[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Diagramming trust - another take
Michael,
Am I reading this correctly?
1. Company has a its own governance/set of policies
2. It shops for external services and evaluate their policies to make
sure that they satisfy company's requirements - design time.
3. It potentially creates an agreement with service provider - Scottish
handshake(Sorry Frank) - to establish trust
4. It uses the service at runtime - no governance at this point.
-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Poulin [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 09, 2009 5:51 PM
To: Rex Brooks; Lublinsky, Boris; Ken Laskey
Cc: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Diagramming trust - another take
I also think that 'Governance between ownership boundaries is
unavoidable'. Plus, to Boris' point, the companies interact outside of
their boundaries based on a mixture of external and internal (to the
companies) policies. The interaction succeeds if those policies are not
contradicting. But compatibility of policies is the part of the process
where the consumer decides whether offered service satisfies consumer's
needs. If this work is done inaccurate, the conflicts are possible. SOA
RA cannot prevent such things, it is the consumer's job.
- Michael
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Rex Brooks" <rexb@starbourne.com>
> To: "Lublinsky, Boris" <boris.lublinsky@navteq.com>, "Ken Laskey"
<klaskey@mitre.org>
> Cc: soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Diagramming trust - another take
> Date: Tue, 7 Apr 2009 12:59:17 -0700
>
>
> Governance between ownership boundaries is unavoidable. It just may
> not be organised, rational or acceptable to one's company. Even
> anarchy is governance. It may not be what one's company policies -
> missions care to engage. What is a true business environment? One
> that follows rules you approve? I think competitors will urge one
> adhere to that viewpoint. If there are any competitors.
>
> Cheers,
> Rex
>
> At 2:00 PM -0500 4/7/09, Lublinsky, Boris wrote:
> > I am not convinced that governance between ownership boundaries is
> > achievable. If you are crossing enterprise boundaries, then I think
you
> > are still govern by your company's policies, reflected in intra
> > companies agreement. I do not believe, that in a true business
> > environment you can start using other companies services without at
> > appropriate agreements being put in place. And these agreements
reflects
> > your company policies - missions.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
> > Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:20 AM
> > To: Ellinger, Robert S (IS)
> > Cc: Rex Brooks; James Odell; David E. Ellis; Francis McCabe;
> > soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Diagramming trust - another take
> >
> > I agree with "Governance puts policies in place to enable an
> > organization's mission" but not necessarily the reducing of
> > friction.
> >
> > Different domains have different goals with respect to process
> > friction. Classic government classification and the policies,
> > rules, and regulations put in place were meant to cause as much
> > friction as possible because the underlying goal was to avoid
> > passing information to someone if you had the slightest inkling
> > there was a reason they shouldn't have it. There are other
> > examples where policies are designed to increase friction because
> > the goal is isolation or avoiding challenges.
> >
> > Yes, I believe an important aspect of crossing ownership
> > boundaries is a change in policies. Depending on the goals on
> > both sides of the boundary, policies and derived management may
> > work to smooth over differences (e.g. my drivers license is still
> > valid when I cross state lines) or an actor crossing the boundary
> > may have to handle the differences on his/her own (e.g. there are
> > times you politely smile when you're in someone's house and they
> > say something you find totally outrageous).
> >
> > Ken
> >
> > On Apr 7, 2009, at 8:03 AM, Ellinger, Robert S (IS) wrote:
> >
> >> OK, I think you are helping me to refine my issue with the
diagram.
> >>
> >> Governance puts policies in place to enable an organization's
mission
> >> (goal) and to reduce intra/inter-organizational process friction.
I
> >> think that when you cross an organizational boundary what changes
is
> >> whose policies get enforced. These may reflect, in part,
different
> >> goals, but may also support the reduction in inter-organizational
> >> friction. So while, indirectly a change goals may demarcate the
> >> boundary, directly the boundary is demarcated by a change in
policies;
> >> which is the reason for "customs" at boarders. Thoughts?
> >>
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
> >> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 7:27 AM
> >> To: Ellinger, Robert S (IS)
> >> Cc: Rex Brooks; James Odell; David E. Ellis; Francis McCabe;
> >> soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
> >> Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Diagramming trust - another take
> >>
> >> This is an interesting bit to explore to see if we can make it
clear.
> >>
> >> In section 5, we say that governance expresses policies,
satisfying a
> >> subset of the common goals of its participants. Then, the
mechanisms of
> >> governance and management promote and monitor the details put in
place
> >> so that we can eventually assess whether the policies have been
made
> >> operational. So policies can be seen as things you put in place
because
> >> you believe (sometimes mistakenly) these will lead to your goals.
> > > (Note: there has been no dispute of this in the governance >
> > harmonization
> >> discussion with The Open Group.)
> >>
> >> My goal is to raise responsible children and I express policies to
them,
> >> such as not to drink too much. There are tangible things I can do
to
> >> regulate that within my home (seen as an ownership boundary, but
as
> >> valid without legal ownership if I'm renting or squatting with no
legal
> >> basis for occupancy). When they go out (cross the ownership
boundary),
> >> they are aware of my goals and policies, but these are not
necessarily
> >> the goals and policies when they cross other ownership boundaries,
e.g.
> >> a party at someone's house.
> >>
> >> A clear set of goals sets context for a hopefully consistent set
of
> >> policies and equally consistent rules and regulations that can be
> >> enforced, but they can only be enforced within the ownership
boundary.
> >>
> >> Part of the problem in the model and the description is I speak
about
> >> "within an ownership boundary" and try to avoid introducing still
> >> another term for that "within". It remains to be seen whether
that can
> >> be successfully negotiated.
> >>
> >> Ken
> >>
> >> On Apr 6, 2009, at 2:53 PM, Ellinger, Robert S (IS) wrote:
> >>
> >>> Expectations of behavior are not goals or mission statements,
they are
> >>
> >>> policies...too often mission statements and policies are mixed
up. "I
> >>
> >>> don't care...etc." is a policy statement based on ownership. You
> >>> wouldn't what you do as an adult with other adults, in terms of
> >>> drinking in a house you own is a matter of government--at least
until
> >>> it spills out into the street; yet, the US Constitution was
amended to
> >>
> >>> do just that. That was a policy based on a mission similar to
"Just
> >>> as no to drugs" and more unenforceable.
> >>>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
> >>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:43 PM
> >>> To: Rex Brooks
> >>> Cc: Ellinger, Robert S (IS); James Odell; David E. Ellis; Francis
> >>> McCabe; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>> Subject: Re: [soa-rm-ra] Diagramming trust - another take
> >>>
> >>> OK, guys, think out of the box/house.
> >>>
> >>> The ownership of the house provides one aspect of an ownership
> >>> boundary, but we're being overly restrictive if we think of the
goal
> >>> as only being the deed or the mortgage.
> >>>
> >>> I bought my house with the idea that I was creating an
environment to
> >>> raise my children. The ownership boundary was more than just the
> >>> walls
> >>> of the house or the property boundary registered with the county.
> >>> There
> >>> are certain modes of behavior (constraints) expected within that
> >>> ownership boundary ("I don't care what you can do at John's
house, you
> >>
> >>> don't do it here") and the people within that boundary understand
the
> >>> expectations (goals) that set the context.
> >>>
> >>> I am not arguing for the exact models I provided but I do
strongly
> >>> encourage you to get beyond just the ownership of a thing.
> >>>
> >>> Ken
> >>>
> >>> On Apr 6, 2009, at 10:40 AM, Rex Brooks wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Yes, ownership is definitely a state. The point was that stated
goals
> >>
> >>>> are not all that literally reliable. I think reputation and the
> >>>> internal assessment that constitutes trust must use goals as
usable
> >>>> intermediary formulations against which the assessment or
perception
> >>>> takes place. We take stated goals as a form of code, such as you
> >>>> related, Bob. Might be wise to imply that or else say it
explicitly.
> >>>>
> >>>> Cheers,
> >>>> Rex
> >>>>
> >>>> At 8:46 AM -0500 4/6/09, Ellinger, Robert S (IS) wrote:
> >>>>> Again, isn't ownership a state, not an action. When I own a
house I
> >>
> >>>>> can decide who is allowed in and who isn't. The boundary, in
our
> >>>>> culture starts either at the door for a condo or the property
line
> >>>>> for a house.
> >>>>> But I can demolish the house and plant corn or flowers...what
> >>>>> happens
> >>>
> >>>>> to the house I decide (governance...every man's house is his
> >>>>> castle????).
> >>>>> Likewise, with services, if I own it, I can decide (govern) who
uses
> >>
> >>>>> it and for what purpose. I can stop offering the service, I
can
> > >>>> offer it free, or conditionally--my decision. However, once I
rent
> > >>>> our my house or allow organizations to use my service, I now
have
> >>>>> obligations that are implies or explicitly stated in the
"contract."
> >>>
> >>>>> And the T&Cs of that contract had better match my policies, or
I am
> >>>>> SOL.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> PS--My experience going through 5 or 6 mergers is that there is
no
> >>>>> such thing...all of them have been acquisitions and as soon as
the
> >>>>> acquisition has taken place, the baby is thrown out with the
bath
> >>>>> water, keeping only those few parts for which the acquisition
was
> >>>>> made...this is the only way large companies, otherwise on the
going
> >>>>> out of business curve avoid going out of business.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>> From: Rex Brooks [mailto:rexb@starbourne.com]
> >>>>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 9:24 AM
> >>>>> To: Rex Brooks; Ellinger, Robert S (IS); Ken Laskey; James
Odell
> >>>>> Cc: David E. Ellis; Francis McCabe;
soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-open.org
> >>>>> Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Diagramming trust - another take
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Of course the thing owned has boundaries that the owner in
concert
> >>>>> with social facts establishes. I don't think it much matters
what
> >>>>> the
> >>>
> >>>>> goal is or is not. CA bought Platinum Technologies. Said that
they
> >>>>> wanted to incorporate it in their offerings and did not carry
> >>>>> through
> >>>
> >>>>> on that.
> >>>>> (What a surprise!).
> >>>>>
> >>>>> H-P bought Compaq and the same thing happened. The point is
that
> >>>>> stated goals are not necessarily true.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> RWE: The competitor was effectively eliminated. Wonder what'll
> >>>>> happen
> >>>
> >>>>> if IBM is allowed to buy Sun? Whatever happens will likely be
in
> >>>>> what
> >>>
> >>>>> IBM collectively and managerially decides is in its interest,
not
> >>>>> the
> >>>
> >>>>> public's or the economy's interests, but we will be affected,
> >>>>> regardless.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>> Rex
> >>>>>
> >>>>> At 6:14 AM -0700 4/6/09, Rex Brooks wrote:
> >>>>>> Its not the boundary of the house, Bob,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Its the boundary of the owner. You still own the house even if
you
> >>>>>> are on vacation on the other side of the world, and if you
haven't
> >>>>>> invested
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> in adequate security, the boundary stays with you while a
group of
> >>>>>> burglars slips in ... just kidding! ;-)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>> Rex
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> At 7:39 AM -0500 4/6/09, Ellinger, Robert S (IS) wrote:
> >>>>>>> Ken:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I opened the first diagram and was immediately confused.
When I
> >>>>>>> "own"
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> a house I have neither goals or constraints (other than
paying the
> >>
> >>>>>>> taxes on the place) so how does the diagram define the
boundary of
> >>
> >>>>>>> my
> >>>>> house?
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Bob
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>>> From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org]
> >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:06 AM
> >>>>>>> To: James Odell
> >>>>>>> Cc: David E. Ellis; Francis McCabe; soa-rm-ra@lists.oasis-
> >>>>>>> open.org
> >>>>>>> Subject: [soa-rm-ra] Diagramming trust - another take
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> After another long talk with Dave Ellis, I am again inspired
to
> >>>>>>> try
> >>>
> >>>>>>> to
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> express some ideas, and this time I come with definitions and
> >>>>> diagrams.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Goal: a desired set of real world effects
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Goal may be that the real world effects are realized,
avoided, or
> >>>>>>> some
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> combination.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Constraint: a specified set of real world effects that an
actor is
> >>>>>>> (1) limited from pursuing or being responsible for
indirectly
> >>>>>>> causing, or
> >>>>>>> (2) responsible for pursuing
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Ownership Boundary: the extent of an identifiable set of
actors
> >>>>>>> sharing a common set of goals and constraints, and other
common
> >>>>>>> entities through which the goals and constraints can be
expressed.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> A given actor may reside within one or more ownership
boundaries.
> >>>>>>> There may be agreed upon protocols for interactions that
cross
> >>>>>>> ownership boundaries or an actor crossing an ownership
boundary
> >>>>>>> may
> >>>
> >>>>>>> independently need to resolve any mismatches.
> > >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Reputation: a property of a given actor assigned by other
actors
> > >>>>>> based
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> on the accumulated experience experience of the other actors
on
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>
> >>>>>>> extent to which real world effects resulting from interaction
with
> >>
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> given actor are assessed as desirable, neutral, or
undesirable.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Other definitions are needed but I was concentrating on the
> >>>>>>> diagrams that follow.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> > ------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>> -
> >>>>>>> -- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the
OASIS TC
> >>
> >>>>>>> that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs
in
> >>>>>>> OASIS at:
> >>>>>>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/
> >>>>>>> my_workgroups.
> >>>>>>> php
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Rex Brooks
> >>>>>> President, CEO
> >>>>>> Starbourne Communications Design
> >>>>>> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
> >>>>>> Berkeley, CA 94702
> >>>>>> Tel: 510-898-0670
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>> -
> >>>>>> - To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS
TC
> >>>>>> that generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in
> >>>>>> OASIS
> >>>
> >>>>>> at:
> >>>>>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/
> >>>>>> my_workgroups.p
> >>>>>> hp
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> --
> >>>>> Rex Brooks
> >>>>> President, CEO
> >>>>> Starbourne Communications Design
> >>>>> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
> >>>>> Berkeley, CA 94702
> >>>>> Tel: 510-898-0670
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Rex Brooks
> >>>> President, CEO
> >>>> Starbourne Communications Design
> >>>> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
> >>>> Berkeley, CA 94702
> >>>> Tel: 510-898-0670
> >>>
> >>>
> >
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> --
> >>> -----
> >>> Ken Laskey
> >>> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
> >>> 7515 Colshire Drive fax:
703-983-1379
> >>> McLean VA 22102-7508
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC
that
> >>> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS
at:
> >>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/
> >>> my_workgroups.php
> >>>
> >>
> >>
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -----
> >> Ken Laskey
> >> MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
> >> 7515 Colshire Drive fax:
703-983-1379
> >> McLean VA 22102-7508
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC
that
> >> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS
at:
> >>
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> >>
> >
> >
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > -----
> > Ken Laskey
> > MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934
> > 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379
> > McLean VA 22102-7508
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> >
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
> >
> >
> >
> > The information contained in this communication may be
> > CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use of the recipient(s)
> > named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are
> > hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying
> > of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly
> > prohibited. If you have received this communication in error,
> > please notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message
> > and any copy of it from your computer or paper files.
> >
> >
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> > generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> >
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
>
> -- Rex Brooks
> President, CEO
> Starbourne Communications Design
> GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
> Berkeley, CA 94702
> Tel: 510-898-0670
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>
--
Be Yourself @ mail.com!
Choose From 200+ Email Addresses
Get a Free Account at www.mail.com
The information contained in this communication may be CONFIDENTIAL and is intended only for the use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, or copying of this communication, or any of its contents, is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender and delete/destroy the original message and any copy of it from your computer or paper files.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]