Using Step 1, clearly state what standards you use to evaluate the serendipity of your system.
With our definition and other features of the model in mind, we propose the following standards for evaluating serendipity in computational systems. These criteria allow the evaluator to assess the degree of seredipity that is present in a given system’s operation.
The system can be said to have a prepared mind, consisting of previous experiences, background knowledge, a store of unsolved problems, skills, expectations, and (optionally) a current focus or goal. It then processes a serendipity trigger that is at least partially the result of factors outside of its control, including randomness or unexpected events. The system then uses reasoning techniques and/or social or otherwise externally enacted alternatives to create a bridge from the trigger to a result. The result is evaluated as useful, by the system and/or by an external source.
Serendipity, and its various dimensions, can be present to a greater or lesser degree. If the criteria above have been met, we consider the system (and optionally, generate ratings as estimated probabilities) along several dimensions: (\(\mathbf{a}\): chance) how likely was this trigger to appear to the system? (\(\mathbf{b}\): curiosity) On a population basis, comparing similar circumstances, how likely was the trigger to be identified as interesting? (\(\mathbf{c}\): sagacity) On a population basis, comparing similar circumstances, how likely was it that the trigger would be turned into a result? Finally, we ask, again, comparing similar results where possible: (\(\mathbf{d}\): value) How valuable is the result that is ultimately produced? Low likelihood \(\mathbf{a}\times\mathbf{b}\times\mathbf{c}\) and high value \(\mathbf{d}\) are the criteria we use to say that the event was “highly serendipitous.”
Finally, if the criteria from Part A are met, and if the event is deemed “highly serendipitous” according to the criteria in Part B, then in order to deepen our qualitative understanding of the serendipitous behaviour, we ask: To what extent does the system exist in a dynamic world, spanning multiple contexts, featuring multiple tasks, and incorporating multiple influences?
Test your serendipitous system against the standards stated in Step 2 and report the results.
In Section \ref{sec:computational-serendipity} we pilot our framework by examining the degree of serendipity of existing computational systems and looking for ways that their serendipity could be enhanced. We will also use the framework to guide the high-level design of a novel system.