| I'm fine with most of this, including the two modes. My assertion is that in either mode, P2 has its own intent shaped by its own (or its domain's) goals, objectives, responsibilities, and constraints. Trust on the part of P1 is the attempt to accurately calibrate the likelihood that the intent of P2 will lead to effects that P1 would consider adequately furthering its intent. If P2 was a bonded courier, it would act in the ambassador role and its being bonded would lead to a high degree of trust that the package will be delivered to P3.
Now, having just written that, I would need to rethink where I am talking about confidence and how it relates to trust.
But not now :-)
Ken On Feb 18, 2009, at 5:30 PM, Francis McCabe wrote: The way that we ended up discussing this was that there seemed to be two distinct modes in which 'intent' is 'transmitted' to a third party: ambassador mode and facilitator mode.
In ambassador mode, the middle party's responsibility is limited to one of communication: ensuring that the intent of Participant 1 is faithfully communicated to P3. In such a scenario it is not even necessary for P2 to be aware of P1's intentions: its expression may be encrypted for example.
In facilitator mode, P2 adopts the goal for itself and communicates with P3 as needed in order to achieve the adopted goal. In this case, clearly, P2 must 'understand' in the intent in order to be able to adopt it. In addition, the interaction between P2 and P3 need not be directly about P1's intent but some derived portion of it.
Frank On Feb 18, 2009, at 2:17 PM, Ken Laskey wrote: While I don't disagree with the text on the slide, I would emphasize the following:
Each participant in an ownership domain has goals, objectives, responsibilities, and constraints that are shaped by that domain. When a participant in ownership domain 1 interacts with a particpant in ownership domain 2, the participant in 1 conveys the intent that motivates the interaction. The particpant in ownership domain 2 needs sufficient semantic engagement to understand the intent of participant 1. Also, the participants need (to a varying extent) to be able to establish the identity of the other particpant. Participant 2, upon receiving and, to some extent, understanding the intent of participant 1, creates his own intent that (1) reflects what was received and understood from participant 1 and (2) what can/should be done within the goals, objectives, responsibilities, and constraints of ownership domain 2. The alignment of the intents of the participants depends on the other items that went into forming the intent. Trust on the part of participant 1 for participant 2 is that participant 2 will do things that result in the intent of participant 1 being satisfied. The accountability on the part of participant 2 will determine whether the trust of participant 1 was met, not met, or possibly exceeeded. The assessment of accountability will likely affect trust in the future.
The diagram also shows a similar interaction between participants in ownership domains 2 and 3. The interesting case is when this interaction is needed in the context of something needed to support the participant 1/2 interaction. This may require an implicit or explicit delegation of intent and/or authority in the communications chain. Discussion of the chaining will be put off until a later time.
Ken
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ken Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Ken Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508 |