-------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tom Graves <t...@tetradian.com
Date: Fri, Sep 25, 2009 at 10:34 AM
Subject: What's Missing from VPEC-T?
(Apologies, seem to have lost [or never properly set up] my membership
VPEC-T group, so will have to email you this response instead.
for posting to the group: )
This sounds much like the discussion about 'missing dimensions' in
with people wanting to add columns such as 'interface' and the like.
I'm with Nigel here: I would strongly recommend leaving the basic
of VPEC-T alone. There's an interesting discussion about the role of
that might be worth revisiting, but otherwise that should be it.
'Meaning' and 'Outcome' are definitely relevant, but it's misleading
to kludge them on to the existing structure. If we think recursively
as iteratively, 'Outcome' is close to "that which is valued" - i.e. a
- at a higher level of abstraction; 'Meaning' is in effect close to a
of outcome, though in a perhaps different sense.
Thinking in Zachman terms, the VPEC-T lenses are equivalent to
columns. They're not dimensions as such, but a distinct set of
that can not be resolved into each other, yet may also exist as
'composite' or layered composite (e.g. Nigel's 'Use Patterns'). In
case, the original columns had several fundamental taxonomic flaws,
which could only be resolved by adding what truly _is_ another
'asset-type' (see http://tetradianbooks.com/2008/12/silos-frame-ref/
VPEC-T I believe the columns are already valid and 'complete-enough':
be useful to add 'Meaning' or 'Outcome' and the like as backplanes
true intersecting dimensions - e.g. 'meaning of value', meaning of
'outcome of process', outcome of trust' etc), but should not be added
Might also be useful to compare VPEC-T usage with Zachman's rows. The
imply different sets of stakeholders, in layers of abstraction from
and above to real-time operations and their performance-outcomes. A
recursive as well as iterative usage of VPEC-T might help in this,
Hope this helps, anyway.
- tom g.