[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Cooperation TGF and "Smart Lean Government"
Hi, Several of us on the TC have been in a conversation over the last couple of months with members of the US-based Enterprise Architecture Shared Interest Group (EA-SIG) of the Industry Advisory Council (IAG), which has produced a piece of
work called “Smart Lean Government” (SLG). Although the starting point and main constituency of interest is an Enterprise Architecture viewpoint, we have identified considerable commonality and overlap with TGF to discuss possible cooperation. The main interest from SLG is to establish
some common “principles and guidelines” deliverable that could be co-branded by SLG and TGF – and to promote this now, precisely given the increased attention given in public debates about cost-cutting and improved efficiency of public sector services (in
the US, the “fiscal cliff” debacle and the ongoing issues around public service cutbacks are very much in the fore). Colin Wallis and myself took part in a “town hall” presentation in DC last November during the Enterprise Architecture conference held there. We were a little sceptical about the “fit” with our work but were prepared to talk further with
the SLG people. We were unfortunately not able to take part in a dinner discussion together that same evening because of other urgent and unrelated business. I did agree with SLG however to bring the work to the attention of the TC for discussion and consideration. There are three issues that are raised:
1.
Possibility of a joint, co-branded deliverable: under some mutually-acceptable title and description, the idea is to draw on the best of both works, SLG and TGF. The “placeholder” label we have for the moment is “Customer Driven Services”.
Attached is an early draft of a possible joint document. It is incomplete as it contains details from the SLG “side” but has only rudimentary elements from TGF. I would ask members of the TC to look it through and consider whether there is scope for some joint
work here. If there is, we should consider appointing a couple of TC members to work on drafting the TGF input to this;
2.
How would the deliverable be…well…delivered? Given issues in the past with TC’s producing works together with third parties, the “Committee Note” concept was born. We need to consider whether we publish a TC committee note or whether
this would be something to be published by the Member Section (and obviously only if we decide in the affirmative to go ahead with a joint initiative);
3.
The IAC/EA-SIG would like to go even further and are raising also the idea that a new legal entity be created to promote the work (under a similar legal structure as OASIS itself). I expressed my concern that this was beyond anything
OASIS has ever done in the past for a particular deliverable (the trend is rather in the opposite direction – existing organizations being subsumed as member sections within OASIS) but stated that I didn’t personally see a problem if that were the will of
the groups and enough support was there. I can report more on the initiative at this week’s TC meeting but any comments on the three points above would be welcome in the meantime. All the best, Peter
P.O. Box 49719, Los Angeles, CA 90049, USA Tel: +1.310.694.2278
|
Attachment:
PG Draft 1-12-13 v2.0 PCC.DOCX
Description: PG Draft 1-12-13 v2.0 PCC.DOCX
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]