[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Re: terms - how this works
“if Governance defines, and management controls, who actually implements?” Classic MBA theory states that there are two types of worker: those who do, and those who manage. End of story. In a sketch model I did for ISO 15489 and the Australian Gov a few years back, we developed the attached model (note: Copyright material), which shows that people do “stuff” (tasks) and overall activity, made up of those tasks, is managed by organisational units - a nuance but I argued that the authority for management lies with organisational function/role – and not the person(s) actually ‘managing’, whereas actual work is the responsibility of specific people. Ultimately, this means that individuals are responsible/accountable for the (quality of) work they perform; whereas responsibility for (quality of) management lies in processes and procedures not in the whim or qualities of individuals. We have a much more extensive ontology of this domain that I might be able to share if I get clearance and if there is interest. Peter From: Lublinsky, Boris [mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com] How about implementing instead of controlling. Otherwise, if Governance defines, and management controls, who actually implements? From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] Michael, I agree with everything but the word control in the definition. Management have a great deal to do but “controls” very little. Ken From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com] To me, the chain of logic would be: relationship of stakeholders with governance, THEN relationship of governance with management. There is no need to repeat the entire chain starting from stakeholders when talking about management. This is why IMO it is enough to refer to governance in the definition of management. (BTW, Governance may need to address, among other things, not only the needs and desires of stakeholders but also a compliance with external regulations that the stakeholders might not like). Whether Governance more or less detailed depends on particular case; 'less detailed' is not a rule but a recommendation, correct? At the same time, Governance not only shares the area of procedures with Management (this part is mine, and this one is yours) but also specifies the policies that Management itself has to operate under. In this model, Management occupies the room left by the Governance, not other way around. Still, I'd prefer using formula "Management is a process of controlling..." and dropping the definition of 'control' (to use it in sense defined by public dictionary(ies)). - Michael -----Original Message----- See inline From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com] Ken, could you, please, explain what does mean:
Why we outline stakeholder policies? Why is it more important that whatever governing policies? [KJL] Policies better reflect the needs and desires of stakeholders. Otherwise, what is governance trying to accomplish?
[KJL] So there is probably a tradeoff between the detail specified under governance and what is left up to management. In the best of situations, I’d say what is specified as governance should be less detailed. I have put definition of 'control' from Merriam-Webster in my previous message in support of Rex's formula that includes 'control' into the definition of 'management'. This definition include guiding and use. Why we concern about availability of resources and not about accessibility (channels of communication) of resources that is also a part of management duties? [KJL] I’ve given my opinion on control. When I do define:management under Google I get Management in all business and human organization activity is the act of getting people together to accomplish desired goals and objectives. ... en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Management administration; the process or practice of managing; The executives of an organisation, especially senior executives; Judicious use of means to accomplish an end en.wiktionary.org/wiki/management As far as the list of what falls under management, most possibilities that are left out are because we stopped listing things, not that other things don’t qualify. Ken - Michael -----Original Message----- My leaning is we need to define management but not control. The governance section contains: Whereas Governance is the setting of Policies and defining the Rules that provide an operational context for Policies, the operational details of governance are likely delegated by the Governance Body to Management. Management generates Regulations that specify details for Rules and other procedures to implement both Rules and Regulations. For example, Leadership could set a Policy that all authorized parties should have access to data, the Governance Body would promulgate a Rule that PKI certificates are required to establish identity of authorized parties, and Management can specify a Regulation of who it deems to be a recognized PKI issuing body. In summary, Policy is a predicate to be satisfied and Rules prescribe the activities by which that satisfying occurs. A number of rules may be required to satisfy a given policy; the carrying out of a rule may contribute to several policies being realized. A good summary statement in this section is: governance describes the world as leadership wants it to be; management executes activities that intends to make the leadership‘s desired world a reality. So I would argue that control is a red herring. We all like the illusion of control but the important thing is to make happen what you want to happen whether it’s through control, influence, structuring alternatives to be less desirable, or magic – noting that sometimes a combination of all four is necessary. So, I would suggest something like the following: Management is the defining and implementing of procedures and activities that structure and guide the use, configuration, and availability of resources in accordance with the policies of the stakeholders involved. This may be getting a bit long but I think it better captures the consensus message. Have at it. Ken --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Dr. Kenneth Laskey MITRE Corporation, M/S H305 phone: 703-983-7934 7515 Colshire Drive fax: 703-983-1379 McLean VA 22102-7508 From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com] I a close to Perter's take on 'management' and 'control'. However, management in SOA ecosystem is not a usual thing and, thus, requires to be addressed explicitly, especially, for cross-ownership cases where 'control as is' is rather questionable. So far, I am not sure I have addressed this topic as needed in the release-candidate of the Management Model. - Michael -----Original Message----- The ‘issue’ of actor and participant is a non-issue: it is a question of badly worded definitions using the words “is a” in too loose a manner. This will be addressed in the revisions we do. The issue you have with management and control may be similar – but frankly for me, both concepts fall into the “do we really need to define terms for these?” box. I think every average Joe gets the meaning of management and of control, I’m not sure we need to define them differently here… Peter From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com] This is the question to all: as I mentioned before, we have several definition that loop with each other. This subject was omitted but now I have a direct problem with definition of Management and Control In the proposed version of Management Model, Management is defined as a 'process of controlling'; Rex proposed to define 'management' as 'control. However, the definition of 'control' in the version of 17 Jan says: "an account of how the management and governance of the entire SOA ecosystem can be arranged" First, 'control' is NOT how "governance of the entire SOA ecosystem can be arranged", but how governance may be implemented ('arranged' may be read as 'create', which would be an incorrect interpretation) Second, management => control => account how management is arranged. This means, we know neither about 'control' nor about 'management' (similarly, Actor refers to Participant and Participant refers to Actor, etc.) Please, anybody, explain me how this works?! - Michael -----Original Message----- Michael, some quick responses to your points. Capability – I see your point. If we accept that RWE is ‘subjective’ to the particular stakeholder(s) concerned, then actual RWE should be orthogonal to what (shared state changes) a capability actually delivers. A capability nonetheless delivers a RWE, whether it is intended/asked for/desired or not. A capability is used (= intention) in order “to realize one of more RWE’s” (from the RM). Subtle difference we may need to work on: I want to be careful that we don’t contradict the RM definition. I still don’t buy into your notion that somehow a service result can be slipped into the private state of an actor without it being part of the RWE. Permission – fair point. We were trying (too hard) from a very early stage (<2008) to work with a duality of constraints, permission and obligation. I’d be happy to not formally define either. RWE – still disagree with you! ;-) Your approach over-complicates the whole story, with private and public RWE’s, whatever they are (I’m still not clear) and, frankly, your diagram only makes the issue more complicated and does notadvance us to a clear definition. Our approach is to separate objective and subjective PoV’s: state changes are generally objective and measurable while an RWE is in the eye of the beholder – my RWE is not necessarily your RWE (your suntan, my sunburn – same sun, same exposure – sorry, but I’m just back off holidays), experienced mileage will vary. That is why we introduced the words ‘pertinent’, ‘relevant to’, ‘experienced by’ and ‘specific stakeholders’. Shareable and Shared State – I never liked the introduction of shareable as a defined concept. I voted for and would again vote for keeping only private and shared state, stating that shared state is the part of the ‘shareable’ or public state that is actually (and not just potentially) shared. See our mail exchange of 31 Jan. Service – at the meeting of 19 Jan, we agreed to go with a ‘definition’ (not formally defined, but used in the text) that states that a service is ‘a realisation of business functionality accessible through defined interfaces’ Regards, Peter From: mpoulin@usa.com [mailto:mpoulin@usa.com] Folks, I have very limited access to e-mail today. So, I hope to discuss my comments on the definition in the meeting today. Here are my belate comments : Also, a few days ago I have sent a message to Ken with a small diagram that illustrates my proposal on the definition of RWE (that would include all chnages in the state of the ecosystem, not only public ones). You will see how this affects other definitions below.
- Michael -----Original Message----- Ken, request that we add an agenda item for tomorrow’s TC: the finalization of the list of terms for definition in Section 3. Since sending out the email below, I have not received any input from the TC on amending the list of what will be formally defined, what will be dropped, and what will be used informally. Would like to formally vote on this tomorrow so we can close it out. This is important, as Peter and I would like to start the actual writing. We have done some editing, but need to get a solid draft of Section 3 written up and delivered to the TC. This is a necessary step for that to occur. I will try to make the TC call tomorrow, but may miss it or be late due to work constraints. Peter is planning on making the first part of the TC call, but will have to leave early for a client call, so we would like to have this as an early agenda item if possible. Thanks! From: Bashioum, Christopher D At our last conf call, we proposed a list of terms that Section 3 will define. Attached is a spreadsheet that contains that list. The spreadsheet identifies terms that will be formally defined (identified with “DEFINITION” in the first column), terms that will not be used (DELETE) and terms that will *not* be formally defined but will be used and will rely on the reader’s understanding of the english language (USE INFORMALLY). I have sorted the spreadsheet accordingly. For the terms that will be formally defined, an initial definition is given in the Definition column. For those terms that will be either deleted or used informally, some amplifying text is in the Notes 1 and Notes 2 columns. So ... first item is to come to agreement on what will be formally defined in section 3. If you think that we missed some terms, or that we have included terms that should not be formally defined, please reply as such. Would like to come to consensus on this by next conference call. Definitions we will debate and refine after coming to agreement on the list of terms. Michael P, your input has been incorporated in this list – except that i have interpreted your “delete” as “Don’t formally define, just use as normal english language in the text”. = --------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]