal semantics. In the past, when most information about a project is written on paper, or remembered in human minds. In PKC, especially equipped with Semantic MediaWiki features, every piece of information could be bound to a common clock, which provides the ordering sequence of events. The data provided by the common clock is the penetraing namespace that could suggests some form of causal relations and also offer a single source of truth to all data captured in PKC.
References