OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

soa-rm-ra message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] random and nonrandom thoughts on governance

With regards to Bob's governance functions and the
diagram I uploaded:

"Decisions required" are captured as Decision Makers.

"Enactment" is captured in rules and policies.

"Enforcement" is captured as part of measurability
against policy, the management structure, and dispute

"Adjudication/Mediation" is captured as a relationship
between management and dispute resolution.

With regards to Ken's diagram: 

I see the heart of a regulation as a rule. Ken, maybe
you can elaborate about the difference between a rule
and a regulation.  How measurability and compliance
fit does not jump out at me from looking at the

When I was drawing the governance diagram, I
flip-flopped on statements I made in the meeting about
using organization.  When thinking about the diagram,
participant combined with social structure carried
more meaning for me than organization. 

In Ken's summary, he caught all of the issues I was
pondering while drawing the diagram. 


--- Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org> wrote:

> I'm looking at the diagram I uploaded at the
> beginning of yesterday's  
> meeting and at the diagram Danny uploaded after the
> meeting and I'm  
> trying to merge all this with what was said during
> the meeting.   
> Let's see where this collection of thoughts takes me
> (and you hearty  
> enough to read on).
> I started with the diagrams but then got stuck on
> Bob's thoughts on  
> governance where there is one "type" that has
> overriding authority  
> and another "type" where somewhat independent groups
> work together .   
> We've often talk about this as within enterprises
> and across  
> enterprises but for this discussion I'd like to call
> them  
> Authoritative and Cooperative.  How do these fit
> with the diagrams?   
> Well, they could be subclasses of Governance but I
> think they may  
> more appropriately be at (or near) the ends of a
> (maybe continuous,  
> maybe stepwise) spectrum.  We'll see where that goes
> later.
> To back up a second, note that my diagram has
> Participants agreeing  
> to Governance and Danny has Governance having
> jurisdiction over  
> Participants.  After a chuckle or two, I think these
> can work  
> together because part of what the participant agrees
> to is being  
> under a jurisdiction.  Participants can remove
> themselves from a  
> jurisdiction by moving in some physical sense (e.g.
> where you live or  
> where you work) or by selectively ignoring the
> Governance (e.g.  
> outright defiance or the time honored approach of
> slow-rolling).   
> This doesn't cover being born in an authoritarian
> (note difference  
> with authoritative) regime and having no escape, but
> for SOA I think  
> we can consider that an edge case.
> So I start with Participants who may be members of
> Organizations.  I  
> could just note that an Organization can be a
> Participant and do away  
> with this but I wanted to show (although didn't
> include the  
> cardinality) that a Participant can be a member of
> more than one  
> Organization and both the Participant and the
> Organization can (and  
> do) come under multiple sets of Governance Processes
> (yes, it should  
> probably be plural in my diagram).
> While we're at subclasses of Participant, Danny has
> Decision Makers  
> as a subclass and these entities do all the
> governance work.  I don't  
> think this is accurate because it isn't always
> "decision makers" that  
> express Goals.  Participants can act as individuals
> or  
> representatives of organizations.  If representing
> an organization,  
> they probably act with some level of cognizance by
> Decision Makers  
> but the specifics (at least at some level of detail)
> may not  
> (probably not?) have Decision Makers review.  I
> would say the whole  
> Participant/Decision Maker combination is
> demonstrated by Working  
> Group/TC participants.  On the other hand, I see a
> correspondence  
> between Danny's Decision Makers and my
> Representative Body, so let's  
> not downplay it too quickly.  (Note, I am no more
> ond of Decision  
> Makers than I was of Representative Body.  Any other
> suggestions?)
> So let's get back to Authoritative and Cooperative
> Governance.  With  
> Authoritative governance, there is a recognized
> entity who should be  
> running things.  This says nothing about whether the
> recognized  
> entity is officially blessed or whether it is
> particularly  
> effective.  The recognized entity is almost
> certainly a Participant  
> and a Decision Maker.
> With Cooperative governance, the independent
> entities agree to a  
> Governance Framework under which there will be
> Governance Processes,  
> and the collection of independent entities form the
> Decision Makers.   
> Actually, the collection becomes the recognized
> entity of the  
> Authoritative governance.
> Is it appropriate to say that any Governance
> requires cooperation and  
> the question of authoritative is really
> authoritative to whom and can  
> you make decisions (reflected through Rules and
> Policies) stick?  If  
> this is true, a single governance diagram covers
> both cases without  
> either being explicitly represented in the diagram.
> Some other notes on Danny's diagram:
> - My intent for Governance Framework is it would
> form the structure  
> for the Governance Processes rather than "support"
> it.
> - Management needs to have more than knowledge of
> policy; it has to  
> provide direction for Management.
> With respect to Bob's question of where functions
> fit in, there are  
> processes for performing functions and rules and
> regulations that  
> provide details.  The operational how falls to
> management.  That  
> said, I don't think functions get added to the
> diagrams but can be  
> included in the accompanying text.
> Something captured in my diagram I don't think
> appears in others is  
> the idea that participants create local management
> to create local  
> rules and regulations in addition to those that may
> be created more  
> globally.  Thus, Management Body is instantiated at
> multiple levels.
> While writing this, I have been modifying my diagram
> to capture these  
> and other thoughts.  The result so far is no
> additional classes but  
> many additional relationships.  I think it is an
> improvement but YMMV.
> One final thing: processes for assessing and
> enforcing compliance  
> have to be part of the Governance Processes and the
> particulars are  
> defined by Rules and Regulations.  This includes
> adjudication, from  
> voluntary negotiation to no-nonsense enforcement. 
> Compliance is with  
> Rules and Regulation, not Policy; here, I define
> Policy as statements  
> of what you want to occur whereas Rules and
> Regulations supply the  
> metrics on which compliance is evaluated.  Now  the
> last couple  
> sentences may form the basis of a couple more lines
> on the attached  
> diagram, but frankly at the moment I'm not up to
> adding them.
> Diagram is attached for those who can see it
> directly.  For others,  
> I'll upload to OASIS.
> Ken
> ------------------
> Ken Laskey
> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305     phone:  703-983-7934
> 7515 Colshire Drive                        fax:     
>   703-983-1379
> McLean VA 22102-7508

Be a better Heartthrob. Get better relationship answers from someone who knows. Yahoo! Answers - Check it out. 

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]