Construct · 6 names · 7 citations
Different names. Different fields. One construct. One map.
● jangle · four names, one construct Nearest construct by meaningresult demonstrabilitycompare the meaningsEvery construct on the map is compared with every other by the meaning of its definitions, and the closest one is surfaced here. The nearest construct to observability is result demonstrability.
Hold this as a prompt, not a verdict. Two constructs sitting close in meaning is a reason to read them side by side and decide for yourself whether they are one idea under two names. It is not proof that they are. Compare the meanings in the Collider.
Spokes are the names and the models that coined them; dashed arcs are borrowings. Tap a field for its definition, unit, and measures.
Drag to watch the word get claimed. Each name appears at the publication date of the earliest source cited for it. Tap a year to see which.
The degree to which the results of an innovation are visible to others, the fifth of Rogers's perceived attributes, positively related to rate of adoption because what can be seen can be talked about and copied. Rogers's own examples run together two things: hardware that can be seen in use, and outcomes that can be seen after use. That ambiguity is what the next two nodes on the map were built to resolve. The referent is the innovation as perceived, and the outcome is diffusion through a social system.[1]
The degree to which the innovation itself is visible in the organisation, the first half of what Moore and Benbasat got when their observability items refused to load on one factor in 1991. Visibility asks whether the respondent has seen the technology around, on colleagues' desks and in other departments; it says nothing about whether using it does any good. Agarwal and Prasad carried the subscale into a 1997 field study and found visibility, like trialability, predicted current use rather than intention to keep using. It is the part of Rogers's attribute that is about exposure.[2][3]
The tangibility of the results of using the innovation, including their observability and communicability, the second half of Moore and Benbasat's split, and the half Venkatesh and Davis took into TAM2 in 2000. Its items ask whether the user could tell someone else what the system does for them and whether the consequences of using it are apparent. In TAM2 it is a cognitive-instrumental antecedent of perceived usefulness across four longitudinal field studies, which moves it from a diffusion variable to a determinant of a belief about performance. It is the part of Rogers's attribute that is about outcomes.[2][4]
The degree to which aspects of an innovation may be conveyed to others, the name Tornatzky and Klein used in 1982 when coding seventy-five adoption and implementation studies for ten characteristics, where Rogers's observability sat alongside it as one of the less frequently measured attributes. The word points at the sender rather than the viewer: what can be described, not what can be seen. Their meta-analysis found neither observability nor communicability consistently related to adoption, and blamed the primary studies' post-hoc, cross-sectional designs. The name was coined for the same idea and then dropped by the field that came after.[5]
How well the internal state of a running software system can be understood from the data it emits, the meaning Majors, Fong-Jones, and Miranda fixed in 2022, distinguishing it from monitoring by the ability to answer questions nobody thought to ask in advance. The operational content is structured events, metrics, and distributed traces with high-cardinality fields that can be sliced arbitrarily. The word was taken from control theory, and the engineering community adopted the definition informally rather than the mathematics. Nothing about adoption or perception: this is a property of a system and its instrumentation.[7]
A linear dynamical system is observable if its internal state can be determined uniquely from a finite record of its outputs, Kalman's 1963 formalisation, the dual of controllability, with a rank condition on the observability matrix that decides the question for any system with known matrices. It is a yes-or-no property of the system's equations, not of anyone's perception. The concept made state estimation, and therefore the Kalman filter, possible. It shares a word and one intuition with the rest of this map, namely that what can be inferred from outside is limited by what the system lets out, and nothing else.[6]
Next
Combine items across the observability scales to see whether the meanings separate empirically, or export every reference on this page in one click.
Open in ColliderExport BibTeXReport this collisionCited on this page?
If your work is cited behind one of these entries, you know better than we do whether we captured the meaning right. Confirm it, suggest an edit, or dispute it, and your name goes on the entry as an author who has checked it, linked to your ORCID.
Claim your construct