[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [tgf] TGF Pattern Language work
To
offer up comments on this thread will take some serious deep reading of Peter's
WD02! But
a couple of observations to bear in mind that are arising out of this great exercise
are: 1)
the 'layers' of GP/Delivery Areas/CSF..and then the retrospective lens of
conformance..are becoming more delineated, which I think clarifies the framework
for the audience 2)
the rationale of PL for machine readability as a means to conform is a great
litmus test. The computer logic of 1s and 0s is a neat way to ensure us humans (with
more circuituous logic) are in step, when we write this. Cheers Colin
From: Peter F Brown
[mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com] Chris, John, thanks
for the constructive comments. Firstly, I agree
that, as an objective, we should ensure that the collection of patterns avoids
duplication. Secondly, each
pattern should address a distinct problem and for which there should be a
distinct sense of what is needed in order to be deemed to have
“conformed” Part of the
“problem” in the drafting is possibly down to the grouping and
implicit classification. Each of the items currently bagged as a guiding
principles or as a CSF is in fact a distinct issue (Customer Insight,
Leadership, Future Proofing, etc) and “just happen” to also be
guiding principles or CSFs. The essence of pattern languages writing is to get
to the core of each distinct issue and – as you rightly point out –
eliminate duplication. Maybe it was
unfortunate that I started the exercise with the Guiding Principles and
Critical Success Factors rather than in the delivery sections. As you rightly
point out, the substance is in these four delivery areas and if we had started
there, we would probably identify many of the current patterns under the first
two sections as redundant. If we strip out the labels and categories of Guiding
Principles and Critical Success Factors, we nonetheless still address core
issues that may be either duplicated elsewhere or treated in more detail in
another pattern. Wherever we bag them, they are distinct problems. I understand where
you see the problems with the current formulation. I do agree that there is
probably a single pattern for Guiding Principles and CSFs but we need to
distinguish between; -
Patterns
that state some higher-level or general principle such as “make sure you
have guiding principles and use them” or “manage and measure
CSFs”; and -
Patterns
that state a distinct problem (such as “Leadership”) and which
happen also to be considered as being guiding principles
or CFSs – that is the source of the ambiguity. To clarify the point,
take an example: the principle of stakeholder engagement is central to many
aspects of the TGF. On one level it is a pattern; at another level, it is too
vague and is better formulated as a series of more specific patterns; at yet another
level, it is a critical success factor. In summary, I think
the litmus test is to determine whether a single pattern deals with a distinct
issue or not, wherever it might be currently placed. Below is a first
attempt to regroup along those lines – the main criterion used is: how
discrete is the material currently available? It’s an
iterative process – happy that you carry that further. I do think
identifying the main patterns is the priority – once the meat is on the
bones of key patterns, we will be able to identify further redundancy or need
for further distinct patterns… Possible
re-organisation: [1] Guiding
Principles – combine with [17] Roadmap for Transformation [2] Customer Insight
– combine with [9] User Focus [3] Customer Centered
Services – combine with [36] Personal Data under Citizen Control [4] Transformation
with the Citizen – combine with [38] Citizens Add Public Value [6] Manage Critical
Success Factors – combine with [24] Risk Management [8] Leadership
– combine with [7] Strategic Clarity, [19] Sustained Support, and [23]
Policy Management [10] Stakeholder
Engagement –combine with [18] Collaborative Governance and [33] Map All
Stakeholders [11] Skills [13] Future Proofing
– combine with [34] SOA Principles, and [35] Shared Services [14] Achievable
Delivery – combine with [15] Benefit Realization [16] Independent
Review of Performance [21] Transformational
Business Model [22] Franchise
Marketplace – combine with [5] Grow the Market and [12] Supplier
Partnership [25] Brand-Led
Service Delivery – combine with [37] Product Management ? [26] Citizen
Empowerment – combine with [27] Citizen Identity Management [28] Multiple Channel
Delivery [29] Channel
Management [30] System
Realization and Governance [31] Interoperability
using Open Standards [32] Information
Resource Management – combine with [20] Common Terminology [39] Open Government
Data to Re-Use Hope that helps! Best regards, Peter From: John
Borras [mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk] Peter Now that we can see the PLs in black and white I must say
I have some sympathy with Chris’s comments. As I was reading
through your draft WD02 two things struck me. First the amount of
duplication ie having read the Guiding Principles much of that re-appeared or
was referenced in the delivery processes’ patterns, and second the
lack of any real conformance requirement in each of the individual Guiding
Principles and CSFs. That made me wonder whether we had cut the cake
correctly and also ask the basic question of what exactly the TGF Standard
should constitute in terms of things implementers have to do to be
compliant. And basically the things that need to be done are in the
delivery processes whilst the GPs and CSFs are supportive and supplementary to
those elements. So Chris’ suggestion of a single pattern for the
GPs and CSFs feels right to me on reflection, each saying “you must have
a set of GPs or CSFs and by the way here is our recommended set which you can
vary and add to but you must not contradict”. I know we’ve had a good deal of discussion in the
working sessions on this point before but I think nobody was really too sure
which way to jump on it until they had seen something. Now that we have
something to look at and understand I think we can see which is the better
approach. As Chris says It’s not about throwing away all your hard
work to date, and many thanks for that effort, it’s more a case of
recasting it. I’m ready to help either with any re-casting of
what you’ve produced so far or writing new patterns. Perhaps
before we get stuck into the new patterns we need to resolve this issue and do
any re-casting work? All If necessary we can defer a decision on this point until
the next TC call but it would be good if we can reach early agreement and hence
make further progress before that call. So can I ask for views in the
next few days please. Regards John Borras Chair OASIS TGF Technical Committee m. +(0)44 7976 157745 Skype: gov3john www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=tgf From: Chris
Parker [mailto:chris.parker@cstransform.com] Peter Thanks
for all the hard work you’ve been doing on this. For me, it has
helped make real what the pattern language approach means in practice. Up
until now I’ve always struggled a little with the concept, but all the
work you’ve done makes both the approach and the value it will bring much
clearer for me. I started
working through the document this morning, annotating comments and questions on
each of the patterns. But as I did this, it occurred to me that there was
a common driver behind most of my comments. So I thought I should raise a
general question before carrying on with the detail. I wasn’t able
to attend your working group session on this two weeks ago, so apologies if
this is an issue which the group has already thought about and reached a
decision on. In short,
my thought is that the document would be stronger and clearer if we only did
one pattern each on “Guiding Principles” and “Critical Success
Factors”, rather than articulating separate patterns for the individual
principles and CSFs. I have
three reasons for suggesting this: 1)
As it stands, there is a strong
sense of duplication – for example between the guiding principle on
Customer Insight, the CSF on User Focus and the elements of the Customer
Management framework. 2)
The patterns for the individual
principles and CSFs feel to me like they fall somewhat between two
stools. The three-part pattern structure of “context/problem
to be solved/solution” means that that they have been expanded
significantly from the 1 or 2 sentence description in the Primer
– but not to the extent that they yet feel they map out a complete delivery
solution. And yet on the other hand I think that they lose some of the
clarity of communication that the original short versions tried to achieve. 3)
Finally, it feels to me that
every pattern should have within it some clarity about the conformance criteria:
ie how do we know if the pattern is being used effectively? Your present
version largely doesn’t do that – reflecting the fact that we
didn’t set conformance criteria at the level of individual principles and
CSFs in the original Primer. (Instead we set the conformance
criteria at the higher level, ie requiring that a conformant implementation of
the TGF must use the Guiding Principles and must measure and manage the CSFs.) So my
preference would be for the patterns mostly to be confined to the four delivery
areas of Business Management/Customer Management/Channel Management/Technology
Management (where I thought that the number and level of patterns seemed just
right) , with a single pattern for Principles and a single one for
CSFs. I don’t see this as ducking a task, but simply
recognising the overlaps that exist between these parts of the TGF. In
fact, one of the things that your work on the patterns has brought out more
clearly for me is the extent to which these three elements of the Primer (Principles/Delivery
Areas/CSFs) address the same issues, but in different ways for different
audiences: ·
The Guiding Principles try to
distil the core essence of the TGF approach, in a set of business principles
which can be intuitively understood and which can form the basis of top
leadership commitment across the government to a new sort of approach ·
The four delivery Frameworks then
set out the meat of the TGF, articulating in detail what needs to be done in
order to put the principles into practice ·
The CSFs then cover the same
scope of issues, but through the lens of quality assurance and for the benefit
largely of those involved in periodic health-checking.of the TGF program. What do
you and others think? If the alternative approach I’m suggesting
sounds worth trying, I’d be happy to do a first cut at what the top-level
single pattern for Principles and for CSFs might look like. Much of the
content in your individual patterns we would then want to move to relevant
parts of the Business Management/Customer Management/Channel
Management/Technology Management patterns. But like
I say, apologies if I’m reopening an old issue! Regards, Chris
Parker Managing
Partner, CS Transform Ltd, +44 7951 754 060 From: Peter F
Brown [mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com] Hi, Somewhat
belatedly, I can give an update on work being done of the drat Pattern Language Attached is an
interim, incomplete draft (WD02) of the TGF-PL deliverable. Following the
working group meeting held two weeks ago, I proceeded with the first steps in a
methodology: -
Identify each and every
conformance criterion in the TGF Primer -
From the criteria, identify
possible “candidate” patterns; -
Add patterns that contribute to
the whole; -
Remove patterns that are
redundant or can be better expressed as part of a larger pattern; I then started
the work of transposing text from the TGF Primer to the Pattern Language
document: -
Identify the core “imperative”
statement for each pattern, based on the conformance statement in the Primer; -
Add text that relates a
particular pattern to others; -
Add text that serves as the
prose body of the pattern, taken from the Primer and other contributions; -
Add references back to the
Primer where appropriate in the “completion” statement of each
pattern; As a result of a
couple of cycles, the number of proposed patterns has gone up and down and has
now stabilised at under 40. The interim
result attached reflects this process applied systematically. As a result, -
the first 15 patterns are
finished; -
another half dozen are nearly
finished; -
the skeleton of the remaining
patterns is in place As I am
“in the zone”, I’m happy to continue this tomorrow and should
be able to complete another dozen or so of the patterns but after that I will
be travelling for the remainder of the week. Can I ask all
members of the TC to: -
take a look and give any
comments about whether the draft is going in the right direction; -
indicate whether the completed
patterns satisfy the conformance criteria that we have nominally indicated
in the Primer; -
submit any comments or queries
on the nature and content of the document. Can you also
indicate whether you will be able to lend a hand at writing a few patterns, now
that the structure and practice is clearer. As an indication, you should allow
30-45 minutes per pattern to go through the steps outlined above. I will
continue tomorrow in any case, proceeding sequentially through the text. I will
then only be able to return to this after tomorrow on Sunday 12th
and Monday 13th. If you are
willing to write some patterns, please let me know, and I will send you the
.docx file to work with. For reference,
we are due to decide at our TC meeting on Thursday 16th: -
whether to proceed with moving
this working draft to a full “Committee Specification Draft”
– which involves shifting the content to the new formal template and
completing the set of patterns, at least as a first draft; -
agreeing a timetable to finish
a first formal draft for adoption by the Committee and releasing it for public
review Best regards, Peter Peter F Brown Independent Consultant Transforming our Relationships with
Information Technologies P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA Tel: +1.310.694.2278
CAUTION: This email message and any attachments contain information that may be confidential and may be LEGALLY PRIVILEGED. If you are not the intended recipient, any use, disclosure or copying of this message or attachments is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email message in error please notify us immediately and erase all copies of the message and attachments. Thank you. ==== |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]