[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [soa-rm-ra] Re: terms - how this works
I understand. So the next question is whether we want to describe existing (and
mostly screwed up) world or we are trying to suggest the “right” approach? I would opt for the second one, in which case we need to define
who is supposed to do what From: Ken Laskey
[mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] Boris, First, I have no training in management theory, so I answer from
experience and observation. This may be good or bad. I’ll start back with “governance describes the world as
leadership wants it to be; management executes activities that intends to make
the leadership‘s desired world a reality.” That said, I’ve seen
organizations that said they were doing governance then specify things at such
a level of minutiae that management just checks appropriate boxes – and usually
doesn’t check them well. OTOH, I’ve seen governance “want it to be” being
so vague that it’s not obvious what management is supposed to make
reality. Drawing a line between the two is impossible and maybe not even
a productive exercise. Again, I’ll leave that debate to the management
experts. Where do the individuals sit? Hopefully in the larger
organization with common goals and more interest in getting things done than
with labels. Ken P.S. Why are there degrees in management and not in governance? From: Lublinsky, Boris [mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com]
Ok, Now you have to answer 2
questions: Which group do this
individuals belong? Where exactly is a line
separating management done by Governance from management done by Management From: Ken Laskey [mailto:klaskey@mitre.org] Management may be the
responsibility of the organization, but it still gets done because individuals
complete discrete tasks. People doing stuff may do it through a strictly
regulated process set forth through governance and/or management. Ken From: Lublinsky, Boris
[mailto:boris.lublinsky@navteq.com] Thanks Peter, I got this. Back to the question that I
asked, I think that it’s an unfortunate terminology. Governance is effectively
a management organization deciding what has to be done. This leaves Management
(bad term) role to implement, rather then manage. Otherwise we will have
governance and management managing and someone else implementing. This will
create additional questions – what is this third body? How are management
functionality split between Governance and management? From: Peter F Brown
[mailto:peter@peterfbrown.com] “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. 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. 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. 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]