[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [tgf] Comments on Business Case
John, Some more edits inline to Nig’s word version I think that Colin’s analogy to baking is apt: to take it further, it’s not just the ingredients (which are necessary and need to be in the right proportions) but also the context and environment; the right recipes; and you need catalysts (e.g. program champions) to make things happen. Analogies pushed too far break down, so I wouldn’t use this one explicitly Also, we shy away from proposing recipes – there is no single magic recipe precisely because the “baking conditions” are so complex and different – but that doesn’t mean that it will rise-and-bake without a recipe, indeed, without a recipe that is appropriate – I think that is Colin’s point… Peter From: John Borras [mailto:johnaborras@yahoo.co.uk] Thanks to Colin and Nig for their comments. Can I have any other views please by close of play on Wednesday 25th May. I’d like to hear views on the general approach as well as detailed textual changes. This will be an important part of our publicity and thus we need to ensure we get the basic messages correctly focused, so please take a few minutes to review it and share your opinions. Regards John Borras Chair OASIS TGF Technical Committee m. +(0)44 7976 157745 Skype: gov3john www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=tgf From: Greenaway Nigel [mailto:Nig.Greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com] Hi John, As discussed yesterday, and based on feedback from Government practitioners, I have tried to reword parts of the business case. So that everyone can see the changes and so that I can insert a few comments, I have copied some of the text into a word document and used marked changes. I follow this with the clear text that would result from adopting those changes to facilitate understanding and reviews by others. The basic premise that I have used in deriving these comments is that we need to be less overtly critical of e-Government projects/programmes as :- 1. To dismiss all e-Government activity as failing will upset many practitioners and make it personally impossible for them to share and promote TGF with their bosses/customers 2. There are successes in the field – this is where we are picking up and sharing good practice and experience from. 3. Time has moved on and there are new capabilities available due to technology changes, lessons having been learnt and experience showing that good practice can be transferred from wherever it originates into a large number of other situations 4. A general maturation of Government ICT and the policies required by government organisations is taking place (IMO). I also have some comments further to those in the marked up document.:- 1. I don’t think we need to date to be so prominent. I suggest a version and audience description (as discussed yesterday) would be better. The audiences can be derived from the TGF audiences and would enable us to empathise more closely with their respective viewpoints. 2. Page 2 Title – “Why TGF?” I suggest retitling this (taking K’s point that frameworks rise a fall over time) as “Why a new framework?” 3. Page 3 Title I suggest changing this to “The Evolution of TGF from e-Government” 4. Page 4 I suggest retitling simply as “The TGF” and changing the some of the numbered points to flow a little better(see marked up document) And now the detail:- <<20110520 - TGF Business Case (NG Comments).docx>> Regards Nig Nig Greenaway Government Division FUJITSU Lovelace Road, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 8SN Tel: +44 (0) 843 354 5637 Internal: 7302 5637 Mob : +44 (0) 7867 833147 Internal: 7383 3147 E-mail: nig.greenaway@uk.fujitsu.com
|
20110520 - TGF Business Case (NG + PFB Comments).docx
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]