[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] My refactor of the willingness and trust diagram :)
I have to weigh in. About a year ago I recommended a definition of Trust as "continuous performance to commitment." Ken, Frank, and/or several others corrected me that this definition was of "how to build trust", not trust. However, I do not give up on ideas based on my experience. It seems to me that trust has a couple of interesting attributes. First, for lack of a better term, trust is transitive. If I trust someone judgment on a particular topic and they trust someone else's judgment on the same topic, then I have more of a tendency to trust the second person. For example, I trust my primary care doctor (body mechanic). He recommends that I go to a specialist for a physical problem. I immediately have a level of trust, since most of the time, the specialists he recommended have been good. However, occasionally the doctor has been uncaring or otherwise semi-incompetent. That is the reason I indicated "a level." Further, there are instances, like the Enron and Madoff scandals, when the trust level for entire industries goes south. "Runs on banks" demonstrate that trust is a discontinuous function. That is, "one Oh Shit...more than equals 1000 Atta Boys." So from my perspective Trust has three attributes 1. it is built on continuous performance to commitment 2. it is somewhat transitive (but not entirely) 3. it is discontinuous--it's built slowly and lost instantly. Maybe all of you came to these conclusions early, but Ken's note seemed to indicate otherwise. My 2 cents--while on vacation. Bob -----Original Message----- From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2009 10:52 PM To: Francis McCabe Cc: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org RA Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] My refactor of the willingness and trust diagram :) My problem with this is there is Evidence and that Evidence may contribute to the assessment of Trust, Risk, both, or neither. Your diagram makes it look like the evidence has to be in one bin or the other. In addition, Willingness does not just come from Trust but rather from an adequate balance, as decided by the Trusting Actor, between Trust and Risk. Also, your Reputation is an orphan with no use other than to be called out. Ken On Jun 25, 2009, at 10:00 PM, Francis McCabe wrote: > <Trust, Risk and Willingness.png> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ----- Ken Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508 --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at: https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]