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:]
>Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 11:20 AM
>To: Ellinger, Robert S (IS)
>Cc: Rex Brooks; James Odell; David E. Ellis; Francis McCabe;
>
>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:]
>> Sent: Tuesday, April 07, 2009 7:27 AM
>> To: Ellinger, Robert S (IS)
>> Cc: Rex Brooks; James Odell; David E. Ellis; Francis McCabe;
>>
>> 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:]
>>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:43 PM
>>> To: Rex Brooks
>>> Cc: Ellinger, Robert S (IS); James Odell; David E. Ellis; Francis
>>> McCabe;
>>> 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:]
>>>>> 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;
>>>>> 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:]
>>>>>>> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 12:06 AM
>>>>>>> To: James Odell
>>>>>>> Cc: David E. Ellis; Francis McCabe; -
>>>>>>> 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
