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] meaning of delegation and adopting goals


Adopting a goal may involve inaction.  Inaction can be determined by measuring the state of the world.  We discussed this briefly at the end of today's meeting.  Real World Effect implies a preceding action and so doesn't take into consideration non-action.  Non-action can be determined by measuring the state of the world.  Here is a proposed modification of 1 and 2:

1)     A has a goal and convinces B to adopt the goal, and B takes action or inaction that results in a measurable state of the world which leads to satisfying the common goal.

2)  A has a goal and raises issues to B that results in B adopting goals (in which the goal of A is part of B's "goals" aggregate) and takes actions or inaction that result in a measurable state of the world -- which in the process of satisfying the goals of B also satisfies the goal of A.

Danny


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] meaning of delegation and adopting goals
From: Ken Laskey <klaskey@mitre.org>
Date: Wed, February 25, 2009 4:49 pm
To: James Odell <email@jamesodell.com>
Cc: "soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org" <soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org>

Jim,

A definite maybe :-)

First the easy part.  I put in "in the B context" because I wanted to emphasize the point you make in why you deleted the phrase.  As long as that is clear, I am good.

For your parenthetical addition, it isn't clear what it means and why "goals" in quotes.  I think we mean the same thing -- common actions leading to common real world effects, irrespective of the stated goals.  For example, I saw a situation where a group of oil company reps and environmentalists were getting nowhere on a set of topics.  The facilitators put the groups in separate rooms and had them discuss their own goals and prospective actions towards those goals.  Turns out the action set was close enough even if the goals were not so that they agreed on actions with no agreement on goals or intent other than to carry out the common actions.

If that works for you, we're there on the what and are at the wordsmithing.

Ken

On Feb 25, 2009, at 6:26 PM, James Odell wrote:

Hi Ken,

Great example.  

Am trying to differentiate the two views of delegation, below.   I think I get it.  But just to make sure.  If I added a few more words to your view #2 — for my clarity — would the following be equivalent to what you meant:

2)  A has a goal and raises issues to B that results in B adopting goals (in which the goal of A is part of B’s “goals” aggregate) and takes actions that result in real world effects -- which in the process of satisfying the goals of B also satisfies the goal of A.

If yes, great.  

Also, note that I removed “in the B context”, because am thinking that whenever B takes actions — whether view 1) or view 2) —  it must occur within a B context, since B is the enabling force of his actions.  How could B act otherwise, than in his own context?  Does this makes sense?  If I’m broken here, please help me see the error of my ways.  :-)

Best regards,
Jim



On 2/25/09 5:15 PM, "Laskey, Ken" indited:

From Rex’s minutes
 
it is asking another to adopt the goal associated with the action with the expectation that the action will be done
 
As I’ve mentioned before, I think we need to take a little different twist.  As a parent, my children often have goals that I do not share but for which they need actions from me in order to accomplish those goals.  Now they know if they can identify a goal on my part that will lead to actions which produce the real world effects they want to see, then their argument is not for me to adopt their goals but rather for me within my context to identify specific goals for which I would take timely actions that would result in their desired real world effects.  For example, they need a ride some place and I have other stuff I need to do and don’t want to take the time.  However, they note that we’re running out of some groceries I usually get from Costco and I really need to go shopping.  Oh, by the way, where they want to go is in the vicinity of Costco and they could just ride along.
 
In summary, delegation could be seen as
1)     A has a goal and convinces B to adopt the goal, and B take actions that result in real world effects which leads to satisfying the common goal.

2)     A has a goal and raises issues to B that results in B adopting goals in the B context and take actions that result in real world effects which in the process of satisfying the goals of B also satisfies the goal of A.


For everyone’s consideration.
 
Ken
 


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken Laskey
MITRE Corporation, M/S H305      phone: 703-983-7934
7515 Colshire Drive                         fax:       703-983-1379
McLean VA 22102-7508







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