Hi guys - just wanted to add something to the meaning discussion...
I'd really welcome developing the concept of AMMMs (autonomous meaning
making machines) with the group. The idea here is around information
relativity - that is, while we might agree on agreed standards for
physicality for all useful purposes of an event (date, time,
location), what we make a 'happening' mean as people (autonomous
participants in an information system), we each can only know. I can't
see into your brain and know what you make something _mean_!. Same for
policies and content of course - the same policy can be interpreted
differently. The concept might also extend to discrete pieces of
software, in so much that a 'meaning' made is as a result of the code
interpreting data. I think VPEC-T is a natural relative framework. V
and T for example affect each of our personal 'meaning filters'. I've
started to write about AMMMs and hope to share a short paper soon. All
thoughts welcome!
best
carl
On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 7:47 AM, David Hunt <david...@btinternet.com> wrote:
> Fine by me as well
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> From: John Schlesinger [mailto:jschle...@computer.org]
> Sent: 27 February 2009 06:14
> To: nigel green; John Schlesinger; david...@btopenworld.com
> Cc: Carl Bate; Chris Yapp; Greg Smith; Mal Postings; Simon Tait; Sally Bean;
> Roy Grubb; Adrian Apthorp; Christopher Bird
> Subject: Re: The Richard Veryard discussion continues...
>
>
>
> Fine by me
>
> John
> Mobile 07794 353 356
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: nigel green
> Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2009 04:24:47 +0000
> To: <jschle...@computer.org>; <david...@btopenworld.com>
> Subject: Re: The Richard Veryard discussion continues...
>
> Does anyone mund if I make this thread of emails public on the VPEC-T Group
> and summarise the discussion on my blog? John and David?
> n
>
> On Thu, Feb 26, 2009 at 2:47 PM, John Schlesinger
> <jschle...@computer.org> wrote:
>
> I don't think we disagree. We can use phenomenology to justify VPEC-T - the
> set of events and content associated with a domain via policy is the
> phenomenon of the system. The understanding of what that means is contextual
> and part of the value systems interacting. The system may think it is
> authorising while the user may think it dispensing funds for instance.
> John
>
> John
> Mobile 07794 353 356
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: david...@btopenworld.com
> Date: Thu, 26 Feb 2009 09:46:57 +0000 (GMT)
> To: John F Schlesinger<jschle...@computer.org>; nigel
> green<nigelp...@googlemail.com>; David Hunt<david...@btinternet.com>;
> Carl Bate<carl.bat...@googlemail.com>; Chris
> Yapp<chris...@hotmail.co.uk>; Greg Smith<gregm...@btinternet.com>; Mal
> Postings<maldi...@gmail.com>; SIMON TAIT<sand...@btinternet.com>; Sally
> Bean<sa...@sallybean.com>; Roy Grubb<royg...@gandanet.com.hk>; Adrian
> Apthorp<adr...@apthorpia.com>; Christopher Bird<seab...@gmail.com>
>
> Subject: Re: The Richard Veryard discussion continues...
>
> Guys
>
>
>
> Agree on this in terms of our inability to convey meaning ... at the risk of
> alienating John Error! Filename not specified. this is precisley the tack
> that my paper for the EAC conference takes ... I an leaning towards
> Husserl/Heidegger on this where they differentiate our ability to explain
> phenonema and our ability to understand phenomena .. meaning comes from our
> "world context" classic example is the hammer ... science and modelling can
> expalin the properties of a hammer but is our view of worldhood that allows
> us to understand what a hammer is for ... think this applies to data and
> services and forms the basis of good old Ciborra (you just lnew i would get
> that on in as well ...).
>
>
>
> David
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: John F Schlesinger <jschle...@computer.org>
> To: nigel green <nigelp...@googlemail.com>; David Hunt
> <david...@btinternet.com>; Carl Bate <carl.bat...@googlemail.com>;
> Chris Yapp <chris...@hotmail.co.uk>; Greg Smith
> <gregm...@btinternet.com>; Mal Postings <maldi...@gmail.com>; SIMON
> TAIT <sand...@btinternet.com>; Sally Bean <sa...@sallybean.com>; Roy Grubb
> <royg...@gandanet.com.hk>; Adrian Apthorp <adr...@apthorpia.com>;
> Christopher Bird <seab...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, 26 February, 2009 9:26:51 AM
> Subject: Re: The Richard Veryard discussion continues...
>
> Dear Nigel,
>
> meaning is a meta-subject I think in the context of VPEC-T. Meaning is the
> 'sky hook' by which humans enable communication. This is a topic the
> philosophers have debated at some length. Quine and Putnam argue for the
> 'indeterminacy of translation' which is the core of the problem of meaning
> in the process of communication. I have always maintained that the secret to
> integration is semantics (a posh word for meaning). The only way I know to
> make one system communcate with another is to separate the syntax of the
> interaction (protocol and formats) from the semantics (meaning of the data).
> The whole process can only work if there is an 'a priori' agreement that the
> event in the sending system is a cause of the event in the receiving system
> (again we rely on the philosophers here - David Hume told us how to manage
> causes and events). This comes from the business. If the business event
> recorded in the first system requires a consequence in the second record
> keeping system, then we have our a priori agreement that the first causes
> the second. That is why business events are a necessary condition for
> integration and why I like VPEC-T.
>
> Yours,
>
>
>
> John Schlesinger
> Home Phone +44 20 7833 5930
> Mobile Phone +44 7794 353 356
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> From: nigel green <nigelp...@googlemail.com>
> To: David Hunt <david...@btinternet.com>; John Schlesinger
> <jschle...@computer.org>; Carl Bate <carl.bat...@googlemail.com>;
> Chris Yapp <chris...@hotmail.co.uk>; Greg Smith
> <gregm...@btinternet.com>; Mal Postings <maldi...@gmail.com>; SIMON
> TAIT <sand...@btinternet.com>; Sally Bean <sa...@sallybean.com>; Roy Grubb
> <royg...@gandanet.com.hk>; Adrian Apthorp <adr...@apthorpia.com>;
> Christopher Bird <seab...@gmail.com>
> Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2009 8:41:47 AM
> Subject: Re: The Richard Veryard discussion continues...
>
> Richard Veryard's point (on the LinkedIn Enterprise-as-a-System group)
> about 'meaning' is interesting as it actually spans all other dimensions
> (and as such don't see it as 'part of' VPEC-T) but is probably most catered
> for in Values (in the PoV sense) and Content (in the meta sense). But, of
> course, as Chris Yapp pointed out before, we don't properly explore the 'I'
> of information systems with 5D and that's what led to the thinking around
> CADS (2 reverse order posts here)
>
> Maybe RV's right though, maybe you could say 'meaning' is a missing
> hidden-super-dimension - but I think I would still keep it to one side in a
> 5D lens analysis with a regular business participants other than is covered
> as we discuss the over 5.
>
> So I say we do cover meaning through the VPEC-T discourse itself but accept
> that more work would need to be done around meaning (and process for that
> matter) to establish a rigorous methodology for IS which VPEC-T/5D Lens
> isn't. In the same way a SWOT isn't for business.
>
> Gosh I wish I had more time to think about this - I feel some new insights
> are just around the corner!
> n.
>
> --
> Mobile: +44 789 1150 181
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/taoofit
>
> http://www.LIThandbook.com
> http://servicefab.blogspot.com
>
>
> --
> Mobile: +44 789 1150 181
> Twitter: http://twitter.com/taoofit
>
> http://www.LIThandbook.com
> http://servicefab.blogspot.com
"As a radical alternative to the Kipling set of questions
(who-what-where-when-why-how) favoured by John Zachman, the VPEC-T set
of questions (values, policies, events, content, trust) seems to give
us an intriguingly different way of investigating (engaging with) an
enterprise.
I have no direct experience with VPEC-T, but what I've read about
it makes a lot of sense. So I thought it would be useful to dig a bit
deeper into the systems theory underlying VPEC-T, not as a challenge
but merely in the spirit of taking things forward.
My concern about any list of questions is that it easily generates
the illusion of completeness. So I wonder whether VPEC-T is supposed to
be complete in any sense; if so, is there some grounding in systems
theory that supports this particular selection of questions? (And if
not, does it matter as long as it works?".
My simple answer WRT Systems Thinking would be along the lines already posted LiT site:
"For those of you who’ve read LiT you’ll know the authors are fans of System Thinking . It was always in the back of our minds as we developed the VPEC-T framework and described Externalization and Adoption Engineering. Our primary focus with LiT is the improvement of the communication between business and IT – not to introduce a comprehensive set of techniques for executing transformations. But what we’re finding is that some practitioners of VPEC-T are going on to consider how to apply native Systems Thinking techniques such analysis of feedback loops, stocks and flows, adopters/adapters and extended System Thinking techniques such as CATWOE (definition courtesy creatingminds.org) from Peter Checkland ’s Soft Systems Methodology .This relationship but separation between LiT concepts and Systems Thinking helps in a couple of ways. The separation helps prevent VPEC-T from being seen as a methodology for transformation rather than as a framework for communication – its enduring purpose. However, it seems the common root in Systems Thinking creates a useful bridge between Information System planning /development and organizational/process change techniques such as Systems Dynamics and Six Sigma .
My personal experience is that I’ve had more meaningful and innovative discussions with business transformation experts because of this shared foundation"
So, my point would be that I don't claim that VPEC-T has deep 'Systems Theory' as a base rather that it shares roots with Systems Thinking and it seems to provide a useful gateway to Systems Thinking discussion without the 'academic baggage' for non-academic business folk.
John
Mobile 07794 353 356