Talk:Operational intelligence

message: Currently this article has only one reference, to the company website OperationalIntelligence.com, which itself links back to this Wikipedia page for credibility. NPOV should be restored. On the point that "Wikipedia is not a respository for lists, directories or advocacy of commercial products and/or websites": there is precedent for commercial vendors to be listed in articles (cf. []). The real issue here is that this is a poorly written article, and commercial content has to be integrated into the actual article content. For example, if companies have shaped the operational intelligence landscape, then they deserve mention in a History section. If there are different types of OI products, then those should be featured as product types (again, see []). --74.71.50.44 (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV & Expert attention

message: * Removed listings of commercial products and companies.  Listing of selected companies can be seen as representing bias or endorsing more weight on a few "selected' companies.  It's probably best to continue keeping references like this out of the article in order to maintain Wikipedia's Neutral point of view This decision was also taken previously for other articles such as Complex Event Processing and Stream Processing.  
* As policy states, Wikipedia is not a repository for lists, directories or Advocacy of commercial products and/or websites. NPOV requires views to be represented without bias, this applies not only to article text, but to companies, products, external links, and any other material as well. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of companies, products or external links.
Bardcom 20:38, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have just removed the section "Vendors with Operational Intelligence Solutions", as it was just another list of companies. Lmatt (talk) 19:37, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Products

message: This use of the term "Operational Intelligence" is a recent "marketing" introduction of Ventana Research in 2006.  A more common, permanent, and accepted use is in the military, meaning "intelligence that is required for planning and conducting campaigns and major operations to accomplish strategic objectives within theaters or operational areas".
Perhaps the use here, which appears to be a marketing term not in general use, should be deleted and replaced with an article about military "operational intelligence."  At minimum, there should be a disambiguation entry and a new entry on military "operational intelligence."
Dbmoore (talk) 16:11, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Most terms used in business can easily be labelled as "Marketing" terms.  The term, as used by Ventana, Gartner, Forrester, and other analysts, is well defined.  Perhaps a separate article on military operational intelligence is worthwhile, and if so, then the idea on how to disambiguate can be addressed.  --HighKing (talk) 18:13, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not called 'military operational intelligence' though, just 'Operational Intelligence' or OPINT.  Maybe this article should be renamed 'business operational intelligence'?  92.25.42.216 (talk) 10:12, 20 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Disambiguation

message: How well does the future modeling capture what is actually happening in real time in operations, beyond computer data? Systems maintenance, personal involved, and chaotic systems analysis 166.181.80.153 (talk) 04:55, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Future modeling anomolies